I know we’ve probably got one of the most fair, tried and tested justice systems in the world etc etc.
But why in a case like this, where no doubt thousand of pounds will be spent do we need the whole trial shebang?
The opening words of the news report I’ve just heard were
“the jury were shown a cctv video of the accused running into Rigby with a car, then dragging him unconscious into the road where they stabbed and hacked him to death”
They both pleaded not guilty 🙄
It should be, one judge, guilty as charged, never walk as a free man again!

Because the video could be faked, or the witnesses could be wrong, or it could be mistaken identity. Extremely unlikely, but they have to have a fair trial – it’s what separates us from them.

It should be, one judge, guilty as charged, never walk as a free man again!

So speaks the mob.

“Them?”

I know we’ve probably got one of the most fair, tried and tested justice systems in the world etc etc.

HAHAHA funniest thing I have ever read on STW!

I do agree that there should be some sort of test as to whether not guilty is even a remotely credible position and whether a plausible account can be put forward to support this
Clearly this is not the case in this scenario

Play the video send them down.

This should occue very rarely and only when the evidence is overwhelming as it is a waste of time and money to listen to their “defence”… OJ may disagree here to be fair .

I am not just saying it about this case or getting emotive here but its a proper waste of time – that lost prophets fella was on film doing the acts he was accused of the e-mails and texts existed as well etc

Trial by your peers is essential for balance but some folk are just clearly guilty so why not have a three day trial to test it rather than a full trial ??

The mob? Errr no just a normal bloke who got a general gist of what happened quite easily from the reports. And probably the CCTV if I was to watch it.

I agree with Wrightyson. It’s not as if we’ve got a criminal justice system which has ever relied on false confessions, torture, corrupt police officers, unreliable evidence or other dubious measures to convict people of terrorism offences is it…

“Them?”

Anyone who thinks attacking a random stranger with a machete is a valid form of political expression. Why, what did you think I meant?

If they pleaded guilty there would be sentencing and nothing more said.
They’ve pleaded not guilty so they can spout their views in court.

Hopefully, there will be no reporting of this and they don’t get what they want.

there should be some sort of test as to whether not guilty is even a remotely credible position and whether a plausible account can be put forward to support this

Isn’t this called a public trial with a jury of your peers, one of the fundamental bases of our criminal justice system?

Have they stated their defence yet?

Beggars belief.

Let’s scrap trials – CCTV surely means that due process can be disposed with.

We have trial by a jury of peers and not by a judge – the judge doesn’t determine guilt. Clearly in this case it’s a no sense, but we have to follow due process to ensure fairness.

these 2 bastards should be hung from high in a public place, and left to the birds to peck over their hatefull rotting bodies. imho that is.

I have no idea what they are going to argue. The trial will need to determine wether they were the people involved whether they have a state of mind that reduces their culpability what their intentions were and probably whether they have a lawful justification such as the plowshears defense.

The fact that any accused person gets a full open trial in this country is one of the things that made this a country to have some pride in . Our justice system is on the wrong end of a massive and cynical attack from a sequence of governments who have had a total disdain for it’s principles and the rights of the citizen. Cases such as this can be abused to further erode the fundamentals that protect us all . If we allow justice to be sidestepped for the accused in this case then it will not be there when we need it.

I have not expressed my personal opinions about the defendants or the facts of the case as it is an ongoing trial . I would suggest that everyone displays the same discretion.

Whos actually defending them? Is it our old friend Janick

That someone is shown to have killed someone else does not in itself determine guilt of murder. A trial is the way we try and determine that sort of thing. It’s not a difficult concept, imo.

I have no idea what they are going to argue. The trial will need to determine wether they were the people involved whether they have a state of mind that reduces their culpability what their intentions were and probably whether they have a lawful justification such as the plowshears defense.

Covers it pretty well. You have to trust the judicial system with these things, I want to live in a country where “they obviously did it” is insufficient to convict someone of murder.

I hope these two DO spout their reasons in an open court and that it’s not censored in any way by the press. There are plenty more jihadists where these two deluded shitbags came from and we can’t ignore their existence.

So speaks the mob.

So you’re effectively saying the attitude of people advocating the locking up and key disposing of a pair of men seen on CCTV murdering an innocent man, with the attitude of those sadistic scumbags in Bristol who dragged a disabled man from his home, beat him to death then burned his body because they ‘believed’ him to be a paedophile based on no evidence whatsoever?
Smooth move. 🙄

I know we’ve probably got one of the most fair, tried and tested justice systems in the world etc etc.

HAHAHA funniest thing I have ever read on STW!

While our justice system is far from perfect – where is it you think is so much better?

My wife works in Nigeria and the police there won’t arrest people (including child abusers/murderers) unless you pay them a bribe. You want them to actually prosecute? You have to pay again.

Even if they’re convicted there’s probably only a vague possibility they might go to prison, mostly depending on how wealthy/powerful they are.

Yes we still have corruption here and we shouldn’t just accept it, but let’s be realistic.

@jamj1974
Now you seem a sensible and reasonably intelligent person so I’m sure you can understand I wasn’t suggesting we convict all would be crims on the basis of CCTV.
However in this case even your liberal, to the book mind must be able to see that a plea of not guilty is basically a **** piss take!!!

However in this case even your liberal, to the book mind must be able to see that a plea of not guilty is basically a **** piss take!!!

Yup but that’s not really the point is it. The system is the system – it’s there for a reason and you’re opening a can of worms if you start saying there are special exceptions to the normal rules.

I believe they should have the most full and impartial trial that our justice system can offer and then, if found guilty, be subject to the same sentencing criteria as anyone else.

To do anything else is wrong and against what I believe to be the spirit of British justice. I know that the system has failed many times but abandoning it when it suits rather than striving to make it better is not the way forward.

It’s not your average murder when would be “not guilty” defendant spouts a load of shit with bloodied hands and knife into someone’s camera phone lens tho is it? Usually you knock someone off and try and get away with it as a rule. I understand the need for trial but when the evidence is so overwhelming, as in this case then a not guilty plea as junkyard said up there ^^ just isn’t plausible.

It’s no big deal in the grand scheme of things, they’ll get very long sentences, we just have to wait a few weeks more.

What grum said. There are always going to “edge” cases if you go down this road and who decideds who gets a trail and who doesn’t? It just doesn’t work.

The question we should be asking is why are these trails always so bloody expensive.

Whos actually defending them? Is it our old friend Janick

is a very fine point – my understanding is that the brief is not supposed to defend a not-guilty plea if he believes the accused to be guilty. I can only assume there’s some claim of insanity appearing here.

My question is what crappy gun did the police use to shoot/stop the murderers?

I mean there are Glock 29 and Benelli M4 you know, both are effective against zombie maggots or did they use British made pistol?

Testing the legal system? 😆

Haven’t the legal system been testing since the time of Henry VIII?

Please Do Not educate the world in adapting the British bureaucratic system. It’s so anal that it misses the common sense.

Shoot the murderers dead on the spot. Case close.

🙄

Shoot the murderers dead on the spot. Case close.

Yeah, because leaving instant justice up to the police has been proven to work so well.

crankboy i dont disagree in general but some [ very very few ]cases really are open and shut cases and the “defence ” and not guilty are just taking the piss and beyond belief with no evidence to support them. The counter argument is overwhelming. This is one case I would imagine. Some sort of shorter version then as they have no credible defence?

aracer – Member

Shoot the murderers dead on the spot. Case close.

Yeah, because leaving instant justice up to the police has been proven to work so well.

Errmm … They could see the murders with weapons, one of them charged the police with a gun, one of them had a cleaver and blood on his body. Could the police distinguish the situation or have they all been poorly trained in such obvious situation?

Shoot them dead on the spot then have a good debate about the situation later on.

As for the Stockwell police shooting there was an instruction to shoot. Zombie pulled the trigger what do you expect? A discussion?

🙄

What Chewk said, those two should’ve been blown to kingdom come straight off (or paradise/whatever)

What Chewk said, those two should’ve been blown to kingdom come straight off (or paradise/whatever)

It’s a good thing we don’t have people with such a barbaric, medieval mentality involved in running our justice system.

Oh no wait…….

Could I place some distance between myself and those generally agreeing with no trial and summary execution pretty please?

I want due process. I am just not sure we need a full 6-8 week trial with appeals etc for years to come.

Whatever due process we apply we still all know what the end result is in this case.

I am just not sure we need a full 6-8 week trial with appeals etc for years to come.

Why not? How would you like to make that decision?

And shooting them dead helps how , who radicalized them did they have assosciates etc easier to question a living suspect
Are they in fact completely insane ?

Junkyard – lazarus

Whatever due process we apply we still all know what the end result is in this case.

1. Media get all the credits.
2. The killers get surprise publicity as more news will be on the trial.
3. More people become agitated.
4. More hate crimes – both ways.
5. More tax payers money spent – to feed, to house, take of etc at jail.
6. More rich lawyers.

🙄

Usually you knock someone off and try and get away with it as a rule.

Actually, that’s not particularly true. Most murders are spontaneous “crimes of passion” (in the sense of it being a heat-of-the-moment thing rather than there necessarily being a femme fatale involved). Pre-meditated murders, including one with alibis, evidence disposal etc. are the exception, not the rule.

If you get stabbed, it’s most likely to be by a kitchen knife…

…which reminds me of a news article I read a few years ago about a woman who’d stabbed her husband to death. She’s suffered years of terrible, terrible abuse at his hands and one day she could suffer no more and plunged a knife into the guy. This was used successfully as a defence, although I hazily recall it might have been on appeal. The point is, regardless of whether you would support the defence, it’s hard to argue that she shouldn’t have the right to offer that defence. She was found standing over the body with the bloodied knife in her hand.