PC Andrew Harper (1 Viewer)

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
3 youths guilty of manslaughter not murder.
Obviously the jury have had a lot more information than me but it seems that although they didn't intend to drag him along the road they didn't stop when they realised that they were.

Can't see how that's not murder.
 

D

Deleted member 4439

Guest
I assume it was because the prosecution wasn't able to conclusively prove that they drove off, and continued to drive, with intent. If it was done with intent, they will have received a life sentence already, as that knowledge will come to increasingly haunt them throughout their lives.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
I assume it was because the prosecution wasn't able to conclusively prove that they drove off, and continued to drive, with intent. If it was done with intent, they will have received a life sentence already, as that knowledge will come to increasingly haunt them throughout their lives.

On the report I heard it said they knew they were dragging him so whether that's incorrect I don't know.
Will see what's said in the papers.

And it said jurors received protection after intelligence of a potential threat from their families so maybe mot the types to be feeling too guilty about it.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Apparently the Jury has to go into special protection as the police believed that there was a plot to intimidate them.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Obviously those involved in the trial have more info than us but from what is publicly known its hard to believe you can drive a mile dragging someone along without realising it. That seems to be the primary factor in it being manslaughter rather than murder.

Also reports they were armed with a large axe, three crowbars and a hammer. Not to mention issues at the trial with suspected attempts by "associates of the defendants to intimidate the jury".

There's footage of them arriving at court laughing and joking, not exactly a sign of remorse. Hopefully the judge gives them the longest sentence possible.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
Saw the footage of them laughing . If they die in prison I couldn't care less. Scum.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Obviously those involved in the trial have more info than us but from what is publicly known its hard to believe you can drive a mile dragging someone along without realising it.

btw, not justifying them in the slightest, just this came to mind!
 

joemercersaces

Well-Known Member
In law you only need to intend to cause grievous bodily harm, not to kill someone, for it to be murder if they die. That’s why cases where someone banjoes someone else and they hit their head falling over and die, are fairly called manslaughter, because they didn’t really intend to seriously hurt the other guy, just win the fight. Dragging a police officer over a mile is quite clearly murder. Total scumbags that the police are protecting the rest of us from.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
16, 16 and 13 years.
They deserved more but when I heard the manslaughter verdict I thought it could have been a lot less.

Wiped the smiles off their faces if nothing else
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
16, 16 and 13 years.
They deserved more but when I heard the manslaughter verdict I thought it could have been a lot less.

Wiped the smiles off their faces if nothing else

so 8, 8, and 6.5 then. Still think it’s not enough. Manslaughter sentences are far too lenient IMO. Too easy to get blatant murder down to manslaughter then you’re out in no time.
 
D

Deleted member 4439

Guest
so 8, 8, and 6.5 then. Still think it’s not enough. Manslaughter sentences are far too lenient IMO. Too easy to get blatant murder down to manslaughter then you’re out in no time.

The judge actually stipulated that they must serve two-thirds of their time. Still too little.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top