Recent posts

[defendant's intent to inflict death or really serious harm on someone other than the victim but to do so they have to prove both that intent and that the defendant and that they should have known that another may suffer death or harm and continued in that knowledge]

#51

General discussion / Re: Things that make you go Wh...

Last post by Armagh18 - Today at 02:36:12 PM

On the Lyra McKee trial, heard summaries a few times on the radio, but do they actually have any decent evidence against the accused? From what I've heard, it seems very weak.

You'd imagine it would be very very difficult to prove who was there never mind who fired the shot.

If they could prove who fired the gun, is it murder or manslaughter given the fact that they would have been trying to target a cop and not an innocent bystander?

I'm far from an expert but I think it's still murder regardless.

I'm no expert either. But if you fire a gun you intend to kill.

In order to be guilty of murder the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a voluntary act or omission that caused the victim's death and that by his actions the defendant intended to cause death or really serious harm to the victim. Proving intent to cause really serious harm as opposed to just harm or serious harm can be difficult which is why a lot of what would appear to be murders end up as manslaughter.

Now things get a little murkier when you are dealing with either the doctrine of transferred malice or joint enterprise.  Its not commonly used but the prosecution can rely on a defendant's intent to inflict death or really serious harm on someone other than the victim but to do so they have to prove both that intent and that the defendant and that they should have known that another may suffer death or harm and continued in that knowledge (doctrine of transferred malice).  Its a doctrine that has been heavily criticised over the years.

There's potentially another element to the case involving joint enterprise and what specific intent would have to be proven against those charges which is very complicated.  So complicated in fact that between 1985 and 2016 we all got the law wrong potentially resulting in many wrongful convictions.

So to not really answer the original question its complicated in this case and without seeing all the evidence I wouldn't even be able to guess.   

Was hoping you'd reply to this!

Surely the bold applies here?

#52

General discussion / Re: Things that make you go Wh...

Last post by David McKeown - Today at 02:29:57 PM

On the Lyra McKee trial, heard summaries a few times on the radio, but do they actually have any decent evidence against the accused? From what I've heard, it seems very weak.

You'd imagine it would be very very difficult to prove who was there never mind who fired the shot.

If they could prove who fired the gun, is it murder or manslaughter given the fact that they would have been trying to target a cop and not an innocent bystander?

I'm far from an expert but I think it's still murder regardless.

I'm no expert either. But if you fire a gun you intend to kill.

In order to be guilty of murder the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a voluntary act or omission that caused the victim's death and that by his actions the defendant intended to cause death or really serious harm to the victim. Proving intent to cause really serious harm as opposed to just harm or serious harm can be difficult which is why a lot of what would appear to be murders end up as manslaughter.

Now things get a little murkier when you are dealing with either the doctrine of transferred malice or joint enterprise.  Its not commonly used but the prosecution can rely on a defendant's intent to inflict death or really serious harm on someone other than the victim but to do so they have to prove both that intent and that the defendant and that they should have known that another may suffer death or harm and continued in that knowledge (doctrine of transferred malice).  Its a doctrine that has been heavily criticised over the years.

There's potentially another element to the case involving joint enterprise and what specific intent would have to be proven against those charges which is very complicated.  So complicated in fact that between 1985 and 2016 we all got the law wrong potentially resulting in many wrongful convictions.

So to not really answer the original question its complicated in this case and without seeing all the evidence I wouldn't even be able to guess.   

#53

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by OakLeaf - Today at 02:22:10 PM

Ref need take the blinkers off

He did his best to keep Dublin in it.

#54

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Wildweasel74 - Today at 02:21:40 PM

2 pts, should been by 8pts+,

#55

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Blowitupref - Today at 02:20:55 PM

Struggled to throw off a stubborn Dublin for long stages but Derry got there in the end by a margin of two points. FT Derry 0-18 Dublin 2-10

#56

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Wildweasel74 - Today at 02:17:38 PM

3 pts up, and keeping nobody back, go figure.

#57

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Wildweasel74 - Today at 02:13:41 PM

Ref need take the blinkers off

#58

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Blowitupref - Today at 02:12:35 PM

five minutes to play and whatever time will be added.  Derry 0-17 Dublin 2-9

#59

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Wildweasel74 - Today at 02:07:35 PM

Lad got zero cover. Derry played way too open,and should operate with a sweeper. Wouldn't like to see the wide count, gotta be double digits now

#60

GAA Discussion / Re: Minor All Ireland Footbal...

Last post by Blowitupref - Today at 02:07:22 PM

50 minutes played still level 2-8 to 0-14.