[Closed] Lee Rigby killers trial.

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 [url= http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/ ]Janick[/url]

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.

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 ****ing 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 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes ]work so well[/url].

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.

chewkw, you're always full of glib criticism, what better alternative do you propose?

If I understand chekw correctly he's proposing militarising the police with a shoot to kill policy for [s]such situations[/s] when they reckon it's a good idea.

cynic-al - Member

chewkw, you're always full of glib criticism, what better alternative do you propose?

Alternative? Death penalty.

In such obvious case shoot then debate later. You really cannot have a person charging at the police with a gun after just murdering someone in the broad daylight, only to get more publicity for what they had just done.

Put it this way, murdering someone in the broad daylight then shouting their religious belief can easily be considered insane, so they might walk free and to murder again in future. If they play their cards right they can claim insanity to walk free. Why take the chance?

wrightyson - Member
@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!!!

Yes it would be a piss take and I can't condone the crime but a failure to use the system properly would take us to a place I wouldn't want to live in. Trial by your peers is something we should never abandon.

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

We could take 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years in this case its rather irrelevant as the outcome will be the same. As i said this will be a very small number of cases per decade never mind year.

A pre trial with a jury and say a time limit for each side to present their case. Jury decides if there is any doubt over the guilt and whether to proceed to a full trial? Where guilt is overwhelming the trial is nothing but a show trial- in effect though I am sure it will be fair etc but we know the outcome dont we. Whatever we do the only issue is length and cost in certain cases.

chewkw, you're always full of glib criticism, what better alternative do you propose?

Heh good point junky.

chewkw how would your death penalty avoid the trial?

Or is it to be handed out on the spot by police, Judge Dredd style?

A pre trial with a jury and say a time limit for each side to present their case. Jury decides if there is any doubt over the guilt and whether to proceed to a full trial?

So, like a jury trial, but with an arbitrary limit on how much of your case / evidence you can present? Why is that a good idea?

We could take 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years in this case its rather irrelevant as the outcome will be the same. As i said this will be a very small number of cases per decade never mind year.

Who decides the criteria for your sham trial?

"All men are innocent until proven guilty" surely we all agree on this? Even evil, horrible, murdering scum like those two need a fair trial and a proper defense even if it is just to ensure that everyone gets the same treatment.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

The 2nd time I have quoted Sir Thomas More this week!

If I understand chekw correctly he's proposing militarising the police with a shoot to kill policy for such situations when they reckon it's a good idea.

Well it worked well in NI. 😕

Well it worked well in NI.

Especially for the IRA recruitment drive.

Why is that a good idea?

Who decides the criteria for your sham trial?

All men are innocent until proven guilty"

Junkyard - Please see Sir Thomas More above.

You cannot have different legal systems for different crimes. In principle everyone has to be treated the same.*

*The very rich and privileged who can afford fair better barristers are the exception to this rule.

"All men are innocent until proven guilty" surely we all agree on this? Even evil, horrible, murdering scum like those two need a fair trial and a proper defense even if it is just to ensure that everyone gets the same treatment.

I think you're missing JYs ( the limp wrested lefty 😀 ) point. These people are guilty. They were FILMED doing it. They have admitted guilt. There really is no question over their innocence. I think that is why he suggested that the trial is a waste of time and money, but we all should and do get our day in court.
Bites a. Little that these two get legal aid, but the a the rules.

One thing it won't affect, in the absence of capital punishment, is the cost to the taxpayer to keep them safe from the public (or is it the other way round?)
About 30+K a year (todays cat A prices), X 2, X however many years they get.
2 x 9mm rounds wouldv'e been a bit more cheaper-rer.

You cannot have different legal systems for different crimes. In principle everyone has to be treated the same.*

Do you think the length will affect the outcome?

They do deserve their day[s] in court but, as they have no actual defence, I am just suggesting those days are somewhat shorter. Its not going to be hard to weigh up the evidence of the video, the eyewitness accounts and the confession and work out what happened.

I oppose the death penalty for wrecker is correct I am a limp wristed leftie tree hugger

cynic-al - Member

Heh good point junky.

chewkw how would your death penalty avoid the trial?

Or is it to be handed out on the spot by police, Judge Dredd style?

In this case on the spot by the police. Yes, Judge Dredd style so no big deal really.

Life is too short trying to be whiter than whiter, being anal and by proclaiming the god like law (not much different from the God's law).

Trying the system out then you have forgotten about being human (oops ... should be classed as maggots).

🙄

chewkw are you really this guy?

[img] [/img]

They won't last long inside..
Hopefully.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered ]A fitting punishment. [/url]

The should be hung drawn and quartered live on TV.

Using modern medical technology it should be possible to ensure they die in indescribable agony.

I wonder how much MI5 will be scrutinized during the trial:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664468

I'm also curious as to why this is such a high profile case... when a Muslim Pensioner was killed a couple of weeks prior to this incident in similar circumstance, there was no national media coverage; what could the agenda be?

Using modern medical technology it should be possible to ensure they die in indescribable agony.

Would that be with, or without a fair trial?

Would that be with, or without a fair trial?

Queen Elizabeth I must be rolling in her grave.

wow medieval torture, sounds like you are a fan of extreme sharia law 3dvgirl, whats next on your list?
how about

Many scholars[23][153] claim Shari'a law encourages domestic violence against women, when a husband suspects nushuz (disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct) in his wife

its laughable how the most rightwing posters seem to have more in common with the terrorists than the victim

wow medieval torture, sounds like you are a fan of extreme sharia law 3dvgirl, whats next on your list?

People like me remind me of the fools that appeased Hitler before WW2

3dvgirl, there may be people who think you are filth.

What then?

🙄

3dv girl I really think you should move to Iran or maybe North Korea, your ethics seem to be well matched to their legal systems

3dvgirl, there may be people who think you are filth.

Yes, many do these many of these people think i should die and i think many of them should die,I think Darwin wrote something about it.

I reckon they'd probably benefit most from a bloody good cuddle

[i]They won't last long inside..[/i]

They probably will actually, as the prison service & It's employees have a duty of care to these creatures. They'll be very high profile for a long time & there'll be balls rolling if anything 'untoward' happens to them.

3dv girl I really think you should move to Iran or maybe North Korea, your ethics seem to be well matched to their legal systems

bit o spits fine for me!

😉

Wow.this went from 0 to 100 pretty quick!

If these two could do what they did to Lee Rigby, theyr'e gonna be a right handful in jail, believe me.

Hey 3dvgirl, how about it, I'm the kind of guy who'd protect you... I swiftly kneecap everyone I meet to give me the upper hand should they ever wrong me... anyhow, while you're down there...

Hey 3dvgirl, how about it, I'm the kind of guy who'd protect you... I swiftly kneecap everyone I meet to give me the upper hand should they ever wrong me... anyhow, while you're down there...

lol..

Only for personal safety you understand... can never be too careful 😉

Hey 3dvgirl, how about it, I'm the kind of guy who'd protect you... I swiftly kneecap everyone I meet to give me the upper hand should they ever wrong me... anyhow, while you're down there...

3dvgirl - Member

A fitting punishment.

The should be hung drawn and quartered live on TV.
Using modern medical technology it should be possible to ensure they die in indescribable agony.

I say this without humour or irony - 3dvgirl are you actually human?

kimbers - Member

chewkw are you really this guy?

Who is that person? I really have no clue who he is. ❓

Should I know who he is?