Posted on 04/29/2010 5:34:25 PM PDT by naturalman1975
A teacher who bludgeoned a disruptive pupil with a dumbbell walked free yesterday when a 'common sense' jury acquitted him in minutes.
Peter Harvey was cleared of trying to kill a 14-year-old boy who told him to '**** off'.
His trial heard how he was targeted by teenagers who knew he had been off work with depression and stress.
The 'fundamentally decent' man snapped when the science class set out to upset him, with a girl - described as the pupils' ringleader - using a camcorder to film the incident so she could distribute it round the school.
Mr Harvey dragged the boy - a persistent troublemaker - into a cupboard and hit him about the head with a 3kg dumbbell shouting 'die, die, die'.
The attack fractured the teenager's skull.
But yesterday a jury swiftly acquitted him of attempted murder and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Judge Michael Stokes QC told the court 'common sense had prevailed'.
Mr Harvey, 50, had already admitted the lesser count of grievous bodily harm but the judge said he would not be sent to prison.
It was revealed that the judge had already said that the trial should never have been brought because of the teacher's 'previous good character' and his state of mind when he attacked the boy.
Astonishingly, the father-of-two had spent eight months on remand before the trial - despite his own mental state, his wife suffering severe depression and their daughter having Asperger's syndrome.
The judge told him at Nottingham Crown Court: 'You have already effectively served a sentence that is more than the appropriate sentence.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
You're just a closet "situational morality" liberal. No objective, consistent law for you! No sir! Just pick 12 random people and declare the outcome to be "Justice"!
Pffft.
I'll stick with the Constitution and the rule of law, personally.
If I were a judge and saw that a jury had blatantly ignored the law, I'd find them all in contempt and throw them in jail.
You might struggle with such silliness, but most of the rest of us won't. OJ should be on death row, isn't, and thus cheated justice. This teacher, a man of prior peaceable character, should was goaded by a pack of jackals into an extreme reaction. The verdict in his case was entirely just--one of the few times I have agreed with a result by a modern English criminal court.
But what can we do? Say the jury's verdict didn't count because "we" know better?? Or should we choose juries based on skin color so that we can get "our" kind of justice?
I think OJ did it. I wish he had been convicted. But his jury wanted him freed. And I think jury's have that power and should have that power.
No, I’m not making, or attempting to make a moral equivalence between these two cases. I’m asking a question if, since he stated he was okay with jury nulification, the OJ verdict was also okay in his view.
I doubt it will come back, but I grew up when it was common. Discipline was much better, and there can be no learning without discipline.
And, as to the last part of your post, we will agree to disagree. I find no justice in allowing a man to get away with such criminal disregard as to attempt to kill a student.
Do you think that this jury like the Simpson jury based their decision strictly on race or do you think the facts as presented were considered?
Point taken. Juries do have the power to render such verdicts. But, if evidence had surfaced of any strong arming taking place within the jury, that verdict could have been set aside and a new trial enjoined.
Just asking about the feelings regarding the outcome, not how the outcome was decided.
This judge saw the opposite. Perhaps because he was there and you were not?
A fact seemingly not lost upon the liberals who control public education in this country. An educated populace does not permit it's government to control them.
Strong arming is not OK. If 12 honest people really feel a certain way, then I do consider that to be the highest law in the land. I believe our current legal system actually declares that to be so. But if anyone on the jury tries to game the system and twist other jury members to a particular view, then the judge would be right to throw it out.
This is all that matters.
“A cracked skull huh? I support holding the little heathens accountable. But that is beyond extreme.”
As Alfred E. Neuman said, “Why worry?” A case can be made that the kid hadn’t used the contents of the cracked cranium, so far. And, tomorrow didn’t look promising, either.
“I’ll stick with the Constitution and the rule of law, personally.”
Uhhh - didn’t the Constitution guarantee a trial by jury?
And, I am sure SCOTUS has ruled that jury nullification is Constitutional.
LOL - you are a bad boy!!
Bear in mind that nobody decided this man's actions were acceptable. He plead guilty to inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm, and was sentenced to time served - the eight months he spent in prison awaiting trial. As a person convicted of assaulting a child, he will never teach again.
The trial was about whether or not he was guilty of the more serious charges of inflicting GBH with intent, and attempted murder. The jury decided there was no intent (something both those charges require).
Or, because he's not real keen on the whole "rule of law" thing either. Some judges are like that.
Love to see that.
If the kid was threatening violence, I’d have to agree. Getting the other kids to safety was important.
If the kid did attack, was someone that constituted a real threat, and the teacher was basically fighting for his life, then all bets are off.
If the teacher got angry and went postal beyond reason, then we’re both in agreement concerning his reaction.
I’d imagine we would be in agreement anyway, since it sounds like you’re a reasonable person.
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.