London St Paul's bomb plot: IS supporter Safiyya Shaikh 'got cold feet'

[Spymaster]

I gave you an example ffs

That's an example of a deadful miscarriage of justice but it's not murder.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's an example of a deadful miscarriage of justice but it's not murder.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't quite grasp the details of that case and why he was killed.

Evans hanging for Christie's murders. That was a dreadful miscarriage of justice. This case was not that. This case was state murder.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't quite grasp the details of that case and why he was killed.

Evans hanging for Christie's murders. That was a dreadful miscarriage of justice. This case was not that. This case was state murder.

Evans was at least in the city the crime occurred in. Michael Barrett, the last man hanged in public, was in Glasgow at the time the act he is said to have committed in London.

 

[Spymaster]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't quite grasp the details of that case and why he was killed.

Evans hanging for Christie's murders. That was a dreadful miscarriage of justice. This case was not that. This case was state murder.

I’ll admit to not reading it properly. Will look again later

 

[Pickman's model]

I’ll admit to not reading it properly. Will look again later

Never apologise never explain

 

[Athos]

Asking 'do they deserve to die?' is the wrong question. The question is 'should we kill them?'

It's not even that. It's 'should we support the state killing people?' To which the answer must be 'no', if only because of the inevitability of wrongful convictions.

 

[A380]

It's not even that. It's 'should we support the state killing people?' To which the answer must be 'no', if only because of the inevitability of wrongful convictions.

No it’s beyond that. It’s wrong to kill guilty people too. If they pose no threat.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

There are cases where guilt is beyond doubt. Take any of the attacks where the perps are caught in the act. The arsewipe who stabbed those lads in Reading last week is an obvious recent example.

Wherever you draw the line there will be cases which are borderline and uncertain, where the full truth comes out subsequent to conviction and execution. The only certain course of action is not to execute.

It may be that it seems clear cut to you, but you can see from this discussion here on urban that others disagree with you. So would you go for majority verdicts, and if so what kind of majority? Perhaps 52% in favour (of those who actually vote) and 48% against.

Anyway, it’s the judge who decides the sentence. Maybe some jurors would vote against if they thought the sentence would be death. Where’s your justice then?

 

[Athos]

No it’s beyond that. It’s wrong to kill guilty people too. If they pose no threat.

I agree, many don't. But I'd have thought that even those who belive in the state killing the guilty wouldn't agree with them killing the innocent (which is ineviable).

 

[platinumsage]

Are you serious?

Like with the definition of rape talked about above - was it not really rape because it wasn't defined by those terms legally? It was still rape.

Unlike rape, murder by definition is unlawful killing. Murder that is not unlawful is like rape that is consented to i.e. not a thing.

 

[Poi E]

That’s the bizarre thing though isn’t it. There is no written law for murder, and yet for say, fare dodging on the underground, there is pages of the stuff. A charge sheet for that would probably run to half a page of A4 for each offence.

Get ready for this. The freaking constitution is UNWRITTEN!!! The head of state has powers that are not tabulated.! She is trusted to do the right thing. And the place is run by some people who went to school with Harry Potter and who love drunk racist statues. But thank fuck there's a history of being nice to people around the world to fall back on. Trade deal or no deal.

Burn a 5G mast. Make you feel better.

 

[Spymaster]

Are you serious?

Like with the definition of rape talked about above - was it not really rape because it wasn't defined by those terms legally? It was still rape.

That's not a good example. Rape is the act of forcing someone against their will and the fact a husband could not have been prosecuted for it doesn't change the case that if he did that to his wife, he raped her. Murder is different. It is the act of killing someone and for the killing to be murder it has to be unlawful.

 

[A380]

Get ready for this. The freaking constitution is UNWRITTEN!!! The head of state has powers that are not tabulated.! She is trusted to do the right thing. And the place is run by some people who went to school with Harry Potter and who love drunk racist statues. But thank fuck there's a history of being nice to people around the world to fall back on. Trade deal or no deal.

Burn a 5G mast. Make you feel better.

What constitution. We haven’t got one, Any one who blathers on about an unwritten constitution is deluding themselves.

Also, you should probably lay down in a darkened room for a moment. You know, just till that vein at the side of your forehead stops throbbing.

 

[Athos]

It is the act of killing someone and for the killing to be murder it has to be unlawful.

How is that any different from saying the following about rape?

"It is the act of penetrating someone with a penis and for the penetration to be rape or has to be unlawful."

In the same way judicial execution was not unlawful, it was not unlawful for a husband to have sex with his wife without her consent. The two are perfectly analogous.

You're being inconsistent in insisting on a legal definition of murder, whilst accepting a more generally accepted understanding of the term rape.

 

[Spymaster]

In the same way judicial execution was not unlawful, it was not unlawful for a husband to have sex with his wife without her consent. The two are perfectly analogous.

You're being inconsistent in insisting on a legal definition of murder, whilst accepting a more generally accepted understanding of the term rape.

Yes, ok fair enough.

The fact remains that for a killing to be murder it must be unlawful.

 

[Spymaster]

Are you asking me to quote the dictionary at you?

That's not how definition works, you know. Dictionaries record definitions. They do not create them.

Rather, I'll give you an example of 'state murder'. (And this was already a murder before his conviction was finally overturned generations later.)

George Stinney - Wikipedia

Which bit of this are you arguing is "state murder"? This looks to me that he was railroaded by corrupt police officers and let down by a shit lawyer. That said, if you wanted to argue that the US was set up to deny blacks fair justice in the 40s, you'd get no argument from me. But are criminal and murderous actions by state operatives necessarily "state murder"? I'd say not. They are the actions of individuals which contravene the laws of the state.

Was George Floyd's killing a "state murder"? I know that a lot of posters here would like to call it such but clearly it wasn't. It was the criminal action of a cop who is now being prosecuted by the state.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Which bit of this are you arguing is "state murder"? This looks to me that he was railroaded by corrupt police officers and let down by a shit lawyer. That said, if you wanted to argue that the US was set up to deny blacks fair justice in the 40s, you'd get no argument from me. But are criminal and murderous actions by state operatives necessarily "state murder"? I'd say not. They are the actions of individuals which contravene the laws of the state.

Was George Floyd's killing a "state murder"? I know that a lot of posters here would like to call it such but clearly it wasn't. It was the criminal action of a cop who is now being prosecuted by the state.

So basically what you’re saying is that the state can do what it wants. If the state’s operatives break any law then we blame them as individuals. If you’re consistent with that argument then you appear to win hands down, but it becomes a meaningless victory, and it relies on everybody agreeing with your definition. Which they don’t. So well done.

 

[Spymaster]

So basically what you’re saying is that the state can do what it wants. If the state’s operatives break any law then we blame them as individuals.

If you work for WH Smith and you shoot a customer, is that a WH Smith sanctioned murder?

 

[Pickman's model]

If you work for WH Smith and you shoot a customer, is that a WH Smith sanctioned murder?

Is it during work hours at the behest of one's line manager?

 

[Spymaster]

Is it during work hours at the behest of one's line manager?

Define behest.

 

[Pickman's model]

Define behest.

At their orders or command

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

One of the squaddies present at Bloody Sunday in Derry is being investigated for murder. He may or may not have been acting at the behest of his line manager, but up until recently they were backing him all the way.

 

[Spymaster]

At their orders or command

Ok, no.

It's during work hours but WH Smith has rules which specifically state that their employees shouldn't shoot customers.

 

[Pickman's model]

One of the squaddies present at Bloody Sunday in Derry is being investigated for murder. He may or may not have been acting at the behest of his line manager, but up until recently they were backing him all the way.

He's just the one who drew the short straw when it should be more people than him in the dock

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok, no.

It's during work hours but WH Smith has rules which specifically state that their employees shouldn't shoot customers.

do they? When were these put in place?

 

[Spymaster]

So is it a WH Smith sanctioned murder in that case?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

do they? When were these put in place?

Retrospectively some time in the future.

 

[Little Piranha]

Damn, I was just going to apply for a job there, guess I won't bother now...

 

[two sheds]

Damn, I was just going to apply for a job there, guess I won't bother now...

WH Smiths?

 

[kenny g]

Which bit of this are you arguing is "state murder"? This looks to me that he was railroaded by corrupt police officers and let down by a shit lawyer. That said, if you wanted to argue that the US was set up to deny blacks fair justice in the 40s, you'd get no argument from me. But are criminal and murderous actions by state operatives necessarily "state murder"? I'd say not. They are the actions of individuals which contravene the laws of the state.

Was George Floyd's killing a "state murder"? I know that a lot of posters here would like to call it such but clearly it wasn't. It was the criminal action of a cop who is now being prosecuted by the state.

Have you heard of vicarious liability?