[QUOTE=Fear57;18329005]That's a sin.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.dembot.net/images/facepalm/double_trek_facepalm.jpg[/img]
7th circle of hell, here I come.
:fappery:
[QUOTE=Fear57;18329005]That's a sin.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7I5UaB7mx4[/media]
[QUOTE=Fear57;18329005]That's a sin.[/QUOTE]
He will douse the flames with his man-juice.
[QUOTE=Fear57;18329005]That's a sin.[/QUOTE]
Forgive me father for I have sinned. :gizz:
[b]What is the criminal liability of those who unlawfully administer drugs to a person with his consent, who subsequently dies from the drugs injected?[/b]
This issue was the point in the case of R v Cato (1976).
In Cato's case, at the instigation of his friend who had prepared the solution to be injected, he administered the drug to his friend. The friend died and at Cato's trial forensic medical evidence indicated that the injection of the drug was one of the causes of death. Cato was convicted of manslaughter and appealed against his conviction.
Dismissing Cato's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the considerations that the deceased contributed to his own death and that there were other operative causes, as well as the administration of the drug by Cato, did not affect the accused's conviction. The Court of Appeal concluded that Cato was properly convicted on the basis of him causing the death of another by doing an unlawful act which carried an obvious risk of bodily injury.
In R v Rogers (2003) the Court of Appeal again examined an accused's criminal liability in connection with his involvement in the administration of drugs.
In Cato's case the accused had actually injected the drug, whilst in the case of Rogers the accused's assistance fell short of his administering the drug. He had, however, provided physical assistance to the deceased by holding a belt as a tourniquet round his associate's arm while the deceased had injected himself. The person suffered a cardiac arrest and subsequently died.
Rogers was charged with unlawfully and maliciously administering or causing to be administered a poison or other destructive or noxious thing so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm, (section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) and manslaughter, contrary to Common Law.
At the Crown Court, the trial judge ruled that Rogers had no defence to either charge; on the basis that applying the tourniquet was 'part and parcel' of the unlawful act of administering heroin. Developing the point, the trial judge asserted that there was no difference between applying the tourniquet and holding the end of the syringe while the deceased depressed the plunger.
As a result of this ruling, Rogers entered pleas of 'guilty'.
Rogers appealed against the trial judge's ruling on the grounds that -
applying a tourniquet was not an unlawful act by the accused;
the deceased's injection of himself was not an unlawful act; and
he, Rogers, had merely facilitated an act which in itself was not unlawful.
Counsel acting on behalf of the Crown cited Cato's case as being the authority for establishing that the injection of others should not, as a matter of public policy, be condoned. In their deliberations, the Court of Appeal also considered the cases of R v Dias (2002) and R v Kennedy (1999).
In the Rogers case, the Court of Appeal, ruled that it would be artificial and unreal to separate the application of the tourniquet from the injection, since the purpose and effect of the application of the tourniquet was to raise a vein into which the drug could be injected through the syringe. In developing the point, it was stated that by applying and holding the tourniquet Rogers was playing a part in the mechanics of the injection and, therefore, it was immaterial whether the deceased himself committed an offence. The Court of Appeal concluded that a person who actively participated in the injection process committed the physical act himself and, because of this, could have no defence to a charge under section 23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861; or, where death results, to a charge of manslaughter.
In Regina v Kennedy (No.2) (2007) the House of Lords reviewed the cases of Cato and Rogers and in doing so ruled that the latter case was wrongly decided. In allowing Kennedy's appeal the Court ruled that it was never appropriate to convict a person of manslaughter, where he had been involved in the supply of a Class "A" drug but the substance was freely and voluntarily administered by a fully informed and responsible person to whom it had been supplied and who knew what the substance was.
The facts of the Kennedy case were that the appellant prepared a dose of heroin for the deceased and gave the syringe to him. The deceased injected himself and then returned the empty syringe to the appellant. Having injected himself the user collapsed and subsequently died.
In delivering the judgement of the House of Lords it was stated that the appellant had committed an unlawful act by supplying the drug to the deceased, but the mere supplying of the syringe containing the drug could not harm the deceased in any way, let alone bring about his death.
The parties to the appeal commonly agreed that if Kennedy's conviction for manslaughter were to stand on the basis of him committing an unlawful act, it would have to be founded on the notion that he had breached section 23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, (above) as in the case of Rogers, above. In this regard the House of Lords ruled that the fact the deceased freely and voluntarily administered the injection himself was fatal to any argument that the appellant caused the drug to be administered. The fact that the appellant filled the syringe and handed it to the deceased had to be balanced against the consideration that the deceased had a choice whether to inject himself or not, he knew what he was doing and he chose to do so.
In the case, the Crown had sought to rely on the decision in the case of Rogers. The House of Lords rejected the argument, but recognised that there was a difficult borderline between contributory acts which might be regarded as administering and those which might not be so regarded, but the Court ruled that the central issue was not whether the defendant facilitated or contributed to administration off the substance but whether he went further and actually administered it.
In conclusion the House of Lords ruled that on the facts of the case the appellant could not be said to have administered the drug or cause the drug to be administered or taken by the deceased. In essence, the House of Lords concluded that the deceased died by his own hand.
Reviewing the law, the Lord Chief Justice stated that in order to convict the accused of manslaughter the jury had to be sure that when the heroin was given to the deceased for immediate usage, the accused and deceased were engaged in a single activity of administering the substance. They were not necessarily to be viewed as two separate activities, His Lordship stated. Lord Woolf's judgement then goes on to rule that if the jury were satisfied on the foregoing point, then the appellant was responsible for acting in concert with the deceased to enable him to inject himself with a syringe of heroin. In such circumstances, both the appellant and deceased were jointly involved in administering the heroin and both were carrying out a combined operation for which they were jointly responsible. In explaining this proposition the Lord Chief Justice compared such actions with the carrying out of lawful injections, in that one nurse might prepare the syringe, hand it to another nurse who might administer the injection, whilst the other nurse might then apply a plaster. In such circumstances both nurses could be properly regarded as administering the drug, since their actions were interlinked. Whether the necessary linkage existed between the appellant and the deceased was a matter for the jury to decide, His Lordship ruled. Having regard to all the circumstances, Kennedy's conviction was safe, the Court concluded.
For the foreseeable future, there will be other drugs deaths arising from circumstances similar, if not identical, to those in the cases of Cato and Kennedy. Central to establishing the criminal liability of those who provided "the fix" for the deceased, will be establishing the precise actions of those involved, and, in particular, the accused was somehow involved in the actual act of the administration of the substance.
If in administering the drug, the individual had an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the recipient, then, of course, a prima facie case of murder will exist.
[QUOTE=Hezzy;18329203]-wall of text-[/QUOTE]
:words:
I'm surprised people failed to see that as a joke.
I got a text earlier about breaking rules 1 & 2, so I sent them a picture of slowpoke.
[QUOTE=Hezzy;18329203]-Hezzy smokes crack-[/QUOTE]
Long story short.
Drugs are bad. :350:
Borderlands DLC looks pretty cool imo.
wtf...my iPod was at half battery and it just died...wtf...
[QUOTE=azure 505;18329343]Borderlands DLC looks pretty cool imo.[/QUOTE]
What is it?
I want Morrowind so badly.
[quote]On July 7th, 2024, The armies of Nationalist Kan withdrew troops from its borders of long time ally Republic of Irean after four months of political fighting. The reason why to Kan did it in the first place was still being questioned: Why was Kan building up near the border? What were these helicopters doing flying over Irean troops? Why were artillery batteries being placed close to the border ? These were just some of the questions Irean military officials worried about. Three years later, and it would dawn to them why, but it would be too late.
December 30, 2026, the same thing occurs. The Irean government immediately orders Kan to remove its troops once again, they do so.
April of the first, 2037, the exact thing happens as it did the past 3 years. But this time the Kan armies refuse, and without warning, the first 45 divisions of the Kan Army moves past the border, and into the soft, mushy soil of Irean. Operation Onéru has just begun. And into the next fifteen years, twelve million lives will be lost on both sides.
This story is told by both Irean and Kan soldiers alike, some have different views, some are nervous, but all the soldiers have one thing in common: To get through this hell whole alive.
Part One
‘Second day of the invasion’
Privatá George B. Hatt 2nd IGF Division
I remember that day almost like it was yesterday, we were constantly on the retreat. We never bothered to take the heavy equipment with us. Let alone care about food or supplies. Occasionally, in our greediness, we left the sick and wounded to fend for themselves, oh what poor souls we left behind. How much did we leave behind? Fifty? Hundreds? By the Heavens and Earth, I think it was even hundred thousands! I can still feel the burden that day leaving my colleagues to die. I felt sick, twisted, but most of all I felt- sinned. But.. It was a necessary loss, if not horrifying. If we did not retreat, and helped them- I don’t think I would be here telling you of this ugly oh-god-forsaken-war now, would I?
When I and the company finally made it (somewhat) safely to the nearest Forward Base of Operations we felt relived, we have just retreated a few 20 miles from the border to the base. The division relaxed, but not that long before our company was told to move on to the next FBOP. Which was plenty far away out of the reach of the terrorizing for now. I remember asking my lieutenant “Sir, why can’t we stay and relax a bit longer, maybe help out?” I don’t know exactly what he said, but I think it was something among the lines of “We aren‘t ready yet to do anything yet, most of the men here have barely any ammunition or are still weak”. That shut me up for a while.
A few hours later, while still on the march towards our destination we learned a few hours before, sometime we embarked that the Base of Operations was over-runned by Kan troops. I again felt depressed for the young men and woman stationed there that were probably killed or became POWs‘.
By the end of the day we managed to reach the half-way point. We stopped yet again to relax and eat before being sent on the trail again. I felt that the amount of food we carried on us was not enough for the walk. But I kept quiet.
As I drifted off to sleep in one of the many bunks of the FPOB, it finally concurred to me, I still remember the cold pale feeling at that exact moment: This was no joke, no drill. No dreaming. No buffing. This was a sneak attack, a undeclared war, no, this was a invasion.
‘
[/quote]
I almost completely forgot about this story.
So how are you doing everybody?
who are you
[QUOTE=cdBiohazard;18329794]So how are you doing everybody?[/QUOTE]
Meh. Good, I guess.
How are you?
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu i am hungry and mw2 multiplay is greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat
beep beep im a jeep
Makarov must be brought to light
Holy shit my burger bun has the simple for pi on it.
[editline]01:27AM[/editline]
I'm almost reluctant to eat it.
[editline]01:27AM[/editline]
But I'm also hungry.
[editline]01:27AM[/editline]
What to do, what to do...
[editline]01:28AM[/editline]
Fuck it, pi burger, welcome to my stomach.
[QUOTE=TH89;18330313]Makarov must be brought to light[/QUOTE]
It is so fantastically entertaining watching people whine about MW2.
Fun game. Don't get it for PC.