jp philips:

im happy with your response the IGP screwed up, now, lucky's counsel needs to find the 5th guy with gun to make his case water tight.
do you see the vigilante coming out of this, even hiding behind the false alarm claim?

cap28:

Coxson knew who was at his door, infact he let the 5 boys into his house and a fight ensued, he knew they were not armed robbers.He knew the implications of shouting "thief" because of the general bad feeling in the village following a series of robberies that had gone on, he knew that anyone accused of theft in that village would be dealt with severely but he went ahead and accused them of being thiefs all the same and the rest is history.

Coxson had been avoiding his creditor for months, this has all been corroborated, he therefore had a motive to do away with the source of his problem and that is why he decided to deal with the boys by having them permanently eliminated from his life.

The idea that Coxson shouted "thief" because unknown gunmen appeared at his door is a fallacy - if he was so afraid - why did he open the door? He opened door because he knew who they were.

jp philips:



why will he open the door if he doesn't have what they want? considering the fact he has been hiding from them for a long time as you claimed.
i doubt if he opened his door, believe me, if those boys meant business, that door wouldn't need to be opened.

torkaka:

i'll qoute some sections of the criminal code on this;

part v s. 306 states " It is unlawful to kill any person unless such killing is authorised or justified or excused by law"


part v s.316 states " Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills, another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say-

(1) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person;

(2) if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm;

(3) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(4) if the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence;

(5) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering things for either of the purposes last aforesaid;

(6) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

In the second case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

In the third case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.


In the three last cases it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result




the vigilante chaps are screwed!!

torkaka:

i'll qoute some sections of the criminal code on this;

part v s. 306 states " It is unlawful to kill any person unless such killing is authorised or justified or excused by law"


part v s.316 states " Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills, another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say-

(1) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person;

(2) if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm;

(3) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(4) if the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence;

(5) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering things for either of the purposes last aforesaid;

(6) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

In the second case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

In the third case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.


In the three last cases it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result




the vigilante chaps are screwed!!

Chrisbenogor:
They screwed up, simple they should pay for killing the boys. Along with whoever gave the order.
My grouse is that there is no way coxson would know that this would lead to their death. No way, in the past upteeen years not once has a robber been lynched to death. Once when I was in school back then there was a robbery, and they snatched a car as they were leaving I remember it was a Honda accord end of discussion, unlucky for one of em he slipped up and the rest left him. The crowd descended on him beat him but still handed him over to the police. Not once has a killing ever ensued, so proving that he knew they would be killed is a long long stretch.

torkaka:

ch.27 s.310 of the criminal code act states;

"A person who, by threats or intimidation or by deceit, causes another person to do an act or make an omission which results in the death of that other person, is deemed to have killed him."

notice that the act is not concerned about the circumstances but concerned with the end result which is "death"

also notice the word "deceit" in the act. [b]this is where the issue of shouting "thief,thief" will play a major role in the case. coxson probably did not know that the boys will be killed however the boys ended up dead! the law is not sympathetic with his intentions,the law is concerned about the outcome of his intentions.[/b]

Chrisbenogor:
Deceit, Intention.
You cannot take away intention from a crime, it is a huge huge factor. Was his intent to raise awareness or to get the boys killed? Is shouting thief thief a common way to raise alarm in Nigeria when someone is banging at your door by odd hours of the night?
He is within his right to protect himself if he deemed his life threatened.
Again you cannot take away the circumstances from the crime, no investigation is done in isolation, these boys came at the dead of the night. It makes Coxson's case all the more water tight cos he could have really thought there were gonna rob him .
It would be all to difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, this is not a civil suit it is a criminal one and you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his intent was to get the boys killed.
He shouted thief to raise alarm and awareness, for fear of his life and to rescue himself. The only thing the defense has to show is that possibility and your case goes down the drain.

UNLESS
The vigilante had both the boys and coxson together at once. Deceit is if after they were caught he accused them of being thieves to the vigilante which I think is highly unlikely cos then the boys would say he knows them and he owes them.


Oh and by the way did you see those that were charged? I looked for Coxson's name, did not find it. Looked for the false alarm kini you bet your magician status on yesterday. Did not find it as well.

torkaka:

stop fooling yourself, coxson wasn't charged because he wasn't caught at the same time the others were caught. 22(or so) people have been arrested but only 13(the first batch of those arrested) have been charged.

to more serious matters, here i again i qoute the act;

ch.27 s.316 states;

Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills, another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say-

(1) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person;

(2) if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm;

(3) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(4) if the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence;

(5) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering things for either of the purposes last aforesaid;

(6) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder.

In the second case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

In the third case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

In the three last cases it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

"

[b]notice the parts in red. everything boils down to the shout of "thief,thief". go through the acts i have been posting then you will understand the beauty of what i told you earlier about calling some one a "thief" when an authorised body hasn't proclaimed so!
the questions you should ponder over is this; were those boys thieves in the eyes of the law? and if not then what was the intention of coxson in calling them thieves? were they not taken to appear before the community chief because they were thieves? on what basis did these boys become thieves in the eyes of the community? wasn't it on the basis of coxson's call? assuming coxson was around when the boys were man handled why did he not come out to say they were not thieves? assuming coxson wasn't around, why did he not come out to say the community acted in error after hearing about the justice metted on them? what was he hiding from? the incidence happened friday and they was a gap between when it happened and when public outcry forced the authorities to act,in this period what did coxson tell the police about the actual sequence of events explaining his mistake in calling them thieves?

coxson's intent was clear, those boys were not killed immediately. they were paraded round the community for hours and even set before the local chief! in all this time coxson never found it neccessary to correct his gaffe![/b]

torkaka:

ch.27 s.310 of the criminal code act states;

"A person who, by threats or intimidation or by deceit, causes another person to do an act or make an omission which results in the death of that other person, is deemed to have killed him."

notice that the act is not concerned about the circumstances but concerned with the end result which is "death"

also notice the word "deceit" in the act. this is where the issue of shouting "thief,thief" will play a major role in the case. coxson probably did not know that the boys will be killed however the boys ended up dead! the law is not sympathetic with his intentions,the law is concerned about the outcome of his actions.

(2) if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm;

(3) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

torkaka: i will not bother explaining to you the legal time one is meant to be held in custody before being arraigned and why 13(who were caught days earlier) were charged to court while the remaining have not been charged! that gaffe alone from you has told me your level of IQ! i am not even going to try explaining to you what the prosecuton of unlawful purpose is!

HONESTLY, YOU ARE WAY TOO DULL TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING AND I AM TIRED OF TRYING FOR YOUR COCO NUT BRAIN! you are way too dull to notice that ch.27 s. 310 and ch.27 s.316 are different!
I HAVE WASTED MY TIME TRYING TO EDUCATE AN OBVIOUS IGNORANT NINIE WHOSE PRIDE COVERS HIS SENSE OF REASONING!. . . .GOOD DAY!

berem: he will be charged for raising false alarm,the first to accuse the boys of being thieves,owing someone and refused to pay,accused the boys of being with a gun when no gun was actually found on them,running away for the fear of being arrested,refusing to tell the truth to the mob that he was indeed a debtor,the list is endless!