This is how the UK handles domestic abuse that leads to brutal murder

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: woogleuk

You posted links to opinions. I posted a link stating the differences by percentages in a study by doctors on muscle mass.


I apologize for calling you immature. But it was the only description I could come to when I confronted you with actual facts and and you denied them. ( I will acknowledge that facts and logic really irritate some people)

I even quoted statements from your links back to you and you still deny the truth.

Hey buddy I hope this clears up some of the grey area for you!

originally posted by: woogleuk
Murder = you meant to do it, manslaughter = accidental through violent means (i think)

Sort of.

Murder is when you intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm - ie, you only wanted to seriously hurt them, not kill them, but they died anyway.

If you commit murder, but it can be shown that you weren't in your right mind at the time, it can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. What would actually happen is that you would be indicted for murder but could offer a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, loss of control, etc.

If you didn't intend to kill or hurt someone, but they died as a result of your grossly negligent/unlawful/dangerous actions, this would be involuntary manslaughter.

As a rough summary.

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
You do not get a say at Magistrates, they commit to Crown based on CPS lecture, no say. Crown is no better, you get no say prior to committal to trial, best bet in Crown is to have your Barrister speak to CPS (as in my case) and show them (crown) they have no chance of winning.

Criminal offences in the UK are split into three categories - summary offences, indictable offences, and either-way offences - which influences whether you end up in Mags or Crown. Depending on what they charged you with, it's not always up to the CPS or the judge to decide where the case is heard. The only input you have is that either-way cases can only be heard at the Mags with your consent.

While it sounds a bit unfair, it actually makes logical sense - the defendant doesn't get to choose what they are being charged with, after all.

Glad to hear it got resolved in your favour though.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: stumason

By your repeated excuses and need to make exceptions to the well-established and known facts of physical prowess.

I can only assume you approve of men beating on women?

"Physical prowess" is relevant up to a point, but there's a much bigger Rubicon to cross first before it comes into play.

I'm physically bigger, stronger, and better trained (boxing, muay thai, etc) than my wife. I'm not mentally or emotionally capable of hitting her. Simply couldn't do it. She, on the other hand, would have absolutely no reservations if the situation ever arose. It hasn't, and it won't, but I'd get my arse kicked if it did.

In fact I don't need to rely on conjecture, I can make a point from experience. Two idiots high on whatever tried to break into our house while I was out. It later turned out they were looking to beat/kill/punish a rival drugdealer but had the wrong address. My wife physically fought them back as they tried to get through the back door into the kitchen. That little woman (she's tiny, bless her) physically forced two grown men far enough back to get the door closed and locked. It wasn't about physical prowess, it was all about mindset, determination, and unleashing her inner rage.

All that being said, I completely agree that men start from having a significant advantage, that in many cases the woman is far more vulnerable because of both physicality and mindset, and that anybody (man or woman) who takes advantage of another person's vulnerability through physical, psychological, or emotional aggression is an absolute cretin. However, I completely disagree with the assertion you seem to be making that men are impervious to it because they're bigger and stronger.

It can actually be easier for a woman to be abusive to a man because they're not programmed from birth to restrain themselves (you never hear little girls being told "you never punch a man, it's not right") and people will automatically tend to side with the woman because of the exact viewpoint that you are pushing.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I'm physically bigger, stronger, and better trained (boxing, muay thai, etc) than my wife. I'm not mentally or emotionally capable of hitting her. Simply couldn't do it. She, on the other hand, would have absolutely no reservations if the situation ever arose. It hasn't, and it won't, but I'd get my arse kicked if it did.

I agree with this point too. A lot of men are incapable of hitting women.

I was in a long relationship with a woman who used to get jealous when we went out. We were in our late 20s so it was just the way she was rather than adolescent immaturity. I took a number of good slaps off her and never could strike her back. I remember raging at her about it one time and she dared me to hit her back...actually invited it.

I sort of swelled up inside and still couldn't do it. It was like some weird switch wouldn't allow me to raise a hand against her. Yeah I loved her and it wasn't that that stopped me, it was just wrong to hit a female even though a man doing the same thing would very swiftly earn a bloody good punch.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa


You'd have to have a huge amount of plants to get even a day in prison.

Here in the U.S. My little brother was stabbed by his drunk girlfriend and bled to death on the floor. She was given 6 years so I don't get it.