Are we safe? Suspected terrorist attack in London this afternoon

[Beef Oven]

Well, you think wrong. :smiley:

I'm not sure quite where to begin - there are just so many dictionaries about, online and 'real'. Here's Chamber's on 'premeditate': "To plan or think out beforehand; to meditate upon beforehand" ; Collins: "To plan or consider (something, such as a violent crime) beforehand" ; Oxford: "To think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand" ; Cambridge: "Something (especially a crime or something unpleasant) done after being thought about or carefully planned".

Now I'm one of the first to acknowledge that words can change their meanings over time (usually after people use them without understanding their meanings) but this is not a good example, since dictionaries give no alternative or colloquial meanings.

No. That is the lexicographical take. In this situation, premeditated is a legal principle and the dictionary is not the book to look in. You'll see that an unlawful killing was recorded in the case of the Stockwell case and you'll see a different outcome when this case is concluded.

Edit. My memory is wrong, an open verdict was the conclusion.

[Pabmusic]

No. That is the lexicographical take. In this situation, premeditated is a legal principle and the dictionary is not the book to look in. You'll see that an unlawful killing was recorded in the case of the Stockwell case and you'll see a different outcome when this case is concluded.

Sorry, Beefy, but even that's wrong. The killing was ruled lawful because it was justified because it was a lawful use of force in the circumstances - not because it wasn't premeditated. If it had not been justified, the officers would have been liable for prosecution. The argument (which the Coroner must have accepted) was that the dreadful mistake of identity did not alter the justification for a killing carried out by people who were genuinely unaware of the mistake. In short, if the killing would have been justified if the right target had been selected, it would also be justified if the wrong target was selected because of a genuine mistake made in good faith.

It's a sort of corollary to the principle that, if a person intends to kill or injure A, but kills B by mistake, it is still murder even though there was no specific intent to kill B.

There's no special 'legal' definition of 'premeditation'. The English law of murder doesn't use the word anyway, preferring "with malice aforethought", and there's plenty of case-law about just what that means.

[Stillhomewardbound]

A number of thoughts which I will endeavour to express rationally:

* Some reports suggest that the victim of the attack was first run down by the perpetrators' vehicle. I can only pray that he was sufficiently injured or made unconscious as to be unaware of the appalling fate that was to be afflicted on him.

* I know this location intimately (It's on a cycle route that I take regularly) and for an army barracks it has the lightest security imaginable. In recent times it has not been a significant garrison and was on the verge of being mothballed, but as of the last two years or so it has become a home to the Grenadiers. Since then there has been no increase in the site's security. Would that have made a difference to today's attack? Possibly not, but it is very clear that the same perpetrators regarded the site as a soft target.

* It is an irony that Britain, once so familiar to terrorism (such as in the IRA Woolwich pub bombing of 1974), has developed a form of security amnesia. While the nature of the attack was initially unknown it seems remarkable that the mere locale did not engender a top level response, and as for the notion of police being held back until armed response was available, simply beggars belief. What kind of message must this tacit response send out. That men, literally, with blood on their hands could parade up and down a London street without impunity for such a long period of time.

* Good will always come out of bad and we saw today vivid examples of the essential decency of British society that will always be there, if we can only hold our course and believe, as in the ladies that intervened and stood between the sad corpse of the victim and his assailants, while too many gawked or, idly, disinterestedly, walked past with their shopping trolleys.

[scottycelt]

Premeditated murder is one thing and is itself utterly awful and despicable.

The premeditated murder/savagery witnessed yesterday in front of a primary school plunges the crime further to the utter depths of depravity. It also needs to be confirmed that the person(s) who videoed some of this horrific atrocity on their mobiles were genuine 'passers-by'.

If they were, I find their own bizarre behaviour unbelievably crass and tasteless.

[Beef Oven]

Sorry, Beefy, but even that's wrong. The killing was ruled lawful because it was justified because it was a lawful use of force in the circumstances - not because it wasn't premeditated. If it had not been justified, the officers would have been liable for prosecution. The argument (which the Coroner must have accepted) was that the dreadful mistake of identity did not alter the justification for a killing carried out by people who were genuinely unaware of the mistake. In short, if the killing would have been justified if the right target had been selected, it would also be justified if the wrong target was selected because of a genuine mistake made in good faith.

It's a sort of corollary to the principle that, if a person intends to kill or injure A, but kills B by mistake, it is still murder even though there was no specific intent to kill B.

There's no special 'legal' definition of 'premeditation'. The English law of murder doesn't use the word anyway, preferring "with malice aforethought", and there's plenty of case-law about just what that means.

Your wrong. It's simply not true that killing of that poor chap was premeditated. It's perverse to think that the judge would have reasoned that the police officers hade pre-decided to extinguish someone's life that day, but got the wrong person. Even in the topsy-turvy R3 Forum world that is silly.

Also, you tell us that you think it's manslaughter!!!!!!! Good dollop of double-think :winkeye:

We all know that the inhuman event of yesterday is far-removed from the Stockwell incident, but we can't allow ourselves the luxury plain-thinking :laugh:

Funny old politically correct world innit? :biggrin:

[MrGongGong]

What is more than a little worrying and dangerous
is the way in which what happened yesterday is being used as justificaiton
for some very nasty people indeed (try looking at the DM website for example :steam:)
deluded and deranged people who commit murder are simply that
for some folk to think that this is a consequence of immigration , multiculturalism etc is very wrong indeed
what IS possibly significant is that the double standards of the UK/USA encourage those with very nasty and dangerous
ideas to feel that they are justified.

No, it's not the same as the police murdering De Menezes BUT allowing the Met to escape prosecution sends the message that
somehow it's ok to kill people if you feel "threatened". To some people ALL British Soldiers are a threat , and in some ways they are right in
that perception BUT totally wrong in what they decide to do about it.

[Beef Oven]

What is more than a little worrying and dangerous
is the way in which what happened yesterday is being used as justificaiton
for some very nasty people indeed (try looking at the DM website for example :steam:)
deluded and deranged people who commit murder are simply that
for some folk to think that this is a consequence of immigration , multiculturalism etc is very wrong indeed
what IS possibly significant is that the double standards of the UK/USA encourage those with very nasty and dangerous
ideas to feel that they are justified.

No, it's not the same as the police murdering De Menezes BUT allowing the Met to escape prosecution sends the message that
somehow it's ok to kill people if you feel "threatened". To some people ALL British Soldiers are a threat , and in some ways they are right in
that perception BUT totally wrong in what they decide to do about it.

Tell us a bit more about the ways in which people are right that 'ALL' British soldiers are a threat. Be kind enough to use the example of the lad who got hacked to death on his way home yesterday.

[Bryn]

The bovine one is quite right. In one one case we have state trained killers executing a civilian unconnected with the conflict between 'The West' and quasi-Islamic terrorism. In the other we have non-state-trained killers running down and hacking to death a member of the armed forces currently engaged in that conflict. What could be more different?

[Beef Oven]

Bryn, can you clarify for me? I wasn't sure if you really did agree with me, or I missed the sarcasm of your reply and you were actually saying that the killing of the poor chap in Stockwell was no different from what happened yesterday.

[Nick Armstrong]

There's no special 'legal' definition of 'premeditation'. The English law of murder doesn't use the word anyway, preferring "with malice aforethought", and there's plenty of case-law about just what that means.

Neither 'premeditation' nor 'malice aforethought' are relevant / valid any more.

The current CPS guidelines in relation to murder state:

"the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/h...ughter/#intent

[MrGongGong]

Tell us a bit more about the ways in which people are right that 'ALL' British soldiers are a threat. Be kind enough to use the example of the lad who got hacked to death on his way home yesterday.

I don't think they are (to me)
and I don't think that people are right in thinking this
but
I can easily understand why they might
If you believe that the British Army is involved in a war which is killing your innocent brothers and sisters
It seems fairly simple to believe that all members of the Forces are a threat
which doesn't make it right to kill them (of course)
or doesn't make it right either for the forces to do the same

Is it the manner in which the killing is done that is so objectionable to some ?
Is it somehow OK to sit in an office at RAF Waddington and bomb people remotely but not to do it with your bare hands ?

ALL of it is wrong IMV

[Beef Oven]

Neither 'premeditation' nor 'malice aforethought' are relevant / valid any more.

The current CPS guidelines in relation to murder state:

"the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/h...ughter/#intent

:ok: And that was not asserted in the Pimlico case and there is little doubt that it will be in this latest case. There's the difference!

Thanks for clearing that up M'lord!

[Bryn]

I don't think they are (to me)
and I don't think that people are right in thinking this
but
I can easily understand why they might
If you believe that the British Army is involved in a war which is killing your innocent brothers and sisters
It seems fairly simple to believe that all members of the Forces are a threat
which doesn't make it right to kill them (of course)
or doesn't make it right either for the forces to do the same

Is it the manner in which the killing is done that is so objectionable to some ?
Is it somehow OK to sit in an office at RAF Waddington and bomb people remotely but not to do it with your bare hands ?

ALL of it is wrong IMV

Quite!

[Bryn]

:ok: And that was not asserted in the Pimlico case and there is little doubt that it will be in this latest case. There's the difference!

Thanks for clearing that up M'lord!

Well of course. Pumping 8 rounds into somebody's head can in no way be seen to indicate an intent kill or cause grievous bodily harm. How could anyone think otherwise?

[Beef Oven]

Well of course. Pumping 8 rounds into somebody's head can in no way be seen to indicate an intent kill or cause grievous bodily harm. How could anyone think otherwise?

Still not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Are you being sarcastic?