Brewster and McBurnie Charged

[Cappy]

You have to wonder why the 'photographer' wasn't filming his own teams celebrations, rather his mate charging through the away team.

because his mate was 'charging through the away team', and that is fucking mental?

 

[Sheff de party]

Not sure that’s right, he’s already been to Mags, this is a trial.

It is, but it’s a mags trial. Everyone goes to the Mags. They then decide if they can deal with it or if it’s too serious and needs to go to Crown Court. For example, Rose West went to the Mags, but obviously multiple murder has to go to Crown Court.

Given the max sentence for this is about six months, it would always be dealt with in the Mags.

The Crown will put their case, the defence theirs, and the Mags/District Judge will decide if he guilty and hand out a sentence if so.

Anyone can choose a jury trial if they want one, but if you’re in there for nicking a bag of peanuts it’s generally frowned up.

 

[Sheff de party]

It still cost Tony Martin 5yrs ov his life though

Tony Martin said he came downstairs and instinctively fired three shots and went back upstairs.

The Crown said he was downstairs waiting and killed someone with an unlicensed firearm by shooting him in the back.

The jury didn’t believe Tony Martin.

 

[Sheff de party]

The charge of common assault was upgraded to assault by beating. It is still covered by the offence of common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Whereas with the lower charge of common assault the victim would only have to prove an intention to harm assault by beating has a higher burden of proof requiring physical contact as described below;

To establish the offence of assault by beating the prosecution must prove all three of the following elements:

1. An individual has committed an act which caused another person to suffer immediate unlawful violence. Or the individual has struck, touched, or applied force to another person.
2. The victim did not consent to the conduct.
3. The individual’s conduct was intentional or reckless.

The main witness for the prosecution appears to be a 13 year old. This may or may not be the individual who took the grainy video. Mcb's defence has previously been reported as acting in self defence. Whether that has now been amended remains to be seen. In any event the onus will be on the prosecution to prove all 3 elements existed at the moment Mcb stood over the alleged victim.

They will also need to prove that either McBurnie did not believe force was necessary, or that the force used was not reasonable, should he claim self defence.

 

[biggiesablade]

It is, but it’s a mags trial. Everyone goes to the Mags. They then decide if they can deal with it or if it’s too serious and needs to go to Crown Court. For example, Rose West went to the Mags, but obviously multiple murder has to go to Crown Court.

Given the max sentence for this is about six months, it would always be dealt with in the Mags.

The Crown will put their case, the defence theirs, and the Mags/District Judge will decide if he guilty and hand out a sentence if so.

Anyone can choose a jury trial if they want one, but if you’re in there for nicking a bag of peanuts it’s generally frowned up.

I thought he'd had it sent up to Crown

 

[varkanoid]

Heard hes contracted glandular fever and is now on paliative care

Prob caught it from same place Anel did.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

It still cost Tony Martin 5yrs ov his life though

My Brother in Law was the arresting officer in the Martin case. Martin was sitting in a Cambridgeshire pub with a loaded shotgun on the seat next to him. Brother in Law had nothing to protect himself with than a truncheon.

Brother in Law says Martin was the most evil bastard he ever came across in nearly 30 years of coppering and that, if he had his way, Martin would never see the light of day again.

What kind of man shoots another in the legs, then follows him as he crawls outside, pins him to the ground while he reloads his gun, then deliberately shoots him in the head? And tells people he's going to do it beforehand?

 

[Rodders]

Prob caught it from same place Anel did.

Anel’s a dog nonce??!!

 

[varkanoid]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

Still dont think he did I've watched the video a few times and I think he is trying to avoid the guy. Like when you dont realise the guy is there or you are trying to avoid them you forcefully attempt to put your foot where they are not. Makes it look like he did it on purpose.

 

[Silent Blade]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

What makes you certain that McBurnie stamped on him?

 

[CaptainMorgans]

What makes you certain that McBurnie stamped on him?

Try to read the whole thread next time...

 

[blade67]

Heard hes contracted glandular fever and is now on paliative care

Is that supposed to be funny? Awful

 

[Champagneblade]

The charge of common assault was upgraded to assault by beating. It is still covered by the offence of common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Whereas with the lower charge of common assault the victim would only have to prove an intention to harm assault by beating has a higher burden of proof requiring physical contact as described below;

To establish the offence of assault by beating the prosecution must prove all three of the following elements:

1. An individual has committed an act which caused another person to suffer immediate unlawful violence. Or the individual has struck, touched, or applied force to another person.
2. The victim did not consent to the conduct.
3. The individual’s conduct was intentional or reckless.

The main witness for the prosecution appears to be a 13 year old. This may or may not be the individual who took the grainy video. Mcb's defence has previously been reported as acting in self defence. Whether that has now been amended remains to be seen. In any event the onus will be on the prosecution to prove all 3 elements existed at the moment Mcb stood over the alleged victim.

I would think you could piss all over points 1 and 3. Unless there are more videos out there, I can see nothing that remotely shows him planting his foot on the guy. The ones I saw his boot is being put down off balance and the trajectory looks to be landing aside the guy.

It is intentional in that he is a human mail who walks on two feet and would need both of them to stand on. The fact the for he is planing is impaired and vulnerable makes it highly likely he’d be off balance and his weight might not be well distributed. Anyone who has worn one of these boots, as I have when I broke my metatarsal, will know they are not the easiest to balance with.

Amazed if he doesn’t get off. At best they are relying on guesswork, filling in blanks in the video which don’t exist.

 

[Champagneblade]

My Brother in Law was the arresting officer in the Martin case. Martin was sitting in a Cambridgeshire pub with a loaded shotgun on the seat next to him. Brother in Law had nothing to protect himself with than a truncheon.

Brother in Law says Martin was the most evil bastard he ever came across in nearly 30 years of coppering and that, if he had his way, Martin would never see the light of day again.

What kind of man shoots another in the legs, then follows him as he crawls outside, pins him to the ground while he reloads his gun, then deliberately shoots him in the head? And tells people he's going to do it beforehand?

Not necessarily condoning but to answer the question - Someone who’s had enough of people illegally entering their land and taking their stuff?

This wasn’t the first time it had happened to him. Some people just get to the end of their teather. See Michael Douglas in Falling Down. I’d imagine the frustration and pressure just builds.

There is a simple solution to avoid such instances. Don’t want to get shot dead? Don’t go on someone else’s land with an intention to steal from them.

 

[Frank the tank]

Is that supposed to be funny? Awful

You had to be there

 

[Sheff de party]

Not necessarily condoning but to answer the question - Someone who’s had enough of people illegally entering their land and taking their stuff?

This wasn’t the first time it had happened to him. Some people just get to the end of their teather. See Michael Douglas in Falling Down. I’d imagine the frustration and pressure just builds.

There is a simple solution to avoid such instances. Don’t want to get shot dead? Don’t go on someone else’s land with an intention to steal from them.

His conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on appeal and diminished responsibility and he only actually served three years.

I’m all for people defending their property but you have to have rules. You can’t have the whole country illegally holding weapons, talking in the pub about shooting people then gunning people down from behind. There has to be a limit and it’s for a jury of our peers to decide what’s reasonable.

Intention to kill is different from intention to defend for me.

 

[Sheff de party]

I would think you could piss all over points 1 and 3. Unless there are more videos out there, I can see nothing that remotely shows him planting his foot on the guy. The ones I saw his boot is being put down off balance and the trajectory looks to be landing aside the guy.

It is intentional in that he is a human mail who walks on two feet and would need both of them to stand on. The fact the for he is planing is impaired and vulnerable makes it highly likely he’d be off balance and his weight might not be well distributed. Anyone who has worn one of these boots, as I have when I broke my metatarsal, will know they are not the easiest to balance with.

Amazed if he doesn’t get off. At best they are relying on guesswork, filling in blanks in the video which don’t exist.

It’s not really for us to discuss evidence pre-trial and we haven’t seen it. The CPS has and thinks there’s a more likely than not chance of conviction. Doesn’t mean it’ll happen, but there is a case to answer.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

Not necessarily condoning but to answer the question - Someone who’s had enough of people illegally entering their land and taking their stuff?

This wasn’t the first time it had happened to him. Some people just get to the end of their teather. See Michael Douglas in Falling Down. I’d imagine the frustration and pressure just builds.

There is a simple solution to avoid such instances. Don’t want to get shot dead? Don’t go on someone else’s land with an intention to steal from them.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. There's is simply no justification for pre planning, shooting a man, holding him down when he's helpless and then shooting him again - none.

I get the frustration - but that's far, far from a justification - despite what the Sun wanted us all to believe.

 

[Sean Thornton]

My Brother in Law was the arresting officer in the Martin case. Martin was sitting in a Cambridgeshire pub with a loaded shotgun on the seat next to him. Brother in Law had nothing to protect himself with than a truncheon.

Brother in Law says Martin was the most evil bastard he ever came across in nearly 30 years of coppering and that, if he had his way, Martin would never see the light of day again.

What kind of man shoots another in the legs, then follows him as he crawls outside, pins him to the ground while he reloads his gun, then deliberately shoots him in the head? And tells people he's going to do it beforehand?

Are you saying he shot the boy in the head rather than the back as reported?

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Not necessarily condoning but to answer the question - Someone who’s had enough of people illegally entering their land and taking their stuff?

This wasn’t the first time it had happened to him. Some people just get to the end of their teather. See Michael Douglas in Falling Down. I’d imagine the frustration and pressure just builds.

There is a simple solution to avoid such instances. Don’t want to get shot dead? Don’t go on someone else’s land with an intention to steal from them.

Aye
but if we’re going down the Hollywood route for insight there’s always the Macaulay Culkin approach as an alternative

 

[Oohaah! Bob Bookah!]

I would think you could piss all over points 1 and 3. Unless there are more videos out there, I can see nothing that remotely shows him planting his foot on the guy. The ones I saw his boot is being put down off balance and the trajectory looks to be landing aside the guy.

It is intentional in that he is a human mail who walks on two feet and would need both of them to stand on. The fact the for he is planing is impaired and vulnerable makes it highly likely he’d be off balance and his weight might not be well distributed. Anyone who has worn one of these boots, as I have when I broke my metatarsal, will know they are not the easiest to balance with.

Amazed if he doesn’t get off. At best they are relying on guesswork, filling in blanks in the video which don’t exist.

Plus the fact that the guy on the floor doesn't seem to flinch when McB's foot is planted.

 

[Millhousesblade1889]

CBA watching Sharp waddle around for 5 months in McBurnie ends up in prison

 

[SheepdipBlade]

Are you saying he shot the boy in the head rather than the back as reported?

I dunno what happened as neither me nor my brother in law was at the Martin farm. The way he's explained it to me is the Martin held him down with his foot on his back and shot him in the head. I'm presuming that he gets that from the court hearing - though I don't know even that he was there for that part of the case.

In my book, where he shot him is secondary. The key part for me is that he pre planned the murder (murders?) and was open to his neighbours about that. He then took the law into his own hands, and took at least one life in a cold, calculating, evil way. Having shot the man in the legs and seeing his victim drag himself out of the house, it's difficult if not impossible to see how he felt threatened at that point. His actions in the farmyard are totally beyond the pail, whether the second shot was to his victim's head or back.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I dunno what happened as neither me nor my brother in law was at the Martin farm. The way he's explained it to me is the Martin held him down with his foot on his back and shot him in the head. I'm presuming that he gets that from the court hearing - though I don't know even that he was there for that part of the case.

In my book, where he shot him is secondary. The key part for me is that he pre planned the murder (murders?) and was open to his neighbours about that. He then took the law into his own hands, and took at least one life in a cold, calculating, evil way. Having shot the man in the legs and seeing his victim drag himself out of the house, it's difficult if not impossible to see how he felt threatened at that point. His actions in the farmyard are totally beyond the pail, whether the second shot was to his victim's head or back.

I asked because l don’t recall any mention of a headshot and the charge iirc was reduced to mansliaughter which would suggest the scenario you’ve posted - back or head - is unlikely. I thought the shot in the back as he was exiting was the one that killed the boy.

I’m not taking a side on this, the jail time was lenient. It’s just that the version of events from the arresting officer seems very different from the reporting at the time.

 

[programmechap]

It is, but it’s a mags trial. Everyone goes to the Mags. They then decide if they can deal with it or if it’s too serious and needs to go to Crown Court. For example, Rose West went to the Mags, but obviously multiple murder has to go to Crown Court.

Given the max sentence for this is about six months, it would always be dealt with in the Mags.

The Crown will put their case, the defence theirs, and the Mags/District Judge will decide if he guilty and hand out a sentence if so.

Anyone can choose a jury trial if they want one, but if you’re in there for nicking a bag of peanuts it’s generally frowned up.

Not quite right Criminal offences are categorised into three:

• summary only ( which can only be tried in the mags Court);
• either way ( where the mags can choose to try then or send them to Crown Court, but if the mags agree to try them, the defendant can trump that and ask for a crown Court trial
• Indictable only ( which can only be tried in Crown Court)

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has a first appearance in the mags Court. If its a summary offence and you plead guilty, it might be dealt with there and then. Otherwise, the first appearance will be an admin hearing where the mags will decide what to do with the case, depending on which of the above categories it falls into.

Common assault is summary only, so OMB never had the choice of a crown Court jury trial. It had to be tried by the mags.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

I asked because l don’t recall any mention of a headshot and the charge iirc was reduced to mansliaughter which would suggest the scenario you’ve posted - back or head - is unlikely. I thought the shot in the back as he was exiting was the one that killed the boy.

I’m not taking a side on this, the jail time was lenient. It’s just that the version of events from the arresting officer seems very different from the reporting at the time.

I don't really have any insight into the detail and, given the arrest was made many miles away, brother in law wouldn't have seen the crime scene either.

For me the two take aways are that, despite what the media said at the time, Martin was an evil bastard - and for brother in law to single him out as the worst in 30 years experience says something.

And despite my brother in law bring a Tory Leeds fan, I have to accept how much guts it took to walk into that pub with nothing more than a truncheon, knowing there was an armed murderer sitting in there.

 

[Sheff de party]

Not quite right Criminal offences are categorised into three:

• summary only ( which can only be tried in the mags Court);
• either way ( where the mags can choose to try then or send them to Crown Court, but if the mags agree to try them, the defendant can trump that and ask for a crown Court trial
• Indictable only ( which can only be tried in Crown Court)

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has a first appearance in the mags Court. If its a summary offence and you plead guilty, it might be dealt with there and then. Otherwise, the first appearance will be an admin hearing where the mags will decide what to do with the case, depending on which of the above categories it falls into.

Common assault is summary only, so OMB never had the choice of a crown Court jury trial. It had to be tried by the mags.

Ah thanks, I thought you could elect for a jury trial even if it was meant to be tried summarily. Clearly I’ve been misinformed!

 

[Sheff de party]

I asked because l don’t recall any mention of a headshot and the charge iirc was reduced to mansliaughter which would suggest the scenario you’ve posted - back or head - is unlikely. I thought the shot in the back as he was exiting was the one that killed the boy.

I’m not taking a side on this, the jail time was lenient. It’s just that the version of events from the arresting officer seems very different from the reporting at the time.

Contrast this with several cases where people have killed an intruder in their home and charges were never even brought.

Andy and Tracey Ferrie fired a shotgun at intruders on their farm and although they didn’t kill anyone, were arrested on suspicion of GBH but never charged.

In fact, the guys they shot tried to use it as mitigation when they were convicted of burglary. The judge apparently said “being shot is not mitigation. If you burgle a house where the owner owns a legally held shotgun, that’s the chance you take.” Lol.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I don't really have any insight into the detail and, given the arrest was made many miles away, brother in law wouldn't have seen the crime scene either.

For me the two take aways are that, despite what the media said at the time, Martin was an evil bastard - and for brother in law to single him out as the worst in 30 years experience says something.

And despite my brother in law bring a Tory Leeds fan, I have to accept how much guts it took to walk into that pub with nothing more than a truncheon, knowing there was an armed murderer sitting in there.

Fully get and agree with your last paragraph but you did appear to have some insight with the claims about head shots/BIL. Which it appears was not the case at all, nor was he supposed to have held him down when “finishing him off”.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Contrast this with several cases where people have killed an intruder in their home and charges were never even brought.

Andy and Tracey Ferrie fired a shotgun at intruders on their farm and although they didn’t kill anyone, were arrested on suspicion of GBH but never charged.

In fact, the guys they shot tried to use it as mitigation when they were convicted of burglary. The judge apparently said “being shot is not mitigation. If you burgle a house where the owner owns a legally held shotgun, that’s the chance you take.” Lol.

I have no dog in any fight here. I queried the veracity of the claim of how the boy was killed. Nothing else.