To think you don’t “accidentally” strangle someone to death?

[DrizzleandDamp]

I give up, no murder conviction for this man:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884251/Police-officer-41-not-guilty-murdering-wife.html

There is no point me pursuing my case when these are the decisions made!

To those pontificating about how easy it is to murder accidentally kill a woman through strangulation, it's worth remembering that he was a police officer who is trained in restraint etc and how to avoid 'accidentally' killing someone.

Absolute fucking travesty. Truly thought he’d be found guilty of murder. He’s a danger to women. The effect his actions have had on people around him, including this poor woman’s children and his own is devastating and tragic.

Read this out to my OH at lunch time who is normally cynical about these things, he was not surprised by the verdict being the guy was a police officer.

@Thepilotlightsgoneout

The jury came to a verdict very quickly so I can only assume the actual evidence, as oppose to what the media report, was quite persuasive.

I've served on a jury twice and was massively impressed by the care, patience and microscopically detailed analysis of the evidence and the professionalism of the judge. However, a jury is dependent on the quality of the evidence presented to them, and if that is lacking in some way, or casts doubt, you are duty bound to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, however much your gut instincts are screaming "guilty".

For goodness sakes, no one said it was easy to accidentally strangle someone. Or that someone trained should be able to know what the dangers would be.

But you can look up cases of accidental strangling easily enough, it happens. "Common" and "possible" aren't interchangeable words.

That's why the evidence can be inconclusive.

The legal system isn't based on what people think probably happened, or likely happened.

I am heartbroken for her family.

I think a lot of the public - myself included, have a problem with the the very definition of manslaughter.

IMO if you violently assault somebody and you are the instigator of physical violence, and they die as a result of that assault, then you should be charged no differently as if you actually intended to kill them. “It was an accident” doesn’t bring that person back so I don’t see why it should reduce your sentence.

@Goosefoot

For goodness sakes, no one said it was easy to accidentally strangle someone. Or that someone trained should be able to know what the dangers would be.

But you can look up cases of accidental strangling easily enough, it happens. "Common" and "possible" aren't interchangeable words.

That's why the evidence can be inconclusive.

The legal system isn't based on what people think probably happened, or likely happened.

Odd. Everything I saw when I looked it up to find out more suggested quite the opposite.

As you said, self-asphyxiation, yes.

Accidental strangulation seems to be quite definitively uncommon.

But I hear what you're saying.

He must have had a shit hot defence lawyer, or a thick as pig shit jury.

He must have had a shit hot defence lawyer, or a thick as pig shit jury.

Have you met the British public? I wouldn’t feel any confidence in most of them.

The pathologist who did the post morgen gave evidence that his story of “positional aphyxiation” did not match with the evidence. Yet the jury deliberated for hardly any time at all.

Through this trial his good character has been reported. Other officers gave evidence that desire this death (and the evidence of multiple affairs behind his detective wife’s back) they still believed he was a man of “integrity” who “had lost everything”. The impact on his life has been noted repeatedly but the victim has barely been mentioned. In fact most mentions fo the victim have been to note she vindictively informed his wife and was “out of control”.

This case is disgusting evidence of how little women are valued.

@Cam77

I think a lot of the public - myself included, have a problem with the the very definition of manslaughter.

IMO if you violently assault somebody and you are the instigator of physical violence, and they die as a result of that assault, then you should be charged no differently as if you actually intended to kill them. “It was an accident” doesn’t bring that person back so I don’t see why it should reduce your sentence.

I think that's true, a lot of people do feel that way, most especially in a case like this where they suspect that it really wan't an accident at all.

However, I'd suggest if you put another case in front of them, say two normal young men about to leave school get into a fight about something and one throws a punch and they get into a fight, and the other ends up accidentally dead at the end of it, people might feel differently about treating it as murder.

Presumably in that case too, premeditated murder would be seen as the same as murder where there was no premeditation since being dead is the same either way. So the fellow who accidentally killed another fellow in a fight would be the same as the man who plans to kill his wife and take the insurance money, or a planned execution in a criminal gang.

Well, to many people, women aren't fully human.

It's outrageous, but as Germaine Greer once said something like: "Women can't afford to recognise how much men hate them."

I hope the prosecution appeals. This case gives carte blanche for any man to murder his partner.

Wonder how many woman have accidentally strangled a man in an accident 🤔
I can’t even get both hands around DPs neck.

I hope there's a way of appealing this verdict.

He's a police officer, maybe that explains the leniency the courts wouldn't have for everyone else.

It’s a jury trial, the prosecution cannot appeal.

@persistentwoman

To those pontificating about how easy it is to murder accidentally kill a woman through strangulation, it's worth remembering that he was a police officer who is trained in restraint etc and how to avoid 'accidentally' killing someone.

100% agree!

' He described the incident as a 'kerfuffle', claiming he 'fell on top of her by accident more than anything' and his arms must have 'slipped up' around her neck '

Yeah right!

I really did think he would be convicted of murder as it seemed so clear to me that he meant to cause her harm and would- as a pp has pointed out, he is a police officer, he will have had training in restraint and control- know that what he was doing could lead to her death. But then I probably don't properly understand the difference between manslaughter and murder.

It's shit, this.

Knitting agree and add to that the fact I'm sure she tried desperately to fight back therefore requiring additional strength to combat that so he would have absolutely realised very, very quickly how it would likely end.

This is so upsetting and predictable. I'm genuinely scared for our girls growing up that this can happen and their lives mean so little to the system.

For murder there needs to be prove beyond reasonable doubt of intent, that the offender set out to kill the other person. That they preplanned the act.

Intent doesn’t mean preplanned it means a decision taken to kill - which can be at the time of the event - as opposed to manslaughter which is unintentional.

Meanwhile it was also revealed today that Brehmer was known by his colleagues in the force as a 'sexual predator' who preyed on 'vulnerable' emergency workers.

Unbelievable!

it's worth remembering that he was a police officer who is trained in restraint etc and how to avoid 'accidentally' killing someone

This is really important.
Maybe he didn’t set out to meet her with the intent to kill her. But he absolutely knew what he was doing - he could have just got out of the car himself.

His use of the word “kerfuffle” and “piggy back” are attempts to minimise what he did. This was again, deliberate I’m sure.

How long before doing it do you have to decide you want someone dead before it counts?

Perhaps more people should learn the difference between murder and manslaughter.