7 CHASED & BEAT - 1 STABBED - ALL JAILED

[Goddaz]

@Kompressor @Tony @Vtec

Forcing ppl to do things they don't really want to do without any kind of powerful incentives i.e serious punishment (legal) behind it will not work. Too many parents & in turn kids are stuck in their ways. Like Kompressor said, most are more concerned with what's popping on twitter, youtube, worldstarhiphop, BBM etc

My suggestion would be to target:

*Respected & Influential members of our communities. Hit them with the knowledge & encourage them to pass it on.

*Target young females via FB, BBM & Youtube videos & get them to share the information with the males in their life be it boyfriend, link, somone they fancy etc. We all know most man are more open mentally to females & would at least listen to a chick especially if their beating it in whatever capacity.

*Get some of the best known rappers, singers, producers, presenters etc to drop knowledge on a regular basis whenever possible. f*ck these now & again campaigns that come & go. It needs to be consistent & on-going.

*Get some positive t-shirt campaigns popping, Toney if your still doing your t-shirt ting. I'm sure you'll get through to some ppl via that. If you still have access to certain celebs get them to support that sh*t. Every little helps.

*Let's get our ppl reading & watching the RIGHT things. Let's upload some positive speeches, lectures, realistic success stories from the bits.

Bottom line is we need to somehow reach these youngers before things REALLY gets crazy. First step is getting ppl to care without the f*ckeries that's happening hitting them first hand. From when we can get ppl to care, the task of reaching & educating will be easier.

[djbmc]

This whole pick ur friends better deterrent argument is ridiculous, when it kicks off the last thing on ur mind is " omg wot if someone dies"

[Yung bawse]

This whole pick ur friends better deterrent argument is ridiculous, when it kicks off the last thing on ur mind is " omg wot if someone dies"

truss

same arguement as when people say you shouldn't hit someone while they're down..should let them get back get up.. na none of that from when you hit the floor im stampin ur clarrrt

/

some people have a set couple man they roll with who they know everything about...other dons are known in there ends for 1 reason or another and seem to know everyone (even if just to jam n chat to for 5 minutes) and don't know what they can be capable of.

[Goddaz]

This whole pick ur friends better deterrent argument is ridiculous, when it kicks off the last thing on ur mind is " omg wot if someone dies"

Whilst one may not be thinking 'omg wot if someone dies' during a fight, they should because that is a strong possibility for anyone of us. However, I'm sure if your rolling with 'good' ppl's you stand to limit the chances of one of your ppl's taking it that little bit too far nah?

I think calling it a 'deterrent' is probably the wrong word. I think 'limit' would be more appropriate.

Still, it will always be dam near impossible to fully know what a next person will do in a fight situation.

[SLEAZE BALL]

You lot dont understand

The way they are using this JE law is f*ckED.

Do you realise you can get charged for joint enterprise murder even though the police/prosecution accept you werent at the scene of the crime?

[JOHN DOE]

aint that what kkoke is faced with

[SLEAZE BALL]

Nah police at the scene have identified him as being at the scene

Thing is he wasnt actually there

[JOHN DOE]

rah didnt know fed have id'd him at the scene

peak for him

[Goddaz]

You lot dont understand

The way they are using this JE law is f*ckED.

Do you realise you can get charged for joint enterprise murder even though the police/prosecution accept you werent at the scene of the crime

f*ckED!!!!!

[Niall Ferguson]

JE is a good law.

I've never seen of/known of a more preventative law.

If you nah waaan fi get nabbed, tell your boy dem you aint rolling today.

Pretty f*ck*ng simple.

[SLEAZE BALL]

Hope someone calls you and you get charged for joint enterprise murder cos of it

[Niall Ferguson]

Hope someone calls you and you get charged for joint enterprise murder cos of it

To be fair mate, it's a little more intricate than just "being there". Believe me.

[SLEAZE BALL]

Believe you?

LOL

What do YOU know about JE murder?

Cos I GUARANTEE you dont know more about it than me

[Yuri]

sounds like a confession to me mate

[Niall Ferguson]

Believe you?

LOL

What do YOU know about JE murder?

Cos I GUARANTEE you dont know more about it than me

well done bro

i trust the law more than i trust a bunch of gibbons

[Symbol]

THE FORUM HAS EYES AND EARS

[NiNES.]

aint je murder what mr ice man got done for

[lanceW]

that bnp fodder...

[SLEAZE BALL]

Believe you?

LOL

What do YOU know about JE murder?

Cos I GUARANTEE you dont know more about it than me

well done bro

i trust the law more than i trust a bunch of gibbons

Dont get your point tbh what are you actually saying?

Go in the Archbold or something similar and quote something that rebuts what I said its simple theres no point you coming on here talking smack when you dont know what your talking about.

sounds like a confession to me mate

Nothing like a confession its a fact.

aint je murder what mr ice man got done for

Indeed.

[Niall Ferguson]

LOL @ quoting Archbold. Any guy that did law and sociology at Kingston.

ANYWAY:

The simplest form of joint enterprise to murder is two or more planning to cause death and doing so. If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable regardless of who actually inflicted the fatal injury. But when there is no plan to murder and one party kills while carrying out a plan to do something else, such as a planned robbery in which the participants hope to be able to get what they want without killing anyone, but one of them does in fact kill, the other participants may still be guilty of murder or manslaughter provided that they had the necessary mens rea.

In Attorney-General's Reference (No. 3 of 2004) (2005) EWCA Crim 1882 the defendant, H, was charged with manslaughter. H had sent K and C to terrify R, knowing both that K and C would have a loaded firearm with them, and that this firearm might be fired near R to increase his fear. The Court of Appeal held that H's liability depended on the scope of the joint enterprise. On the assumed facts, there was no evidence that H foresaw that the gun would be fired and R might be injured. Rather, K's intentional act of firing the gun so as to kill or cause R grievous bodily harm was fundamentally different from the acts contemplated by H. The outcome would have been different if there had been a common design to cause some harm to R. In such a case, H would be liable for manslaughter because, albeit to frighten, he had authorised the firing of the gun, i.e. he would have realised that K might intentionally cause some harm when he fired the gun. But on the assumed facts, H did not foresee the possibility of any harm to R let alone intentional harm so was properly acquitted.

SO AS I SAID: "There's more to JE than simply just being there."

[DRC]

Believe you?

LOL

What do YOU know about JE murder?

Cos I GUARANTEE you dont know more about it than me

sounds like a confession to me mate

Nothing like a confession its a fact.

[Goddaz]

@ Mario Kindelan Mesa

All you had to do was read what O.J SIMPSON started off saying. 'The way they are using this JE law is f*ckED' which means though on paper whatever you've quoted maybe true, the realities of how it's being used differ.

Are you white?

[Niall Ferguson]

@ Mario Kindelan Mesa

All you had to do was read what O.J SIMPSON started off saying. 'The way they are using this JE law is f*ckED' which means though on paper whatever you've quoted maybe true, the realities of how it's being used differ.

Are you white?

fam ur about 45

fall back sharply

[Goddaz]

45? Fall back?

:lol: :lol:

It's clear your on gas mark 6 & just talking smack. Stay there.

If you can't debate properly & offer anything meaningful but unfounded insults f*ck off.

[SLEAZE BALL]

Mario how are you going to say it aint as simple as just being there which had nothing to do with what I said, then post a quote which starts THE SIMPLEST FORM OF JOINT ENTERPRISE. smh COME BETTER THAN THAT. You don't actually know the intricacies of the law your talking about then have the cheek to try and belittle something such as the Archbold, a book that practicing judges and barristers who have much better understanding of the law than YOU use as a point of reference in preparation for legal arguments in serious criminal trials

As I said, you dont even have to be at the scene of the crime to be charged for joint enterprise murder

Post a legitimate rebuttal or f*ck off out the topic