Raoul Moat accomplice jailed for 40 yrs

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

A simple "No, I can't" would have done.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Ah, hit and run isn't murder then. Okay Hugh.

Chris, I'll provide some links later.

---------- Post added at 15:10 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

A simple "No, I can't" would have done.

Oh yes I certainly can, I'll take your comment as admission that you actually don't believe murderers often spend less than 5 yrs in jail. This is for the record. You also haven't acknowledged what Derek mentioned, in that if one were to attack the police then a stiffer sentence should be expected.
Both points will be put to bed later.

Its just fortunate for you that I'm actually at work now, and although I can type a message, Googling isn't possible at this time. Have patience

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Criminals sent to prison for murder are often out in less than 5 years.

Balls. The average length of time someone on a life sentence spends in pokey is in the region of 12 years. Since murder attracts a mandatory sentence they fall into this category.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Ah, hit and run isn't murder then. Okay Hugh.

Correct. Thats why he wasn't charged with murder or even causing death by dangerous driving.

Unless of course you think everyone who is involved in a fatal RTA should get jailed regardless of whether they were at fault.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Ah, hit and run isn't murder then. Okay Hugh.

Chris, I'll provide some links later.

Obviously not, otherwise the charge would have been murder, surely?

Anyhoo, look forward to your evidence supporting your statement

Criminals sent to prison for murder are often out in less than 5 years.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Obviously not, otherwise the charge would have been murder, surely?

Anyhoo, look forward to your evidence supporting your statement

Me too.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Oh yes I certainly can, I'll take your comment as admission that you actually don't believe murderers often spend less than 5 yrs in jail. This is for the record. You also haven't acknowledged what Derek mentioned, in that if one were to attack the police then a stiffer sentence should be expected.
Both points will be put to bed later.

I'm not holding out much hope to be honest, Sparkie.

You've demonstrated some fairly basic ignorance of the criminal justice system throughout this thread, you see, starting with your misunderstanding of how the life sentence tariff system works. Derek set you straight on it a few posts back back. I noticed you never acknowledged his post on this subject. I assume you thought nobody would notice that you got called out on this fairly basic error. Bad luck.

You have a very strange definition of "murder" - seemingly, any crime in which someone ends up dead, which makes great road safety headlines but is about as close to being legally accurate as any sentence containing the words "Tony Benn", "Margaret Thatcher" and "Secret Love Nest".

You also have a tendency to see arguments and claims where there are none. I've never made any comment on the sentencing guidelines for crimes against police officers. It is uncontentious and not worth arguing about. Criminals can, and often do, come off worse than otherwise in these situations, for the reasons Derek again explained earlier. Your continual wailing about what I supposedly believe on this subject is a pretty poor strawman designed to deflect attention from the shaky foundations of your own argument. Again, bad luck, I don't think anyone's falling for it.

My comments to you have been strictly limited to my request for you to provide the evidence on which you base the claim that someone convicted of the crime under discussion in this thread - the fatal shooting of someone in a public street - would be likely to spend only five years in jail *if* their victim had been Joe Public rather than PC Plum. No amount of huffing and puffing over the sentencing guidelines for crimes against the police is going to prove that point for you. You are going to have to find a media report of someone being convicted in Court of murdering someone in public, with a firearm, receiving the mandatory life sentence and then being handed a tariff of only five years.

Its just fortunate for you that I'm actually at work now, and although I can type a message, Googling isn't possible at this time. Have patience

Your employer blocks Google but lets you make repeated posts to internet bulletin boards? Bizarre. I guess I will just have to think myself lucky that I'll be spared your l33t Google skillz for a few more hours.

[Sparkle]

It seems that Chris and Derek have proven me wrong. I was sure there was no possible way I could witness a greater perversion of my words than what I'd already seen before by said individuals, but I've been proven wrong. Unravelling this misconstrued, twisted cauldron of confusion - is going to take a little while.

Originally Posted by Chris

You've demonstrated some fairly basic ignorance of the criminal justice system throughout this thread, you see, starting with your misunderstanding of how the life sentence tariff system works.

I think you'll find that you read the bits that suit your case, but ignore the rest. For starters, although I do understand how the justice system works - it is still decided by the system to define a crime as murder or not.

You need to read my posts in context, I was presenting the previous instance as an example of how someone can get off lightly (presumably because the prisons are full), but yet had it been a police officer that was run over, the full sentence would have been given.

Instead, what you read was that "Sparkle displays ignorance of how the criminal justice system works", "Sparkle thinks running someone over with a vehicle is exactly the same as shooting someone in the face" and "Sparkle thinks that any activity that results in the death of an individual is the same."
You see, you are only seeing what you want to, but these are merely your misinterpretations of what I've written. But I'm sure you won't see that, because you won't want to.

Derek set you straight on it a few posts back back. I noticed you never acknowledged his post on this subject. I assume you thought nobody would notice that you got called out on this fairly basic error. Bad luck.

Actually, Derek pretty much confirmed my point, not called me out on it.
You'll recall, my point being that there is one law for us when we assault each other, and another when we assault the police, for exactly the reasons which Derek stated. When he cited the 18 year sentence for a random shooting, that the 18 yrs is far less than 40 yrs, further corroborates my point.

Your continual wailing about what I supposedly believe on this subject is a pretty poor strawman designed to deflect attention from the shaky foundations of your own argument. Again, bad luck, I don't think anyone's falling for it.

I think you'll find it is you who is focusing on the strawman argument about whether a person who commits murder will be released within 5 years. My main focus has been the stiffer sentences that seem to be given if a crime is commited against the police. That was my first post, and the only reason I've been posting in this thread. If you don't disagree with that, then why are you wasting my time?

You are going to have to find a media report of someone being convicted in Court of murdering someone in public, with a firearm, receiving the mandatory life sentence and then being handed a tariff of only five years.

Again you distort the facts, I said "shot in face", not murder.

Twice I've reiterated in this thread that I was referring to "out in 5 years", which typically equates to 10 yr sentence.
I never said "murder as is determined by the system". Murder can be "killed in cold blood", and yet a light sentence served based upon a technicality.
10 years usually means out in 5 years for good behaviour. Your continual detraction from the points I've reiterated time and time again, simply demonstrates that you're clutching at straws, once yet again during our discussions.

Your employer blocks Google but lets you make repeated posts to internet bulletin boards? Bizarre. I guess I will just have to think myself lucky that I'll be spared your l33t Google skillz for a few more hours.

Once again, you see only what you want to. My employer does not block Google, but with other people working in the office installing a new phone system, I'd rather not be surfin' - but I understand that you needed to twist my words in attempt to claw back some leverage in what is increasing looking like a lost cause on your part.

So now, just to summarise. You say that all you're doing is asking for corroboration for my first comment (that a person can shoot someone in the face and be out of prison within 5 yrs), but yet you upgrade this to "murder by shooting in the face", and then further upgrade to "random murder by shooting in the face".

So, to be fair (without the additional add-ons), all you really need to see is an example of someone shooting someone, and then out in 5 years, eh?

I personally don't see the difference that using a gun makes, since if Moat had used a knife rather than a gun, the sentences would've been the same.
However, finding examples involving firearms shouldn't be difficult.

Now, lets find some links for you.
---------------------------------------

Boy shoots and kills friend, 5 yrs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-5-years.html


Robbery, fatal stabbing, involving 4 men - armed with a knife and gun
Sentenced 6 yrs, 5 yrs, 35 weeks, and 35 weeks.
http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/ne...ch-went-wrong/

Revenge attack, 5 yrs (stabbed 7 times)
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven..._on_wifebeater

Random bus attack, 17 yr old sentenced to 4 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-1976095.html

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Boy shoots and kills friend, 5 yrs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-5-years.html

That wasn't murder.

Robbery, fatal stabbing, involving 4 men - armed with a knife and gun
Sentenced 6 yrs, 5 yrs, 35 weeks, and 35 weeks.
http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/ne...ch-went-wrong/

That's not 5 years.

Revenge attack, 5 yrs (stabbed 7 times)
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven..._on_wifebeater

That was just 5 years.

Random bus attack, 17 yr old sentenced to 4 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-1976095.html

That wasn't murder.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

---------------------------------------

Boy shoots and kills friend, 5 yrs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-5-years.html


Robbery, fatal stabbing, involving 4 men - armed with a knife and gun
Sentenced 6 yrs, 5 yrs, 35 weeks, and 35 weeks.
http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/ne...ch-went-wrong/

Revenge attack, 5 yrs (stabbed 7 times)
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven..._on_wifebeater

Random bus attack, 17 yr old sentenced to 4 years
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-1976095.html

none of those are murder

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Murderers, rapists, paedophiles, and terrorists get less.
I *get* that the courts wish to create a deterrent in order to help protect the police, but since when was the life of a police officer deemed greater than that of a member of the public ?
I know of cases where people have been brutally murdered at random, and the perpetrator (never mind any accomplice) received far far less of a sentence. I'm sure most if not all of us could cite similar cases.

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.

It's not a case of "a policeman's life is worth more" it's a case of it being a more serious offence to attack a police officer .In all your ramblings throughout this thread trying to prove that someone sentenced for murder (mandatory life) will be out in 5 yrs you have missed that there are different degrees of murder.There is the premeditated and heat of the moment kind which will be reflected in sentencing i.e minimum years behind bars .
The 2 characters that this thread relates to are of the worse kind .Although neither one shot or killed anyone they helped someone,namely Moat,to kill and try to kill knowing full well what he was doing without showing any remorse whatsoever,they helped plan the whole affair knowing it would end in murder .If someone suddenly loses the plot and shoots a random stranger then yes it is murder but not in the same league as these 2 scroats

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

It seems that Chris and Derek have proven me wrong. I was sure there was no possible way I could witness a greater perversion of my words than what I'd already seen before by said individuals, but I've been proven wrong. Unravelling this misconstrued, twisted cauldron of confusion - is going to take a little while.

I truly fail to see why you are arguing over these 2 *******s being given lengthy sentences as they deserved the terms they received as without them the ******* moat would not have been able to carry out his heinous crimes.

It is a pity that hanging is not an option as I would pull the lever on **** like this without blinking.

[toonlight]

Originally Posted by martyh

A minimum of 40yrs before being considered for parole .The judge went to town on him ,good for him

Well, as moat got killed by the law in the first place (they won't admit to it -using non-legal weapons), moat dies. Now after all the money law spent on looking for him drumming up public fear & hate + distrust in the area.
They have to put some one/others in the dock to window dress the whole issue as to explain to whole mess the law made in the first place. If they didn't there would calls from the high rafters in all places for high level inquiry on what went wrong + the peoples in control, there for heads to roll into there quick retirement from the force forever. Little do the public know about what went one in the hunt/inquiry, if we did - the tables would have turned & the officers in charge would have to be charged with murder/ 1st man-slaughter /corruption/lack of duty etc.
The true facts will never get out, just the one the law wants you to believe.

But the law has had there pound of flesh they where looking for, from the remaining two men. The case for unfair trail for the above is leaking from the seams, but only after the law admits to there own murder of the main suspect & until then these two will do time while the law covers/papers up the real truth..... It's all about money that police haven't got, just think if moat's family sued the force for unlawful murder in the 1st degree -how much money would there be to have to keep it all quiet? A question that will never be answered, till time lets the true facts out.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by toonlight

Well, as moat got killed by the law in the first place (they won't admit to it -using non-legal weapons), moat dies.

I personally would shake the hands of the policemen that shot him as he deserved it and as above I would pull the lever on his scaffold as well.

Originally Posted by toonlight

Well, as moat got killed by the law in the first place (they won't admit to it -using non-legal weapons), moat dies. Now after all the money law spent on looking for him drumming up public fear & hate + distrust in the area.
They have to put some one/others in the dock to window dress the whole issue as to explain to whole mess the law made in the first place. If they didn't there would calls from the high rafters in all places for high level inquiry on what went wrong + the peoples in control, there for heads to roll into there quick retirement from the force forever. Little do the public know about what went one in the hunt/inquiry, if we did - the tables would have turned & the officers in charge would have to be charged with murder/ 1st man-slaughter /corruption/lack of duty etc.
The true facts will never get out, just the one the law wants you to believe.

But the law has had there pound of flesh they where looking for, from the remaining two men. The case for unfair trail for the above is leaking from the seams, but only after the law admits to there own murder of the main suspect & until then these two will do time while the law covers/papers up the real truth..... It's all about money that police haven't got, just think if moat's family sued the force for unlawful murder in the 1st degree -how much money would there be to have to keep it all quiet? A question that will never be answered, till time lets the true facts out.

oh good grief

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

oh good grief

Come on you cannot be that surprised now.

Originally Posted by toonlight

Well, as moat got killed by the law in the first place (they won't admit to it -using non-legal weapons), moat dies. Now after all the money law spent on looking for him drumming up public fear & hate + distrust in the area.
They have to put some one/others in the dock to window dress the whole issue as to explain to whole mess the law made in the first place. If they didn't there would calls from the high rafters in all places for high level inquiry on what went wrong + the peoples in control, there for heads to roll into there quick retirement from the force forever. Little do the public know about what went one in the hunt/inquiry, if we did - the tables would have turned & the officers in charge would have to be charged with murder/ 1st man-slaughter /corruption/lack of duty etc.
The true facts will never get out, just the one the law wants you to believe.

But the law has had there pound of flesh they where looking for, from the remaining two men. The case for unfair trail for the above is leaking from the seams, but only after the law admits to there own murder of the main suspect & until then these two will do time while the law covers/papers up the real truth..... It's all about money that police haven't got, just think if moat's family sued the force for unlawful murder in the 1st degree -how much money would there be to have to keep it all quiet? A question that will never be answered, till time lets the true facts out.

What planet do you live on?Moat and his friends cold bloodedly planned to murder two people and succeeded in one case.It was premeditated in nature and if Moat hadn't taken the cowards way out he would be facing the same sentence as these two..The fact that they didn't succeed in killing more wasn't for lack of trying and they are not the innocent hard done by victims of a conspiracy.

The only conspiracy there was was the one Moat and friends had to kill an entirely innocent human being.

Your sympathies are entirely misplaced.