Joint Enterprise

[Mr. Martinez]

silly law

negro induced however

What do you mean?

[charliechalk]

JE can f*ck off.

[Axiom]

I think that it is a good thing tbh, purely from how I have read the law itself.

People who are guilty of aiding/abetting/counsel/procument or inducing people into a crime, face the prospect of being charged with the same offence as the principal offender, as long as they are aware of what they are doing. In cases where it is a number of people who assist in the crime, I don't see why they shouldn't all face the same charge, especially where the circumstances are like that of the boy who was killed in Victoria.

there's a problem with this

this law will recognize 'assistance' as just being there and being aware of the perpetrator's knife

which in most cases with these road yutes, one of them will have a knife on them and the rest do know but do they know that said person is gonna pull it out and put it in that person's chest? in some situations yes they might know and in some situations they might not know

but in both situations they will be sent down for murder. that's too harsh on these yutes, most of them can't even comprehend the greater scale of their actions and yet they're going to be put in prison for LIFE+, just for being present during a murder? that's too much they need to lower the sentencing for those charged with JE, atleast to manslaughter.

the thing is those same yutes that get sent down will probably grow up and regret alot of the sh*t they did, because at the time....they were brainless kids out to get a rep. but this law doesn't recognize this 'human element' whatsoever, it paints them all with the same brush and sends them down for murder

bullshit imo

however i agree that if you actually involved yourself in the stabbing (as in took an active part) then you should be held accountable

[Mr Q]

I think that it is a good thing tbh, purely from how I have read the law itself.

People who are guilty of aiding/abetting/counsel/procument or inducing people into a crime, face the prospect of being charged with the same offence as the principal offender, as long as they are aware of what they are doing. In cases where it is a number of people who assist in the crime, I don't see why they shouldn't all face the same charge, especially where the circumstances are like that of the boy who was killed in Victoria.

there's a problem with this

this law will recognize 'assistance' as just being there and being aware of the perpetrator's knife

which in most cases with these road yutes, one of them will have a knife on them and the rest do know but do they know that said person is gonna pull it out and put it in that person's chest? in some situations yes they might know and in some situations they might not know

but in both situations they will be sent down for murder. that's too harsh on these yutes, most of them can't even comprehend the greater scale of their actions and yet they're going to be put in prison for LIFE+, just for being present during a murder? that's too much they need to lower the sentencing for those charged with JE, atleast to manslaughter.

the thing is those same yutes that get sent down will probably grow up and regret alot of the sh*t they did, because at the time....they were brainless kids out to get a rep. but this law doesn't recognize this 'human element' whatsoever, it paints them all with the same brush and sends them down for murder

bullshit imo

however i agree that if you actually involved yourself in the stabbing (as in took an active part) then you should be held accountable

Yeah, I hear what you are saying. The written law says that, a person will only be charged with the principal offence though where they are aware that a person has a knife and thinks that the person will use it with intent to kill or cause GBH. If, it occurs that something happens different to the original plan, then it it wasn't within the contemplation of the "accomplice" then they won't be charged with the same crime.

So fundamentally I don't see much wrong with the law itself, its the implementation of it when juries then have to decide whether the accomplice had the outcome within their contemplation.

I find it a complicated piece of law and baffling, trying to get my head around it for revision.

Your second point about kids growing up regretting and stuff, yeah I agree with that, personally I think we need to change the way that minors (anyone under 16) are charged, I don't think they should be put on trial in the same way full grown adults do (especially in some circumstances of murder and rape). Also, I don't think juries give trials the human element that they are supposed to you know, but that is the fault of the way they are instructed most of the time.

/

I like when VIP2 flips it up and has good debate, props to Gunner.

[North Aleng]

its a dumb law in CERTAIN cirmcustances tbh

example: your rollin wid a bruda, get stopped ur guy has food on him, u hav a bit of change, BAM ur now a joint enterprise to feds, even if u knew nothing bout wat ur boy had on him

[TF S4DK]

It works in certain cases, its shocking in other cases.

For example, man A got merked in the barbers, now man A got clocked going in barbers by man B who made the call to man C, man C tried to get a cab but cab was being long so he made man D drive him to the barbers, man D then drove off, man C done his ting to man A.

Now the people in prison are Man C & D. Man B who IMO should have been locked up is free. Man D is in prison bacause basically in the police's eyes he should have snitched man C before the crime, despite them knowing that man C would have bun Man D if he hadnt drove him..

[Axiom]

I think that it is a good thing tbh, purely from how I have read the law itself.

People who are guilty of aiding/abetting/counsel/procument or inducing people into a crime, face the prospect of being charged with the same offence as the principal offender, as long as they are aware of what they are doing. In cases where it is a number of people who assist in the crime, I don't see why they shouldn't all face the same charge, especially where the circumstances are like that of the boy who was killed in Victoria.

there's a problem with this

this law will recognize 'assistance' as just being there and being aware of the perpetrator's knife

which in most cases with these road yutes, one of them will have a knife on them and the rest do know but do they know that said person is gonna pull it out and put it in that person's chest? in some situations yes they might know and in some situations they might not know

but in both situations they will be sent down for murder. that's too harsh on these yutes, most of them can't even comprehend the greater scale of their actions and yet they're going to be put in prison for LIFE+, just for being present during a murder? that's too much they need to lower the sentencing for those charged with JE, atleast to manslaughter.

the thing is those same yutes that get sent down will probably grow up and regret alot of the sh*t they did, because at the time....they were brainless kids out to get a rep. but this law doesn't recognize this 'human element' whatsoever, it paints them all with the same brush and sends them down for murder

bullshit imo

however i agree that if you actually involved yourself in the stabbing (as in took an active part) then you should be held accountable

Yeah, I hear what you are saying. The written law says that, a person will only be charged with the principal offence though where they are aware that a person has a knife and thinks that the person will use it with intent to kill or cause GBH. If, it occurs that something happens different to the original plan, then it it wasn't within the contemplation of the "accomplice" then they won't be charged with the same crime.

So fundamentally I don't see much wrong with the law itself, its the implementation of it when juries then have to decide whether the accomplice had the outcome within their contemplation.

I find it a complicated piece of law and baffling, trying to get my head around it for revision.

Your second point about kids growing up regretting and stuff, yeah I agree with that, personally I think we need to change the way that minors (anyone under 16) are charged, I don't think they should be put on trial in the same way full grown adults do (especially in some circumstances of murder and rape). Also, I don't think juries give trials the human element that they are supposed to you know, but that is the fault of the way they are instructed most of the time.

/

I like when VIP2 flips it up and has good debate, props to Gunner.

you sure about that? from what i know, if you go to a fight with knowledge of a peer carrying a knife, the jury will take it as you knowing that the stabbing of that said person was a foreseeable outcome thus making you accountable

[Guest Yilmaz]

hes being a stupid f*ck*ng prick.

[Mr Q]

I think that it is a good thing tbh, purely from how I have read the law itself.

People who are guilty of aiding/abetting/counsel/procument or inducing people into a crime, face the prospect of being charged with the same offence as the principal offender, as long as they are aware of what they are doing. In cases where it is a number of people who assist in the crime, I don't see why they shouldn't all face the same charge, especially where the circumstances are like that of the boy who was killed in Victoria.

there's a problem with this

this law will recognize 'assistance' as just being there and being aware of the perpetrator's knife

which in most cases with these road yutes, one of them will have a knife on them and the rest do know but do they know that said person is gonna pull it out and put it in that person's chest? in some situations yes they might know and in some situations they might not know

but in both situations they will be sent down for murder. that's too harsh on these yutes, most of them can't even comprehend the greater scale of their actions and yet they're going to be put in prison for LIFE+, just for being present during a murder? that's too much they need to lower the sentencing for those charged with JE, atleast to manslaughter.

the thing is those same yutes that get sent down will probably grow up and regret alot of the sh*t they did, because at the time....they were brainless kids out to get a rep. but this law doesn't recognize this 'human element' whatsoever, it paints them all with the same brush and sends them down for murder

bullshit imo

however i agree that if you actually involved yourself in the stabbing (as in took an active part) then you should be held accountable

Yeah, I hear what you are saying. The written law says that, a person will only be charged with the principal offence though where they are aware that a person has a knife and thinks that the person will use it with intent to kill or cause GBH. If, it occurs that something happens different to the original plan, then it it wasn't within the contemplation of the "accomplice" then they won't be charged with the same crime.

So fundamentally I don't see much wrong with the law itself, its the implementation of it when juries then have to decide whether the accomplice had the outcome within their contemplation.

I find it a complicated piece of law and baffling, trying to get my head around it for revision.

Your second point about kids growing up regretting and stuff, yeah I agree with that, personally I think we need to change the way that minors (anyone under 16) are charged, I don't think they should be put on trial in the same way full grown adults do (especially in some circumstances of murder and rape). Also, I don't think juries give trials the human element that they are supposed to you know, but that is the fault of the way they are instructed most of the time.

/

I like when VIP2 flips it up and has good debate, props to Gunner.

you sure about that? from what i know, if you go to a fight with knowledge of a peer carrying a knife, the jury will take it as you knowing that the stabbing of that said person was a foreseeable outcome thus making you accountable

Yeah, if you have knowledge of the knife, because that isn't something totally different to what could occur, I meant where, they go to have a fight, unaware that there is a knife and someone uses it, then that is different from the original plan.

[Yuri]

lol @ calling yourselves black mafia

do they know how much sicilians despise black people

/

yeah people go on to regret their actions, but the families of victims still get life sentences as they say

like people said, law is useful when applied correctly and bullshit when not, same as with all laws

[Guest Yilmaz]

lol @ calling yourselves black mafia

do they know how much sicilians despise black people

maybe, but what they've created is genius

and is worthy of copy

shout outs to my JBM ppl out in philly

[Guest jrealz]

It's a dumb concept because in most cases, half these guys who were present and took an active role in the murder aren't even charged.

That article mentions Martin Dinnegan who was 14 when he was killed.

Now four boys were on trial for his murder. Rene(21), Sean(19), Joseph(15) and Kevron(16) . Each took an active role in Martins death, yet only one of them gets charged for murder. Why is that?

Joseph saw Martin on a bus and accused him of giving him a dirty look, so he and his friends rode after the bus and confronted Martins group. They started intimidating Martins group, so two of Martins group chased them out of the park and that was that. Joseph later came back with his friends and had recruited Kevron and Sean to come with him, Kevron was armed with a screwdriver and Sean had a moped helmet. Kevron started saying he would shank anyone who tried it with him, whilst Sean confronted Martin who was sitting on a bench talking to a girl and ended up wacking him over the head with his helmet, to which Martin didn't react.

Anyway, they ended up being chased out of the park yet again by Martins friends. Later on Martin and his friends were walking down the road when they bumped into Joseph, Kevron and Sean who were now joined by alot more boys including Rene. Who were all on pedal bikes and Sean on a moped. They then began to start on Martins group, so Martin ran off alone. As he was alone they all rode after him. Kevron caught up to him first, knocked him to the ground and stabbed him twice with his screwdriver (like he threatened to do before) Martin managed to get up and run as he saw all the other boys catching up. He started to slow down due to his wounds. Sean and Rene were heard shoutin things like 'you think you're a big man, we will show you what big men do' and 'have you got da ting, use da ting'. Kevron had now caught up to Martin again and floored him. Sean and Rene caught up whilst Martin managed to get up and start throwing punches of his own. Nowall the others had caught up and were beating Martin, that is when Joseph came along and stabbed Martin another 4 times, whilst the others carried on kicking him. They then all rode off leaving him in the road, not one of them called for help. The older 'men' Sean and Rene did nothing to stop this from happening, they participated in it all and rode off.

Yet only Kevron and Joseph are charged. Kevron got 4 years for GBH with intent and Joseph - minimum 12 years for murder.

Kevron was released ater two years and is now back inside after committing a knife point robbery.

How is this fair? Surely, they should have been charged with Murder/attempted murder/GBH/ABH/Manslaughter - all 4 of them?

How comes Joint enterprise does not work in this case yet in the case of Shakilus Townsend, which was a similar case, they were all charged?

[The Somalian]

have not read the whole topic

but this law is already in force certain man dem are doing life sentances and are innocent

this is some old law from the 19th century and its kinda loop hole ting what feds use today to secure convictions or to force someone to snitch for the lighter sentance

all I have to say that is be carefull who you roll with because might get caught up in a madness and get caught in this type of situation and it is not the one

[Yuri]

It's a dumb concept because in most cases, half these guys who were present and took an active role in the murder aren't even charged.

That article mentions Martin Dinnegan who was 14 when he was killed.

Now four boys were on trial for his murder. Rene(21), Sean(19), Joseph(15) and Kevron(16) . Each took an active role in Martins death, yet only one of them gets charged for murder. Why is that?

Joseph saw Martin on a bus and accused him of giving him a dirty look, so he and his friends rode after the bus and confronted Martins group. They started intimidating Martins group, so two of Martins group chased them out of the park and that was that. Joseph later came back with his friends and had recruited Kevron and Sean to come with him, Kevron was armed with a screwdriver and Sean had a moped helmet. Kevron started saying he would shank anyone who tried it with him, whilst Sean confronted Martin who was sitting on a bench talking to a girl and ended up wacking him over the head with his helmet, to which Martin didn't react.

Anyway, they ended up being chased out of the park yet again by Martins friends. Later on Martin and his friends were walking down the road when they bumped into Joseph, Kevron and Sean who were now joined by alot more boys including Rene. Who were all on pedal bikes and Sean on a moped. They then began to start on Martins group, so Martin ran off alone. As he was alone they all rode after him. Kevron caught up to him first, knocked him to the ground and stabbed him twice with his screwdriver (like he threatened to do before) Martin managed to get up and run as he saw all the other boys catching up. He started to slow down due to his wounds. Sean and Rene were heard shoutin things like 'you think you're a big man, we will show you what big men do' and 'have you got da ting, use da ting'. Kevron had now caught up to Martin again and floored him. Sean and Rene caught up whilst Martin managed to get up and start throwing punches of his own. Nowall the others had caught up and were beating Martin, that is when Joseph came along and stabbed Martin another 4 times, whilst the others carried on kicking him. They then all rode off leaving him in the road, not one of them called for help. The older 'men' Sean and Rene did nothing to stop this from happening, they participated in it all and rode off.

Yet only Kevron and Joseph are charged. Kevron got 4 years for GBH with intent and Joseph - minimum 12 years for murder.

Kevron was released ater two years and is now back inside after committing a knife point robbery.

How is this fair? Surely, they should have been charged with Murder/attempted murder/GBH/ABH/Manslaughter - all 4 of them?

How comes Joint enterprise does not work in this case yet in the case of Shakilus Townsend, which was a similar case, they were all charged?

rip to your boy Martin

anybody who kicked or punched him should have been given 10 years imo

[Flex]

Law has good intentions but is flawed as stated

"Better 100 guilty parties go free than one innocent person be convicted."

Was a program on this last year.

In fact, here it is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p31vd/Panorama_Lethal_Enterprise/

[Goddaz]

I know some of us have already discussed this law at length but I wanted to explore/discuss this law further, more specifically try & find out how WE (the ppl) can fight against this law. I'd actually LOVE to use it against feds, mps etc

Those that fully know or know where answers can be found come through. I really think it's VERY important we (and you & yours) get a good understanding & spread knowledge about JE. The way the police & the justice system is using it is nuts.

I recently watched a Newsnight piece on JE & it featured Jengba (Joint enterprise not guilty by association). They had 256 cases, 215 were doing life for murder. 25% were under 21 years old & 59% are from black/mixed raced backgrounds.

 

/

If anyone here needs or wants help for their ppl then check out http://www.jengba.co (joint enterprise not guilty by association)

JE Petition: http://epetitions.di...petitions/15654

/

If you think JE will never effect you then keep thinking that. I've read, scene & witnessed so many contrasting cases to know ALMOST ANYONE OF US CAN POTENTIALLY GET DONE UNDER JE.

[Guest phonecharger]

Joint Enterprise is a good law in place tbh

will deffo teach the youngers

[Benicio del Toney]

The only thing wrong with it imo is using it as a deterrent.

Same way using 5 years automatically for being caught with a knife, these things are not deterrents.

Other than that you have to watch who you associate with or you will pay the price, on a very basic level it happens everyday.

It might be harsh to use the rule against a 13 year old, but once you get to 17/18 you have full understanding of consequence.

[TF S4DK]

Most people wont care or realise what this law is until it effects them.

Can be very circumstantial and beyond the realms of reality at times imo.

[Hideandseek]

Lost a good friend for 2 1/2 due to this law (5 year bird)

Went out one night with a group of friends, one of the friends cousins lot came along too... got into a madness which looked like a racist assault on a white guy... got arrested as part of the group, trial, found guilty and the rest is history.

Was a hard working guy with a stable job, and lost all that...

Made me think of how many other people MUST be in a similar situation!

[Goddaz]

@ Toney

Generally I hear what your saying but I beg you just watch the second video then tell me you still stand by this notion of just watching who you associate with. Jengba showed some seriously fuckery cases like that Mark Kincaid. Man got done for murder coz 6 months ago he lived in the flat where someone got murdered ? Or this next guy who tried stopping a fight between his ppl & a next set of ppl & even when witnesses testified he was stopping the fight he got 19 years?

It's VERY hard at times to control your 'associates'. How many times have you been out with your ppl then you buck up with other dons who end up getting into a madness?

"but once you get to 17/18 you have full understanding of consequence."

That's just it bro, most of them imo don't understand the consequences when it comes to this law.

Disclaimer: Obviously I don't know the full cases shown in the jengba video but from the main bits I've seen & read most of them are fuckery sentences imo.

[Goddaz]

Lost a good friend for 2 1/2 due to this law (5 year bird) Went out one night with a group of friends, one of the friends cousins lot came along too... got into a madness which looked like a racist assault on a white guy... got arrested as part of the group, trial, found guilty and the rest is history. Was a hard working guy with a stable job, and lost all that... Made me think of how many other people MUST be in a similar situation!

Sounds fuckery but care to expand on the story? What part did he play if any? Did he throw a punch? Kick? Push? Or just stand there?

[SHOCK]

I learnt my lesson when i was 19 when i got bored up when my "friend" popped someones chain in a rave and ducked out. I caught a case because of that. .It's mad how you can be living life one day having a good time and the next day your in jail. fucked up. You got to watch and analyze who you roll with seriously. Luckily i didnt get the 5 year bird ting thats happening now.

[Benicio del Toney]

Maybe I am too cynical and have too much faith in common sense.

I just don't see how someone completely not involved in something can get tried and found guilty, I guess the law is fine and had good intent but it's the application of the law that makes the injustice.

Potato how did you change your life around and get into your current career?

[Goddaz]

Trust me when I say sense isn't common in law especially when JE is involved.

Like I said before, the way the feds/justice system are applying JE is fucked, I kid you not.

Your going on like po po are new to this ting called injustice.