Lovedaddy wrote:
We also agree with your stance on these people being the lowest commom denominator. Also can t see anyone on here making exuses for these people.

FB raised a valid point nethertheless based on fact.That being if would appear due to the way it has been reported that the gun went off in a panic. That would mean the killing could have been one of manslaughter and not murder. Simple

Because the gun was loaded doesnt prove intent to kill the woman as she was.

All said its not an arguement i personally would want to entertain, as i prefer they served life for murder.

[align=center][/align]
[align=center]"The gang, intent on robbing the guests of their valuables, fired wildly into the air and one of them fired a shot at the head of Mrs Kalokoh ..."[/align]

Lovedadddy You and Kunjufu are taking the piss. Really. Virtue of their race. Cheap and desperate actually.Virtue of the crime. Its the difference between explanation and the pathetic 'excuse' to quote Kunjufu. When people are using language like Scum it really don't help the matter. I am looking at what they did or their intent.

I am not here to promote Lee Jasper them agenda by hyping things so we do not ask what is the specifics of the crime. That is why Jasper have unno like idiot responding just how they like rather than looking at the specifics.

There was no intention to murder. Simple as.

The fact it was in a Christening is ugly but actually immaterial.

If you are going to respond respond with sense not cheap argument about making excuses. You better understand the logic you are outlining because I hate hypocrisy.

LoveDaddy..got to agree with you again...scum like this aint my 'brother'....and can we get things into prospective the charge is CORRECT, if you load a gun with live ammunition with the intent to ROB....then in my books that is MURDER regardless.....It cannot be argued that they didn't mean to take life..that ridiculous!!'

What is riddiculous is what you are talking about and the tone.






Well Kunjufu isn't it good the criminal justice aint run by your books but is clear on what murder is or isnt. Go and check it you may find it informative. It is this ignorance which allows these courts to do what and how they want.

The fact of a gun being loaded is not a fact they intended to take life but they may have been prepared to. The police said themselves there was no evidence they intended to kill the woman.

MGL Said '


[align=center]"The gang, intent on robbing the guests of their valuables, fired wildly into the air and one of them fired a shot at the head of Mrs Kalokoh ..."[/align]







Am I the only one to have sense to see that statement is inconsistent and also inconsistent with almost everything said earlier. Or are we dependend on hypocriscy to make a case. Let me give you a hint taken from the source of your post above 'Teenage Savages Convicted, The Sun, 22 December 2006'

What we have no idea how police and criminal justice system works when we are looking to make a point. So if they were firing in the roof and the police said they did not know the woman or have any previous beef,why would they shoot the woman.

Isn't the most likely explanation the fool did not have control of the weapon and was wreckless and that is not hard to work out if you have never used a gun or it was the first time. They could not control the kick of the gun and hence rather than concentrating fire they sprayed the place with bullets in the roof and others more horizontal and lower down and one hit the woman directly. Far more reasonable and in line with what we know about gun use than this cock and bull state and media story.

Cheap and disgusting. You know what people stand for in terms of their consistency on hard cases or hard instances. Here we act like we don't know babylon and how they flex and running to support foolishness.

Lee Jasper have unno like pickney. People should be punished for what they have done in accordance with the letter of the law.

Love Daddy I actually teach criminolgoy and crime at an advanced degree level. I actually teach police officers on another programme whichdeals with law and these type of ethical issues.I have a copy of my Butterswort on Criminal law right to hand. So I actully know something of what I speak. But you want to assume I am basising my view on race or making excuses which is offensive actually.

Could be I actually know what the law defines particular crimes as do my colleagues.

So you think the fact these people love to beef up charge on black people as standard practice is not at work here? Reallly.

Or because you do not like this crime it is acceptable but in another case it is unacceptable. I think you need to think yourself.Aboutyoudon't like people who want to use technical arguementetc to rationalise. Thelaw bro is based on technicalities for damn good reason and if you do not know that stay out of the debate or come correct. Don't you think it is the same techniacliteies the state is using and abusing to get the conviction it wanted.

Lack of moral consisency=hypocrisy.confused3

Lovedaddy. Sorry to keep on coming back inbetween Christmas tings you said.

'Please think about if Zainab Kalokoh was a member of your family. How would you feel if someone else was trying to mitigate their crime'.

This where you and Kunjufu actually miss the point clean. The law and its application is not contingent on what the victims of families think. If something affects you personally you will want maximum sentence every time. But the judge and jury cannot take the view of a family as how to apply law ,but the standards, definitions and sentencing tarrifs define by law.

Again know what you are talking about before you dismiss people or their arguments, especially when I make it clear what my objections are based on. I am extremely consistent on these matters.

K family runnings same here.





Later

Apparenty the dum dum fired a shot into the ceiling, the bullet richocheted and struck the woman. Still its no excuse for crass stupidity and this brainess criminal deserves to hang

Fred: with respect.......I like to think i'm a compasionate person, one who likes to see things objectively..so...while i totally take the point that in ENGLISH law an arguement could be had on the issue of 'intent' and further one could argue the toss between the charge of manslaughter and murder.... really lets be honest herethis is an ENGLISH TYPElegal pigeon hole on which to make some sort of sense of what was be any definition criminal behaviour at its worse....

The fact is as you know regardless of whether these boys are found guilty of manslaugter or murder..they aint seeing the light of day ever, and if by some slim chance they do it will be on a strict license until they die....so the argument about whether in law this can be regarded as murder or manslaughter isand was redundant from the moment they discharged their weapon and killed that poor lady......Their punish as YOU already know will be as if they had committed murder...now tell me I'm wrong on that point?

However getting back to my original point, in my view, please note the cavet...they committed murder. Why because these three scum, (and they are scum)...with intent went out, found and purchased a gun from a underhand gun dealer.. Further they bought these guns with LIVE ammunition and then planned and executed a robbery and also obviously planned to discharge their weapon as part of thisw robbery.......as ameans to terrorise their victims into submission...for me one could argue 'intent' based on that position alone...

However it really doesn't take too much speculation to summise what could have happened had their victims not complied with the orders of this scum...do you really imagine that these scum would have stopped at discharging their guns in the air in order to subdue, do you really think this is the first time they had done this type of thing?

Sorry but if I was asked my view, then itis crystal clear, I find all of them guilty of at the very least 'consipracy to commit murder' and for me they all get the same punishment.. However disregarding the ENGLISH application of the law...

In my view these three boys are the worse type of scum imaginable, whoobviously thoughtnothing of terroring their own people, theor own people in EVERY sense of the word, they had no regard that their victims were men, women or children..

as far as they were concerned they were a means to an end, so f.uck them they are NOT my brothers, and they by any definition murderers....so lets stop with the excuses and call them what they are!!!