Raoul Moat accomplice jailed for 40 yrs

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I'd wager that if PC David Rathband had been a pedestrian rather than a police officer, the trio would out in 5 yrs or less.

I'd love to see you lose a wad of cash on such a ludicrous bet.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Masque

Who is the third person.

Its from my theoretical example above:

If Moat and his two buddies had shot your child in the face and were later apprehended, the three of them would be out in 5 years.

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I'd love to see you lose a wad of cash on such a ludicrous bet.

Well, I could easily afford to lose many wads of cash on many ludicrous bets.
But don't hold your breath. Ludicrous you say?

Put your money where your gob is. With Google at my fingertips, name your sum and we'll see just how ludicrous it is.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

but since when was the life of a police officer deemed greater than that of a member of the public ?

That's always been the case. The Police are seen as the public face of justice and attacks on them are seen by the courts as an attack on the justice system itself. That is why there are specific offences of assaulting a Police officer.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Well, I could easily afford to lose many wads of cash on many ludicrous bets.
But don't hold your breath. Ludicrous you say?

Put your money where your gob is. With Google at my fingertips, name your sum and we'll see just how ludicrous it is.

I have a better idea: show yourself capable of setting out a logical argument. You have posited that someone could fatally shoot a random pedestrian in a town centre in the face and then get a tariff of just five years on the resulting life sentence. Please now find some evidence for this asumption.

[Derek]

Shooting at random into a crowd? That'll be 18 and a half years then

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nding-men.html

A gunman convicted of shooting a policewoman today received a second life sentence for gunning down two men outside a nightclub.

Wayne McDonald, 49, went on the run after firing at least eight shots into a crowd outside a Bolton nightclub in November 2000, with two men injured in the shooting.

Last year he was given a life sentence for that crime and told he must serve a minimum of 12 years in prison after he was found guilty of wounding with intent to resist arrest.

Today, he received a second life term at Manchester Crown Court for the nightclub shooting and was ordered to serve a minimum of 18 years and six months in jail

Not exactly 5 years is it?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have a better idea: show yourself capable of setting out a logical argument. You have posited that someone could fatally shoot a random pedestrian in a town centre in the face and then get a tariff of just five years on the resulting life sentence. Please now find some evidence for this asumption.

Okay, you've back down. You losing a wad of cash as a result of you stating your desire to see me lose a wad of cash would be a classic case of being "Hoisted by his own petard !".
Perhaps another time then Chris.

What I mentioned about sentencing isn't an assumption as you put it.
I read the news every day, and in recent years there have been countless cases of people literally getting off with light sentences, for murder.
Surely you can think of a few recent cases?

---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

Not exactly 5 years is it?

Derek, lets stick with facts. I said time until released, so your 5 years is actually 10 (half time with good behaviour).

I did a search, and found so many cases of people being sentenced with 3 years (1.5 with good behaviour) that I decided posting links is just futile.

Chris, do you still think the sentencing guidelines are the same no matter if the victim is a pedestrian or a police officer?

If you still believe that, then I'll post some links for 'ya.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Derek, lets stick with facts. I said time until released, so your 5 years is actually 10 (half time with good behaviour).

A life sentence with a minimum tariff of 18 years would mean that after they serve the minimum 18 years they are then eligible to apply for parole but remain on licence for the rest of their life.

They don't automatically stroll out the prison gates at the halfway point.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Okay, you've back down. You losing a wad of cash as a result of you stating your desire to see me lose a wad of cash would be a classic case of being "Hoisted by his own petard !".
Perhaps another time then Chris.

What I mentioned about sentencing isn't an assumption as you put it.
I read the news every day, and in recent years there have been countless cases of people literally getting off with light sentences, for murder.
Surely you can think of a few recent cases?

If you make a claim, in any reasonable debate scenario it's up to you to provide the evidence to back it up. That you don't even appear to grasp this means there's little point continuing.

Quite amusing how you get so excited about me "backing down" though. Are you really 34, or perhaps just 14?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you make a claim, in any reasonable debate scenario it's up to you to provide the evidence to back it up. That you don't even appear to grasp this means there's little point continuing.

Quite amusing how you get so excited about me "backing down" though. Are you really 34, or perhaps just 14?

I was merely indifferent, hardly excited. But if you disagree well then thats quite a claim there Chris, I'll remind you that the initial burden of proof lies with the claiment. This means that if you make a claim, its up to YOU to prove it.
I didn't mean to cause any hurt, my intention was merely to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your sincerity, tbh a simple admission of *wrongliness* would have sufficed (meaning you get to keep your tenner ).

Teacher shot in face by pupil:
£385 fine, and 8 month referral order
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/ne...l/article.html

Need I say more?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Teacher shot in face by pupil:
£385 fine, and 8 month referral order
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/ne...l/article.html

Need I say more?

A couple of things.

The 13-year-old gunman, who cannot be named for legal reasons,

suffered a deep graze to the chin after being shot with a Beretta CO2 powered air pistol.

He was 13. Short of actual murder your chances of getting locked up for crimes when under 16 are pretty remote.

It was an air gun. Whilst they can still be deadly they aren't in the same league as a sawn-off shotgun.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I was merely indifferent, hardly excited. But if you disagree well then thats quite a claim there Chris, I'll remind you that the initial burden of proof lies with the claiment. This means that if you make a claim, its up to YOU to prove it.

I'm glad we agree on that point. In which case, please prove your claim that a lethal shooting of a random passer-by in public would result in a tariff of 5 years.

Teacher shot in face by pupil:
£385 fine, and 8 month referral order
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/ne...l/article.html

Need I say more?

Yes, you do need say more. You need to find evidence of a murderer getting a five-year tariff on his life sentence for a random killing, as per your claim made earlier today.

Causing deliberate injury with a low-powered air pistol, whilst a reprehensible act in itself, does not even come close to matching the crime you described earlier.

Please try harder.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

Causing deliberate injury with a low-powered air pistol, whilst a reprehensible act in itself, does not even come close to matching the crime you described earlier.

Please try harder.

It seems that you fail to realise that you are making just as much of a claim as I am.
I'm saying that if one were to attack a member of the police, expect a stiffer sentence - this is the accepted norm.
You're saying that if one were to attack a member of the police, then you are sentenced the same - this goes against common understanding.

The burden is actually on you to prove your case, as extradordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You absolutely cannot prove your stance, because its pure fantasy and exists mainly within the confines of your mind.

C'mon Chris, everyone knows that if you attack the police, then its interpreted (by the system) as an attack on the system, and sentences are handed out as such.

As for the single link I provided, that case could've easily been interpreted as attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, etc. If you didn't realise, air pistols can kill too.

Here's another example, this time of a random killing (not involving police) and a lenient sentence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/de...girl-remain-uk

Now, I ask you this: If Mohammed Ibrahim had run over a policeman, do you think the sentence (or lack of) would've been the same ?

Ah, the goalposts move from "murder" to "driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident"

Originally Posted by Sparkle

It seems that you fail to realise that you are making just as much of a claim as I am.
I'm saying that if one were to attack a member of the police, expect a stiffer sentence - this is the accepted norm.
You're saying that if one were to attack a member of the police, then you are sentenced the same - this goes against common understanding.

I am making no claims at all. I certainly have not made the claim that you say I have. I have simply asked you to provide evidence for yours.

Please prove that a random, fatal shooting of a member of the public in a British high street has ever resulted in, or is likely to result in, a life term with a tariff of only five years.

Can you do that, or not?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

I am making no claims at all. I certainly have not made the claim that you say I have. I have simply asked you to provide evidence for yours.

Please prove that a random, fatal shooting of a member of the public in a British high street has ever resulted in, or is likely to result in, a life term with a tariff of only five years.

Can you do that, or not?

Directed at Hugh also, since when was the specific targetting of police officers a random killing? Indeed, speak about "moving goalposts" right enough.
Chris, you say its red, I say its blue. When clearly its blue, then you resort to oh wait, you said it was a "particular kind of blue". As if arguing pedantics somehow validates you stance.
However, in this case it won't save you since of course I can provide evidence. I'm just rather dumfounded that you actually need me to cite a reference for you to know that in this country, murderers *rarely* get life sentences. Criminals sent to prison for murder are often out in less than 5 years.