News story of the day

[Wainy316]

I dread to think of what a lot of rappers of the day did to women behind closed doors tbh.  I mean they gave enough clues in their lyrics and music videos but it was cool then.

[Stevo985]

10 hours ago, bickster said:

No, there are two types of manslaughter (three if you include corporate), voluntary and involuntary. The former is intent to harm, the latter isn't. Involuntary manslaughter is further divided again into unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligent manslaughter. A complete accident as you're saying can still be gross negligent involuntary manslaughter. It’s also sometimes referred to as reckless manslaughter

But that isn't going to be the case here. There's no way if they judge that it was a complete accident that they're going to do the player for involuntary manslaughter. 

Involuntary manslaughter would still require him to have done something unlawful or grossly negligent, which surely cannot be the case here if they determine it was a complete accident. Falling over while playing Ice Hockey cannot be deemed to be reckless or grossly negligent or unlawful.

Therefore for the player to be done for manslaughter they would have to prove there was an intent to harm, which was @foreveryoung's point (I think)

Edited November 17, 2023 by Stevo985

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But that isn't going to be the case here. There's no way if they judge that it was a complete accident that they're going to do the player for involuntary manslaughter. 

Involuntary manslaughter would still require him to have done something unlawful or grossly negligent, which surely cannot be the case here if they determine it was a complete accident. Falling over while playing Ice Hockey cannot be deemed to be reckless or grossly negligent or unlawful.

Therefore for the player to be done for manslaughter they would have to prove there was an intent to harm, which was @foreveryoung's point (I think)

That is what the court will decide if the CPS think the evidence points to that

When I watched the video, sticking his leg up in the air as he did seems to be something of an unnatural movement and it'll all focus around that and whether that was a reckless act

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

That is what the court will decide if the CPS think the evidence points to that

When I watched the video, sticking his leg up in the air as he did seems to be something of an unnatural movement and it'll all focus around that and whether that was a reckless act

I completely agree.

My only point really was that your original response said that if they proved there was intent then it would be murder.

I was trying to make the distinction that @foreveryoung was talking about intent to harm rather than intent to kill

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I completely agree.

My only point really was that your original response said that if they proved there was intent then it would be murder.

I was trying to make the distinction that @foreveryoung was talking about intent to harm rather than intent to kill

And as I keep saying, there needs to be no intent to harm to be convicted of manslaughter

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

And as I keep saying, there needs to be no intent to harm to be convicted of manslaughter

No, that's not true, it's the opposite. There absolutely has to be intent to harm to be convicted of manslaughter. That's the entire point.

There needs to be no intent to harm to be convicted of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. But voluntary manslaughter has to have an intent to at least harm somebody (in most cases it requires an intent to kill but with mitigating circumstances), which was the original point

Definition

 

Quote

 

Voluntary manslaughter[edit]

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant kills with mens rea (an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm), but one of those partial defences which reduce murder to manslaughter applies (these consist of mitigating circumstances which reduce the defendant's culpability). 

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Stevo985

[bickster]

36 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

No, that's not true, it's the opposite. There absolutely has to be intent to harm to be convicted of manslaughter. That's the entire point.

There needs to be no intent to harm to be convicted of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. But voluntary manslaughter has to have an intent to at least harm somebody (in most cases it requires an intent to kill but with mitigating circumstances), which was the original point

Definition

 

 

 

Yes, that's voluntary manslaughter

[Stevo985]

41 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes, that's voluntary manslaughter

Ok, I don't understand your point any more so I'll leave it there  

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Ok, I don't understand your point any more so I'll leave it there  

You keep describing voluntary manslaughter like its the only sort, it isn't there's involuntary manslaughter which again is further divided as I've already described in other posts

[Rustibrooks]

4 hours ago, UpTheVilla26 said:

Just been reading about Puff Daddy, Diddy or whatever he calls himself these days. 

R&B singer Cassie - who I had a massive crush on back in the early 2000s - has come out with a load of allegations that he made her do all sorts of stuff to satisfy his weird sexual needs. 

Apparantly he plied her with drugs before encounters with male prostitutes, which he'd then watch, film and get off on. Just reading the amount of stuff he supposedly plied her with before these alleged encounters, fair play if she was able to walk still, let alone do much else. 

Not sure how much of it is true but I do think people like Puff had a massive power trip back in the day. There was always something about him I didn't like, I was heavily into the Rap scene back then and I just couldn't stick the clown. He had some great artists signed to Bad Boy - Shyne, Black Rob, G Dep (who's career went tits up cos' he had murdered someone in the early 90s), but just couldn't help himself jumping onto their songs and ruining half of them as he wanted to be the star attraction.

I watched the R Kelly documentary and he was a right weirdo but I believe his fame & fortune played a huge part. They seem to think they are untouchable. Wouldn't be surprised if more women came out and made claims against Puff, if he was doing half this stuff to his supposed missus, then with the cash he could flash about, there must have been others.

He’s always been suspect to me, I remember when I was younger I’d watch Making the band and I thought he was dodgy then. None of those groups went far after their first albums despite being popular at the time. Recently after years of battling he’s allowed his former artists their publishing rights/masters back in exchange for new NDAs that forbid them from saying anything negative about him. 
 

Then there’s the Tupac murder situation with the guy they’ve now arrested has stated a few times he was paid by Diddy.

His former partner Kim Porter also supposedly suffered from abuse and quite a few people believe there’s something weird about her death. Supposedly she was writing a book and was going to detail similar details that Cassie went through. He has offered Cassie an 8 figure settlement to silence her  and IMO you don’t offer that amount of money if there is not truth in this.

Reading the suit, it appears he also blew up Kid Cudi’s car because he was interested in Cassie. This has been confirmed by a spokesperson for Cudi. 

I think this is the start of Diddy’s downfall hopefully. As they say everything comes to light eventually, most of these super wealthy people seem to have something dodgy about them. There’s potentially something with Diddy and Usher when Usher was a teen as well. I saw an interview with Usher talking about Diddy and he didn’t seem comfortable when asked about their times together in the past.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Rustibrooks

[Stevo985]

50 minutes ago, bickster said:

You keep describing voluntary manslaughter like its the only sort, it isn't there's involuntary manslaughter which again is further divided as I've already described in other posts

Yes because you originally said:

 

On 15/11/2023 at 23:04, bickster said:

On 15/11/2023 at 21:59, foreveryoung said:

I'm not 100% sure, but I would have thought there would have to be some sort of intent. Accidents happen in a dangerous sports.

 

The legal definition of manslaughter in the UK is unlawfully killing someone without intent (or malice a forethought as it used to be described). To put it another way, if there was intent, the charge would be murder.

Which simply isn't true.

 

My whole point was the "intent" that FEY was referring to was intent to harm and not intent to kill.
The only way your statement could be true is if you were referring to intent to kill (and even then it's not true to be honest)

That's the distinction I was always trying to make.

They will have to prove some sort of intent to harm for him to get manslaughter (imo). Your post implied that if they did prove any intent then it would make it a murder charge

Edited November 17, 2023 by Stevo985

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

They will have to prove some sort of intent to harm for him to get manslaughter.

There you go again. No, not true

Quote

WHAT IS INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER?
Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an individual who has committed an unlawful killing without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the victim, causing the death by recklessness or gross negligence instead.

In this case, recklessness is defined as committing an unlawful or dangerous act whilst showing disregard to the potential consequences.

UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER
An individual will be found guilty of committing involuntary manslaughter as a result of an unlawful or dangerous act should it be proven they intentionally committed the act and the act directly contributed to the death of another individual.

When looking to establish this, the prosecution will take several facts into account:

 
THE DANGEROUSNESS OF THE ACT
Initially, the court will look to establish if the act being committed by the accused was dangerous. When looking at this, the court does not look at whether the person committing the act recognised the danger, but if all sober, reasonable people would recognise the danger. The jury must establish if the act exposed the victim to “some” harm.

The act also does not need to be directed at an individual. For example, a person committing arson which causes an individual to die may be judged to have committed a dangerous act leading to involuntary manslaughter.

CAUSATION
The prosecution must then establish the dangerous act caused the death without an intervening act breaking the chain of causation.

Draycott Browne Solicitors

(I could have used literally hundreds of definitions that all say the same thing)

[bobzy]

Well, this is fun chaps. 

[Stevo985]

49 minutes ago, bickster said:

There you go again. No, not true

 

You conveniently missed out the "imo" in my post, referring to the fact that in my opinion they'd have to prove intent because it doesn't fit the definition of involuntary manslaughter, so the only way he'd get any form of manslaughter would be voluntary.

Nice deflection from the actual point though  

You're allowed to be wrong (again) you know  

Edited November 17, 2023 by Stevo985

[bickster]

17 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

You're allowed to be wrong (again) you know

I'm not wrong, you do not need intent to prove a manslaughter charge

Just a scenario as I have no idea if this is a thing in Ice Hockey or not. Say there are rules of the sport about the skates and the player who kicked the poor dead guy in the throat had done something outside the rules to his skates (a bit like players used to do to studs on football boots), if it can be proved that that grossly negligent act resulted in or contributed to the death of the player, then this would be a case of gross negligent involutory manslaughter. He didn't intend to kill or harm anyone but his actions still resulted in the death.

I doubt that's the line being followed (or even if its a thing) but it's just to illustrate the point

[Rds1983]

3 hours ago, bobzy said:

Well, this is fun chaps. 

If anyone dies of boredom from reading this would that count as manslaughter?

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

I'm not wrong

 

On 15/11/2023 at 23:04, bickster said:

if there was intent, the charge would be murder.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Stevo985

[il_serpente]

1 hour ago, Rds1983 said:

If anyone dies of boredom from reading this would that count as manslaughter?

Or if they decide to take it outside to settle it and one of the dies, would it be murder or voluntary manslaughter?

[Rds1983]

6 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

Or if they decide to take it outside to settle it and one of the dies, would it be murder or voluntary manslaughter?

Not sure. I'm too busy trying to decide which one would win.

[sidcow]