Walsall Town Hall show stabbings

[Andy]

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-08-01/man- ... tle-fight/

[Boxerbeetle]

Only 14 years for knifing someone in the neck from behind and killing them? Should be 40 years minimum.

[Coco]

How the hell did he get away with manslaughter??
At the the judge recognised it and gave him top whack but it's not enough, scumbag

[nitro5912]

How can you not intend on causing serious harm when running up behind someone and stabbing them in the neck.

I just meant to tickle him your honour.

[keirw]

"Tyrone Andrew, 22, was acquitted of murder after a jury decided he had not intended really serious harm when he jogged up behind 19-year-old Reagan Asbury and plunged a knife into his neck, severing an artery."

Really??

Sounds like murder to me.

[samwbr]

What was he intending to do then?

[MarkMcBurney]

The law is an ass. Unfortunately in order to successfully prosecute for murder, the prosecution have to prove 'so that the jury are sure' that the offender intended to kill the person who died. It's a ridiculous grey area that has meant murderers get away with manslaughter charges too often.

[nitro5912]

The law is an ass. Unfortunately in order to successfully prosecute for murder, the prosecution have to prove 'so that the jury are sure' that the offender intended to kill the person who died. It's a ridiculous grey area that has meant murderers get away with manslaughter charges too often.

I'd say that coming from behind and stabbing someone in the neck is an intention to kill.

If he had gone for the shoulder then I'd say yes he didn't mean to kill, but the neck is pretty much game over

[MarkMcBurney]

The law is an ass. Unfortunately in order to successfully prosecute for murder, the prosecution have to prove 'so that the jury are sure' that the offender intended to kill the person who died. It's a ridiculous grey area that has meant murderers get away with manslaughter charges too often.

I'd say that coming from behind and stabbing someone in the neck is an intention to kill.

If he had gone for the shoulder then I'd say yes he didn't mean to kill, but the neck is pretty much game over

I'd say that too, however I can't 'prove' it as I don't know what was in the guy's head at that moment. Like I said, the law is an ass.

[Stuarty]

"Tyrone Andrew, 22, was acquitted of murder after a jury decided he had not intended really serious harm when he jogged up behind 19-year-old Reagan Asbury and plunged a knife into his neck, severing an artery."

Really??

Sounds like murder to me.

Exactly. Read this yesterday. The mind boggles!

[Crazyboy]

That's shocking, I mean surely the fact he went with a knife in the first place is bad enough?

Guess you can't prove he went with a knife either

As others have said I just can't believe that the law see's it in that way and I feel for the family's and friends.

[Loynesy]

The law didn’t see it that way, the jury did. It’s a question of fact not law.

The law is clear - to be convicted of murder you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended (whole separate debate about what intent means...) to kill or cause serious harm.

I agree,on this fact pattern it’s hard to see how the jury came to this conclusion (but none of us listened to the evidence), but I don’t see it as a legal problem.

[MarkMcBurney]

The law didn’t see it that way, the jury did. It’s a question of fact not law.

The law is clear - to be convicted of murder you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended (whole separate debate about what intent means...) to kill or cause serious harm.

I agree,on this fact pattern it’s hard to see how the jury came to this conclusion (but none of us listened to the evidence), but I don’t see it as a legal problem.

The jury are directed by a judge as to the law. In fact you will hear a judge say several times to the jury that "you are the judges of the facts, I am the judge of the law" - I did jury service earlier this year for 6 weeks on an attempted murder trial.

It's absolutely a law issue. The wording of the law is essentially that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and in the case of murder, they have to prove intent to kill. I agree with lots of others on here in that why the hell do you go to any public event with a knife, and approach someone behind to stab them in the neck, but the law is the law.

[Crazyboy]

The law didn’t see it that way, the jury did. It’s a question of fact not law.

The law is clear - to be convicted of murder you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended (whole separate debate about what intent means...) to kill or cause serious harm.

I agree,on this fact pattern it’s hard to see how the jury came to this conclusion (but none of us listened to the evidence), but I don’t see it as a legal problem.

'Need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the intent to kill or cause serious harm?'

The geezer took a knife to a boxing match ran up behind someone and stabbed him in the fornicating neck.

Sorry I'm angry, not at you but the state of this is a joke.

[jamamb]

the killer kind of looks like a light skin tiger woods, ya, im sure he didnt intend serious harm with slashing the guys neck

[keirw]

The neck contains the windpipe, several arteries and the most fragile part of the spinal cord.

To specifically target someones neck with a knife is to attempt to, at the very least, cause serious harm.

Regardless of who was to blame for starting the fight in the first place, the little f**ker should be spending decades behind bars for his actions.

His lawyer even appered to try and play the race card at one point. I hope that wasn't a factor in the jury's decision.

[forcefraser]

I hope this little ferret get’s punked out and his cheeks busted on a regular basis. At the very least a severe wig splitting

[Loynesy]

The law didn’t see it that way, the jury did. It’s a question of fact not law.

The law is clear - to be convicted of murder you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended (whole separate debate about what intent means...) to kill or cause serious harm.

I agree,on this fact pattern it’s hard to see how the jury came to this conclusion (but none of us listened to the evidence), but I don’t see it as a legal problem.

The jury are directed by a judge as to the law. In fact you will hear a judge say several times to the jury that "you are the judges of the facts, I am the judge of the law" - I did jury service earlier this year for 6 weeks on an attempted murder trial.

It's absolutely a law issue. The wording of the law is essentially that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and in the case of murder, they have to prove intent to kill. I agree with lots of others on here in that why the hell do you go to any public event with a knife, and approach someone behind to stab them in the neck, but the law is the law.

The law is not that you have to show an intent to kill - its that you intend to kill or show serious injury. I'm not saying this isn't a terrible situation, and I genuinely don't understand how the jury reached that conclusion, but its not a legal problem.

[Stuarty]

The law and common sense are two very different things. The law can be manipulated.

Fukk knows how the jury came to this conclusion. Nothing surprises me anymore though.

I've recently walked past dangerous murdering fukks in the street! Guys who just should not under any circumstances be out on the street. They manipulate the system. Some other poor bastard will get it and the system is failing these people and has been for years.

[CaptainSpacerod]

What a harrowing read.

America have it right. Regardless of whether it was murder or manslaughter the perp would be looking at 30+ years. Watched a documentary last night where a pimp received a 42 year sentence.

No doubt this murdering scumbag will only serve half his sentence as long as he satisfies the absurd parole board that he's no longer a danger to the public

[coneye]

14 years probably be out in 7 , then walk around the streets giving it the big i am , and idolized and feared by the Phlebs he'll hang out with

[SAPFO]

I’m in Turkey at the min and had a beer with a Walsall copper yesterday. He said the kid more or less slit his throat. Also, the kid has form for stabbing.

[Bigdogsnose]

The victims sister has posted on facebook saying that the dickhead who did this stabbed three other people that night, and had already had a previous conviction for stabbing a shopkeeper.

Where can they go with this? can they appeal the sentence and what is the likely chances of success?

It does seem to be an appalling miscarriage of justice. He should be serving life for murder.

[banjo]

The law is an ass. Unfortunately in order to successfully prosecute for murder, the prosecution have to prove 'so that the jury are sure' that the offender intended to kill the person who died. It's a ridiculous grey area that has meant murderers get away with manslaughter charges too often.

I'd say that coming from behind and stabbing someone in the neck is an intention to kill.

If he had gone for the shoulder then I'd say yes he didn't mean to kill, but the neck is pretty much game over

Stabbing is an attempt to kill regardless, many years ago a lad a couple of years older than me got into some trouble and got stabbed in the leg and died because it severed a main artery. When you attack somebody with weapons like knives and guns the intent is clear.

[Heretic]

So guy who has previously stabbed someone sneaks behind 19 years old kid and stabs him in the neck with a knife that has at least 6 cm long blade did not mean to kill or seriously harm the boy? Yeah right

Justice has failed on this case.

It might also be that the boy did not even take part in the earlier fighting and was killed for nothing.