Thomas Cashman

Fair enough. I can't really argue or disagree with any of that.

 

Some folk on here baffle me.

If you pull the trigger, you're intending to kill someone. It's that simple

 

Unfortunately the law doesn’t agree

 

Why else do you aim the gun at someone and pull the trigger?

 

I mean that's very simplistic and almost certainly not universally true. In this case the intent to kill was clear hence the conclusion the judge reached.
Also a distinction is made between premeditated and spontaneous.
I think some of the posts in this thread are just people looking at things from a legal perspective. I haven't seen anyone suggest this horrible man does not deserve the sentence handed down today.

 

I get that mate, but guns are made for one reason only right? I detest the things. They're either a deterrent, or used to kill. Guns (without special permits) aren't allowed in this country, if you're a carrying a gun, whilst dealing drugs, you're aware at some point you may use that gun, hence the reason you've taken it with you. You've made the conscious decision to take that gun with you, hardly spontaneous.

 

Agree totally but …..

 

Sounds as though this guy doesn't/didn't carry a gun for protection. Its believed he's killed others. He's a hitman, but a poor one at that, Running round after his target. I can't see him being around for long. Bounty or not..

 

Exactly.

 

F*ck him.

I hope he dies in prison and his scumbag family lives their miserable lives failing to profit from their sons/relatives drug money.

lovely person*s

 

There are 2 stages of the legal process at play here. The first is to determine if he is guilty of murder. To commit murder does not need an intent to kill someone, it requires an intent to commit Gbh that results in death. In order to reach that conclusion the law has a doctrine of transfer of malice. He meant to kill or Gbh the drug dealer but killed the little girl instead but as a consequence. Hence the girls death was murder even if he showed he had no intent to kill her. The second stage is the judges recommendation for the custodial tariff of the life sentence. It is at this point the question of his intention comes into play. If he had shot the daughter of a rival dealer to punish that dealer in a deliberate act then he'd possibly have got a whole life tariff. If he'd succeeded in killing the rival dealer in the alleyway he'd have got around 30 years. In any event he is extremely unlikely to get out. He showed zero remorse, has all the hallmarks of a psychopath and probably won't get much of a chance to demonstrate improvement as he's likely to be a cat A special risk prisoner unable to engage with offender management even if he wanted to. no parole board would sanction his release.

 

Agree 100% and that's why the judge made the decision she did.

However I still believe a blanket statement of "If you pull the trigger, you're intending to kill someone" is not correct. It will be correct for a lot of cases but law has to be more complex to allow it be applied to a wide variety of situations.

 

Although it was in another jurisdiction, Alec Baldwin would be an example?

 

And always a legal curiosity that attempted murder requires a higher standard (namely the intent to kill).

 

If you shoot into a house then that's considered murder, because houses are where people live, it's not considered manslaughter.

 

Not just that he was shooting with the intent to kill the person he was chasing. That's clear premeditated intent to kill.

 

Yes it would. Accidental shootings do happen, that's not to say they are blameless but intent to kill will not be present. Blanket statements such as the one @Tyke The Tree-Frog made are seldom helpful. Though I fully understand the disdain towards Guns that likely motivated it.