The official NATIONAL court report thread

[Hank Scorpio]

The second jury you mean.

Yup, she keeps ignoring that a first jury heard all the evidence and couldn't reach a decision.


To recap 'Jack Power, had left a local pub in Dunmore East where he had been drinking all day, at 3am on 26 July 2018.

While quite intoxicated, he drove his car a short distance and there was evidence to suggest that he had crashed into a pole, damaging the bumper.

There was also damage to the wing mirror of his car and he seemed to be of the view that the damage was caused maliciously

The jury was told Mr Power drove on for a short time and parked his car in a cul de sac, before meeting two friends who said he was agitated and exercised about damage to the wing mirror of his car'.




If someone drunk out of their mind fired a rock through your front window, forced their way into your home and attacked you and your mother you should obviously assess what is a reasonable amount of force when reacting to the situation.


Christ almighty

 

[Matlock]

Yup, she keeps ignoring that a first jury heard all the evidence and couldn't reach a decision.


To recap 'Jack Power, had left a local pub in Dunmore East where he had been drinking all day, at 3am on 26 July 2018.

While quite intoxicated, he drove his car a short distance and there was evidence to suggest that he had crashed into a pole, damaging the bumper.

There was also damage to the wing mirror of his car and he seemed to be of the view that the damage was caused maliciously

The jury was told Mr Power drove on for a short time and parked his car in a cul de sac, before meeting two friends who said he was agitated and exercised about damage to the wing mirror of his car'.




If someone drunk out of their mind fired a rock through your front window, forced their way into your home and attacked you and your mother you should obviously assess what is a reasonable amount of force when reacting to the situation.


Christ almighty

I'm not ignoring it, but it's irrelevant.

Yes, you have to assess the reasonable amount of force. I am sorry if this comes as news to you.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Who could have guessed that this would turn into twenty odd pages of Matlock backing the courts decision??

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

I'm not ignoring it, but it's irrelevant.

Yes, you have to assess the reasonable amount of force. I am sorry if this comes as news to you.

On the reasonable amount of force, he grabbed what was near to protect himself and his mother. Did the jury think he should have grabbed a teatowel to protect himself?
What if he stabbed him in the leg and the lad survived? Is that reasonable amount of force, still a knife and he still stabbed him.

 

[Matlock]

Who could have guessed that this would turn into twenty odd pages of Matlock backing the courts decision??

Who could have guessed that this would turn into 20 odd pages of Dan claiming that he knows better than the Jury and the Judge.

 

[SoundMan]

If he hasn't a knife then the most likely thing is that would have happened is that no one would have died.

A jury convicted him. As such, he had to be sentenced.

If he hasn't a knife by his bedside then the most likely thing that would have happened is that he, a minor, awoken from his sleep in the middle of the night, would have been beaten to a pulp in his own bed by someone who was drunk, violent, and much bigger than him and had broken into his house to carry out the unprovoked (was any evidence provided that he was the one that had damaged the car) attack.

A jury convicted him in a court of law, not necessarily a court of justice. Maybe he was just unlucky enough not to be able to afford a very good lawyer. It seems a VERY excessive sentence for what happened.

 

[Matlock]

On the reasonable amount of force, he grabbed what was near to protect himself and his mother. Did the jury think he should have grabbed a teatowel to protect himself?
What if he stabbed him in the leg and the lad survived? Is that reasonable about of force, still a knife and he still stabbed him.

As I understand it he did not grab what was near, he went into the kitchen a chose a knife.

He also, as I understand it, stabbed him when he was leaving the house. If he had used the same level of force while the deceased was attacking him or advancing to attack him, that would probably have been deemed to be reasonable. Same if the deceased had brandished a knife or other weapon.

But to stab to death an unarmed person while they are retreating is excessive force.

 

[SoundMan]

No more than yourself Dan.

3 and a half years for killing an unarmed man is a very reasonable sentence. He acted in self defence, but used excessive violence to do so. Hence the sentence.

As both the jury and the judge ( who actually heard all the evidence) found.

Is that really how you are going to depict what happened?

You do know that judges and juries have made mistakes before don't you?

 

[SoundMan]

So you do support the death penalty for burglary then?

If I killed a unarmed person I would expect jail time.

Even if you had reason to believe your own life, and that of an elderly relative, was at risk and that someone much more powerful than you was beating the crap out of you in an unprovoked attack????

 

[Matlock]

If he hasn't a knife by his bedside then the most likely thing that would have happened is that he, a minor, awoken from his sleep in the middle of the night, would have been beaten to a pulp in his own bed by someone who was drunk, violent, and much bigger than him and had broken into his house to carry out the unprovoked (was any evidence provided that he was the one that had damaged the car) attack.

A jury convicted him in a court of law, not necessarily a court of justice. Maybe he was just unlucky enough not to be able to afford a very good lawyer. It seems a VERY excessive sentence for what happened.

Oh don't start that utter bollocks about Court of law versus Court of justice. I have already explained it to you too many times. You can't change the meaning of words just because you want to.

What makes you think that Mr Kerrie was paying for his own defence?