Posted on 04/09/2022 5:57:22 PM PDT by marshmallow
LONDON — A man accused of stabbing a British lawmaker to death during a regular meeting with his constituents told a court Thursday he targeted the politician because he voted for air strikes on Syria.
Ali Harbi Ali, 26, is accused of murdering veteran Conservative lawmaker David Amess on Oct. 15 during a routine meeting with voters in a church hall in the town of Leigh-on-Sea in eastern England. Ali, who stabbed Amess repeatedly with a carving knife, denies charges of preparing acts of terrorism and murder.
Giving evidence Thursday, Ali said he decided to take action in the UK to help Muslims in Syria because he couldn’t join the Islamic State group.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
Oh, that’s ok then.
I think you can safely dispense with the “suspect” and “accused” language when the murderer freely admits his guilt.
“I think you can safely dispense with the “suspect” and “accused” language when the murderer freely admits his guilt.”
Well, you and I can dispense with the terms, but a newspaper can’t. By law, even if the guy admits he did it, it is just talk unless he did it under oath before the court or he was adjudicated as guilty at court.
Well, THAT is a new form of government. Things might get interesting here once the left starts it.
Ali was just following the dictates of the Koran.
First off, I think by “giving evidence,” they mean he was testifying under oath in court. Unsworn argument by a party in court is not evidence.
Second, regardless, I don’t think any newspaper would be exposed to liability for defamation here, even in England where they don’t have the protection of the First Amendment or New York Times v. Sullivan. Truth is an affirmative defense to defamation in England, and I think the paper can rather conclusively prove the truth by his own public admission, even without a conviction.
An American paper would have an even easier time, because his admission should easily negate actual malice.
All that said, I get why they do it, of course. A lot easier and cheaper to have a hard and fast rule on using qualifying language like that than to run every article by a lawyer before it hits the press.
Such a tragic thing for Amess’ family. Very sad.
“The Religion of Peace” strikes again.
How very authentic muslim of him.
Hmmmm....
We get to kill politicians who don’t vote they we want?
Who knew?
Just another “good, old boy” having fun.
Meanwhile in an article listed at the end of this article, an Egyptian Christian priest was stabbed to death by a Moslem fanatic.
Catching like COVID.
“Hmmmm....
We get to kill politicians who don’t vote they we want?
Who knew? “
In my opinion when dueling was outlawed, that spelled the end of our Republic.
Evil politicians will not generally risk their lives to defend their lack of morals
I’ve got an idea, all these muslims stay home and just murder each other, nobody else, and no western country will bomb them. Deal?
“First off, I think by “giving evidence,” they mean he was testifying under oath in court.”
The article does not make that clear. But evidence is not restricted to court; but it is not accepted as admissible until the Court determines so.
I think the article is pretty clear by using the term “giving evidence,” if you understand that oral in-court statements are only “evidence” in Anglo-American courts if they are under oath. And, if you peruse the UK rules of criminal procedure, it’s clear that “give evidence” means “testify” there.
I don’t know what you mean by “evidence is not restricted to court.” What you say about admissibility is generally true with exhibits, but oral testimony is admitted without the need for any action by the court if there is no objection.
But my main point is that it doesn’t matter. Newspapers are not restricted to evidence admitted in court. If the guy simply went on TV and confessed to being a murderer, no newspaper would be liable for defaming him if it called him a “murderer” without prefacing its with “alleged.”
“I don’t know what you mean by “evidence is not restricted to court.”
Well, say there is a crime scene; a shooting. Bullet casings are picked up off the ground by a detective. Those casings are evidence. But, are they admissible in court? That is up to the Court (the judge) to decide.
“What you say about admissibility is generally true with exhibits...”
Well, you agree with me so far.
“...but oral testimony is admitted without the need for any action by the court if there is no objection.”
If it is ADMITTED then the Court has allowed it into evidence! It can’t be ADMITTED into anything in a vacuum! It must be ADMITTED into something! And that something is the Court record.
That’s true of physical evidence, as well (see may scenario above). If there is no objection, it goes into the Court record.
So ordered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.