what is this
'reasonable person' you talk of? stupid question moving on.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:41, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

The reasonable person is a judicial construct which embodies how any given person should behave in a given circumstance.

( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:42, Reply)

how in the name of French buggery
can it be decided how someone should behave in any situation? far too many factors to be considered especially with a topic like murder. You did say murder didn't you? not man slaughter or anything, the intent has to be there. It's just a game of what ifs and maybes I don't see the point.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:47, Reply)

there are ways of defining a reasonable person
a whole list of them in fact, or the law could not function
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:51, Reply)

who said it did function?

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:53, Reply)

me.

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:55, Reply)

ha
You and old Wormpus obviously know your stuff on this one regarding the details and fine points etc but it's like the word normal. I find it completely meaningless. I don't like how terms are thrown around like reasonable person etc because my first thought is how the hell do you know they are reasonable? it's just ambiguous and massively assumptive.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:00, Reply)

The way it is used is:
The facts are that Mr X stabbed Mr Y becuase Mr X had caught MR Y abusing his disabled son.

The jury have to decide whether those actions are consistent with what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances.

They can consider any personal quirks that Mr X has, but only in so far as they relate to the provocativeness of the provocation (calling a guy with a massive nose 'The Elephant Man' for instance) but not to Mr X's general capacity to be provoked (his short temper for instance)

It's all very confusing. What I'm trying to get at is What would provoke you into killing? Do you think you should be punished afterwards?
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:19, Reply)

If you read my question you'll notice that I didn't use the word 'Murder' or 'Manslughter'
I know the law, I'm not really interested in talking about that.

My question is really 'What sort of circumstances can provoke an ordinary person into killing another human being (excluding things like killing in self-defence or where the ordinary person is rendered incapable)
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:54, Reply)

In answer then
I imagine that child abuse of your child would provoke blind rage (not saying it's right just it would happen) quite probably enough to kill, especially if there was a knife/gun etc around. Or torture (exemplified in battered wife cases for example)
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 11:58, Reply)

I really don't think I would fly into a blind rage
I'd probably just do what I always do and go into super-serious sensible mode.
I'd want the suspected abuser to stand trial and for me to be able to resume my life afterwards.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:01, Reply)

I am quite robotic though.

( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:02, Reply)

I am too
I've had many people say things like "I couldn't do what you do, if I saw that I'd want to kill them" etc. Me, I want to see Justice prevail.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:07, Reply)

Personally
I can't think of anything that would make me want to kill as I said below, apart from self defense. I suppose being raped might make me quite angry though, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't kill though. Maybe some GBH
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:09, Reply)

careful here
MR for murder can be GBH.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:12, Reply)

true
but I wouldn't kill. I doubt I have the physical strength to kill someone, and the dodgiest bit of the law has always been the amount of time between provocation and action. I doubt I could justify going and finding a weapon to kill someone with
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:14, Reply)

You don't need the strength or the weapon
It's the intent that counts. I assume that, if you were attacked and you pushed them off and ran, it would be fair to say that murder was not your intent. If you stopped to put the boot in, that becomes less clear.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:18, Reply)

It's a tricky one though.
If I'm in a fight and genuinely doubt it's going to end with the standard mild to moderate beating, and if by some fluke I knock the other guy down, I'm going to make damn sure he doesn't get up again to come after me once I've legged it. Admittedly I'd probably stamp on his knee rather than his head, but I suspect that would probably still get me ABH/GBH.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:23, Reply)

only if you thought kicking them was liable to kill. Though as far as I remember a pre-existing condition like in R v Ruby is no defense if they do happen to be susceptible.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:27, Reply)

Right
No intent to kill or cause BGH, no murder conviction, however, it raises a new issue of excessive force in self-defence as a defence to Unlawful Act MS.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:30, Reply)

hard to define excessive force
particularly since self defence can kick in before any actual hurt is caused. Just have to feel threatened really
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:32, Reply)

what's an ordinary person?

( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:02, Reply)

I'm using it synonymously with 'Reasonable Man'
Which I explained above.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:13, Reply)

I know Mr Roboto
I was being facetious. I was merely reinforcing my point.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:17, Reply)

I've fleshed it out a bit for you.
See above.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:21, Reply)

I understand it
I'm not angry with you I am irritated with the way everything has to be compartmentalised, including people. I don't have an alternative though so I just have to accept it. I just think it's a little naive calling people ordinary or normal.

Would I kill someone? and if so what would they have to do? God knows I hope never to find out.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:26, Reply)

Are you also excluding situations like war
Or armed police who shoot a guy before that guy can shoot the hostage? People who are trained in the use of weapons, and where killing someone arguably falls within what's expected of their job (ok, armed police aren't expected to always kill, but you know what I mean).
I hope you don't find my ignorant questioning irritating, I do find this quite fascinating, and like to devil's advocate and hypothesise on these sorts of things.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:06, Reply)

"I'm excluding circumstances where the law would offer a separate defence like being bonkers or killing in self-defence."
In each of those circumstances the law offers a defence to that killing.

See also: turning off a life-support machine or performing surgery to separate a parasitic conjoined twin.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:08, Reply)

Thought as much, but wanted to clarify
Still thinking...
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:15, Reply)