Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

French woman who killed husband freed after Hollande pardon



The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
26,205
West is BEST
How can shooting someone three times in the back be classed as UNpremeditated murder? "Yes your honor, I shot him three times in the back but I didn't mean to kill him"

Pre meditated means it was planned in advance and the person who planned it did so in a sound state of mind and vitally PLANNED HOW TO EVADE JUSTICE.
 
Last edited:




Coldeanseagull

Opinionated
Mar 13, 2013
8,361
Coldean
How can shooting someone three times in the back be classed as UNpremeditated murder? "Yes your honor, I shot him three times in the back but I didn't mean to kill him"

It means she hadn't planned to shoot him in the back. She should've shot him in the nuts, then the head in my opinion
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,200
Goldstone
:bowdown:

I'd struggle if on a jury in a case like that. The temptation to let her walk out of the front door would be strong.
I wouldn't. As a Jury member you're just supposed to say if you think she did it. No way I'd say she didn't. Guilty is guilty, then let the courts be lenient / campaign for her release.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,188
Gloucester
I wouldn't. As a Jury member you're just supposed to say if you think she did it. No way I'd say she didn't. Guilty is guilty, then let the courts be lenient / campaign for her release.
Yes, we know what a jury is supposed to say - but the temptation to do otherwise would be strong. The legal fraternity will get very arsey if anyone does, but there are precedents. Back in the 19th. century, for instance, laws were changed because juries refused to find people guilty of trivial crimes knowing that the law would impose a death sentence.
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
I wouldn't. As a Jury member you're just supposed to say if you think she did it. No way I'd say she didn't. Guilty is guilty, then let the courts be lenient / campaign for her release.

This is why judges often postpone sentencing for reports to be prepared. The verdict is guilty, but there is mitigation. Judges have to sentence within guidelines, unless there are mandatory sentences.
 




Exile

Objective but passionate
Aug 10, 2014
2,367
I wouldn't. As a Jury member you're just supposed to say if you think she did it. No way I'd say she didn't. Guilty is guilty, then let the courts be lenient / campaign for her release.

That's not necessarily the case at all. It depends what the accused's defence is. They might not be denying performing the act they're accused of. I've sat on a jury for an assault case. There was no question the defendants had inflicted harm on the complainants - we still had a decision to reach whether their actions constituted a crime.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,200
Goldstone
Yes, we know what a jury is supposed to say - but the temptation to do otherwise would be strong.
Yes I know you know, I'm just saying in this particular case, I'd do my job and let the law handle it.
The legal fraternity will get very arsey if anyone does, but there are precedents. Back in the 19th. century, for instance, laws were changed because juries refused to find people guilty of trivial crimes knowing that the law would impose a death sentence.
Cool story bro. Shit, how can I say that without the sarcasm? I totally agree, I'd find someone not guilty of steeling a loaf of bread if I knew they'd have to go to Australia. Sheesh, have some compassion!

That's not necessarily the case at all. It depends what the accused's defence is. They might not be denying performing the act they're accused of. I've sat on a jury for an assault case. There was no question the defendants had inflicted harm on the complainants - we still had a decision to reach whether their actions constituted a crime.
Well I can only comment on the case here. Maybe if I knew the details of the kind of case you mean, I could understand the point. In this case it's simple - did she shoot him? Was it self defence etc?

Now if her defence said he was attacking her and she feared for her life, fine, that's different. But I don't think she argued that. I think her defence was "He was a bas**** and he had it coming".
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here