If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Burning a gay teen to death gets "prankster" three and a half years in jail. Stay classy England   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 257
    More: Sick, Tyler Clementi, Yorkshire Post, Don Lemon, batty boys, Asperger syndrome, Trevor Project, Ottawa, Canada, Jim Swilley  
•       •       •

14353 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2013 at 12:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-24 02:22:22 AM

GAT_00: Here I was expecting that England was actually being intelligent by not handing out life sentences to a juvenile.

Then I checked the article and saw the age. How the fark is that not a murder charge?


Because he didn't intend to kill him.

Why the hell would it be murder?
 
2013-03-24 02:23:09 AM

BigLuca: Really? No "that boy was FLAMING" jokes yet?  Well ... actually that is probably for the best.


I'm somehow actually proud of fark for once. My heart is going pitter-patter.
 
2013-03-24 02:25:01 AM

Well Armed Sheep: BigLuca: Really? No "that boy was FLAMING" jokes yet?  Well ... actually that is probably for the best.

I'm somehow actually proud of fark for once. My heart is going pitter-patter.


That's because the humor-impaired trolls who would normally make fun of others' misfortunes aren't allowed by their mothers to be on the Internet after Midnight.
 
2013-03-24 02:25:09 AM

Gyrfalcon: But I also don't think that anyone there had any idea that tanning oil could burn someone so badly they would die from it, or that the intention was to kill him by doing it, or even to "torture" him as you say.


A prank that goes too far is essentially a light form of torture. This 'prank' crossed all sorts of boundaries and dove head first into torturous behavior. Getting sprayed with a flammable substance and lit on fire was the cherry on top of a cruel joke.

/it still amazes me that people (not you specifically, but in general) think fire makes for great prank material
//I do not like to participate in pranks since I lack the ability to socially process them in a humorous manner (looking back on my childhood, I had all the traits of being HFA - including temper tantrums and social awkwardness - but never was diagnosed as such)
///it's like the line from Super Troopers: "our pranks are harmless and fun, Farva's pranks are cruel and mean"
 
2013-03-24 02:25:43 AM

Nina Haagen Dazs: t's the 3 1/2 years that I can't get over. It took that kid 1 day to die from his injuries. Even loaded up with morphine, he would have suffered horribly. For being gay.


Aye. 

spawn73: Because he didn't intend to kill him.

Why the hell would it be murder?


You must the dullest spoon in any drawer in the world. If you set someone on freaking fire, whats the goal, to have a laugh about it ?
I swear the complete tool level here keeps going up and the smart folks just dont post as much anymore.
 
2013-03-24 02:26:18 AM

MurphyMurphy: They are humans, not dogs.


And I regard dogs more highly than shiatstains like the on in this article.

And I am in no way trolling. I'm as serious as a 5 vein bypass.
 
2013-03-24 02:32:04 AM
Is it politically incorrect to call a gay guy "flaming," if he is actually on fire?
 
2013-03-24 02:33:16 AM

unamused: MurphyMurphy: They are humans, not dogs.

And I regard dogs more highly than shiatstains like the on in this article.


I can't really argue with that tbh. I just like dogs more than people, period.

unamused: And I am in no way trolling. I'm as serious as a 5 vein bypass.


Fair enough.

But we're human and prone to dismissal and fantasies of revenge that cloud our sense of justice.  I do expect better out of the justice system. Not for shiatstains like this, but for non-shiat ones that fall between the cracks. Even if the kid didn't realize the scope of his actions, it sounded like a purely cruel and juvenile thing to do at 18.
 
2013-03-24 02:34:42 AM

germ78: Gyrfalcon: But I also don't think that anyone there had any idea that tanning oil could burn someone so badly they would die from it, or that the intention was to kill him by doing it, or even to "torture" him as you say.

A prank that goes too far is essentially a light form of torture. This 'prank' crossed all sorts of boundaries and dove head first into torturous behavior. Getting sprayed with a flammable substance and lit on fire was the cherry on top of a cruel joke.


I love practical jokes as much as anybody, but those with a Vitamin IQ deficiency don't know the diff between a practical joke and violence.  A good practical joke doesn't hurt people or insult them, just freaks them out in a harmless way.  A good example was a mansion in 1930s Hollywood that had a room that was decorated completely upside-down; when a person passed out drunk at a party, they'd be carried to this room to sober up--usually, they'd let the victim onto the joke after a minute or two of screaming.  A version of this idea that was done in my high school had students completely reverse the furniture in a room when the teacher stepped out for a minute--and even the principal thought it was a good joke.

A lot of so-called practical jokes, however, are socially-accepted forms of cruelty by idiots who aren't man enough to be real criminals.  Usually some dipshiat too underqualified to be a professional Village Idiot playing around with electricity, flammable liquids, or explosives.  Like the morons at a party who thought it would be fun to run household current through a person who was passed-out drunk and ended up committing manslaughter...
 
2013-03-24 02:37:02 AM

The Angry Hand of God: Is it politically incorrect to call a gay guy "flaming," if he is actually on fire?


No more politically incorrect than pointing out that somebody who makes such a tired cheap shot had probably gone to school to be a wit, but only got halfway through.
 
2013-03-24 02:37:22 AM

MurphyMurphy: unamused: Assholes like the one in this article should be put down like mad dogs. We know it's not the dog's fault it got rabies, but we kill it just the same. Under that condition I will guarantee you that the asshole in this story would ever become your "gladiator."

They are humans, not dogs.

But thanks for spelling out your trolling so plainly.


And as humans, they should be held responsible for their crimes.  Just because they're capable of walking upright and speech doesn't make them worth keeping alive.  We're hardly an endangered species.
 
2013-03-24 02:38:56 AM

Your Average Witty Fark User: unamused: England can't have murders; they have gun control.

They are a "civilized" society.

I'm so confused. Where was the gun in this story again?


Not in the hands of the gay teenager so he could defend himself. Duh.


doglover: He would, but I hope not for hate crimes. Hate crime legislation is silly. It really is. I don't approve of it.


Yeah. The motivation behind murder and assault is rarely goodwill.
 
2013-03-24 02:40:19 AM

spawn73: GAT_00: Here I was expecting that England was actually being intelligent by not handing out life sentences to a juvenile.

Then I checked the article and saw the age. How the fark is that not a murder charge?

Because he didn't intend to kill him.

Why the hell would it be murder?



Hahahahaha, wow. You'd make a smashingly stupid prosecutor, wouldn't you?

Wait, what am I saying? You'd make a smashing stupid anything.

Let's review your metric:

I drunk drive, plow into a school bus, kill all kids aboard. I didn't mean to kill anyone. No murder charges!
I start firing a gun in to my wall, killing all my neighbors. What in heck I just wanted to shoot my wall! No muder charges!
 
2013-03-24 02:44:24 AM
I know its unfair to judge a whole country for one incident, but I've lost a fark-ton of respect for england just now.
 
2013-03-24 02:44:44 AM

doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: What, no hate crime penalty enhancer England?

Because all crimes are hate crimes.

Also England is to law enforcement what Canada is to a tropical paradise.

It's the 3 1/2 years that I can't get over. It took that kid 1 day to die from his injuries. Even loaded up with morphine, he would have suffered horribly. For being gay.

What do you expect from a country that bans everything remotely dangerous, arrests people for inhuming home invaders, and doesn't let their police carry weapons? They don't even have a death penalty any more. Which is odd because England practically invented the modern idea of the humane death penalty in their Imperial age. Before that it was more... creative.


So they are too controlling bit not controlling enough?

Or are you simply unable to make a post with a reactionary attention-whoring trollish bit of verbal diarhea?

And no, not all crimes are hate crimes, whether you like the concept or not. Even if all crimes involved hatred of some kind, you know what people mean by the term hate crime, and it is about hating the class of person and not merely the individual.
 
2013-03-24 02:48:27 AM

BigLuca: Really? No "that boy was FLAMING" jokes yet?  Well ... actually that is probably for the best.


ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2013-03-24 02:48:57 AM

DoomPaul: Ah yes, Huffington Post, very nice of them to add that the victim of a horrible accidental death was gay in order to imply a hate crime. That will get more clicks.


I'm sure the anti-gay slurs scrawled on his body had nothing to do with anything.
 
2013-03-24 02:49:42 AM

MurphyMurphy: unamused: MurphyMurphy: They are humans, not dogs.

And I regard dogs more highly than shiatstains like the on in this article.

I can't really argue with that tbh. I just like dogs more than people, period.

unamused: And I am in no way trolling. I'm as serious as a 5 vein bypass.

Fair enough.

But we're human and prone to dismissal and fantasies of revenge that cloud our sense of justice.  I do expect better out of the justice system. Not for shiatstains like this, but for non-shiat ones that fall between the cracks. Even if the kid didn't realize the scope of his actions, it sounded like a purely cruel and juvenile thing to do at 18.


Agree with you that there is a lot of shiat to straighten out in criminal justice, but there is also a lot we have to straighten out in our society that causes our justice system to get farked up.  How in the hell did we ever let the government decide it had the authority to determine what we can smoke, or where we can smoke it, or who we can have sex with and what techniques we might use?  Where in our founding documents did we gran the government the power to license a religious ceremony like a marriage; what's next, a baptism license?  Where in the hell does a person get the idea that applying fire to someone else will be funny?

Unfortunately the only way we can decrease violent crime is to segregate the violent from the non-violent.

There is quite a bit of research showing that our personalities and our interaction abilities are set by the time we are eight.  If you are setting people on fire as a teenager, you ain't fixable.
 
2013-03-24 02:50:41 AM

doglover: Because all crimes are hate crimes.


You've committed a hate crime against intelligence.
 
2013-03-24 02:52:20 AM

Shryke: I drunk drive, plow into a school bus, kill all kids aboard. I didn't mean to kill anyone. No murder charges!


You're right, you won't be charged with murder. The charge is usually intoxicated manslaughter or some other charge that means you are totally responsible for those deaths. You could still go away for life, though, but I've seen people drive drunk, kill someone, and get probation.

I start firing a gun in to my wall, killing all my neighbors. What in heck I just wanted to shoot my wall! No muder charges!

In this case, the investigators will look to whether you had any motive to kill them. If they believe your actions were pre-mediated, then yes you will be charged with murder. If you were just a moron and didn't think it all the way through, that the bullets you fire might pass through the wall and hit others, it wouldn't be murder. Manslaughter is a catch-all charge for people who do stupid things that result in someone's death, but they didn't intend to kill them, they were just too stupid to realize that someone could die from their actions. Murder requires intent.

Intent is a large part of charges and sentences. It doesn't mean people get away with it, it just means they aren't charged with murder. In this case, based on the other comments, the kid probably saw it on Youtube and, like a moron, thought to emulate it. His intent wasn't murder, thus no charge of murder.
 
2013-03-24 02:52:34 AM

Psycat: germ78: Gyrfalcon: But I also don't think that anyone there had any idea that tanning oil could burn someone so badly they would die from it, or that the intention was to kill him by doing it, or even to "torture" him as you say.

A prank that goes too far is essentially a light form of torture. This 'prank' crossed all sorts of boundaries and dove head first into torturous behavior. Getting sprayed with a flammable substance and lit on fire was the cherry on top of a cruel joke.

I love practical jokes as much as anybody, but those with a Vitamin IQ deficiency don't know the diff between a practical joke and violence.  A good practical joke doesn't hurt people or insult them, just freaks them out in a harmless way.  A good example was a mansion in 1930s Hollywood that had a room that was decorated completely upside-down; when a person passed out drunk at a party, they'd be carried to this room to sober up--usually, they'd let the victim onto the joke after a minute or two of screaming.  A version of this idea that was done in my high school had students completely reverse the furniture in a room when the teacher stepped out for a minute--and even the principal thought it was a good joke.

A lot of so-called practical jokes, however, are socially-accepted forms of cruelty by idiots who aren't man enough to be real criminals.  Usually some dipshiat too underqualified to be a professional Village Idiot playing around with electricity, flammable liquids, or explosives.  Like the morons at a party who thought it would be fun to run household current through a person who was passed-out drunk and ended up committing manslaughter...


Well put. While I see the need for practical jokes in our society (it takes people down off their pedestals), learning to take a joke was one of the more difficult lessons in my life. Between having social difficulties and been bullied unrelenting in my middle school years, I used to be extremely sensitive to being the butt of the joke (which is also why I lashed out earlier in the thread towards the 'prankster'). So I take great offense to pranks that are hurtful, whether physically or psychologically (think sharpies).

/I'm going to bed now
 
2013-03-24 02:52:58 AM

Mellotiger: I know its unfair to judge a whole country for one incident, but I've lost a fark-ton of respect for england just now.


Same here.  Not just this case, but Mary Bell who murdered several kids as a child herself, then got let go when she turned 18.  And the case of the murder of a kid named Bulger or something like that, by two boys who also got slapped on the wrist.  Then there's Iron Maggie Thatcher who fought against smoking when she was PM, only to become a well-paid shill for Marlboro later in life.  And then there's Tony "I'm a Watered-Down Bill Clinton" Blair who was a supposed liberal like his American counterpart but, like Clinton, saw a huge increase in Britons getting busted for pot possession--not that he was a tool of Big Pharma, Big Liquor, and Big Tobacco like Clinton.  Not to mention pot getting moved to a stricter schedule (B or C, I can't remember) which caused a lot of Britons to stop smoking the mellow weed and instead going on a liquor-fueled binge drinking shiatty plastic-bottle crap from Tesco's and causing hooliganism to skyrocket.  Or bending over backwards to suck up to Islamic clerics who are openly hostile to Britain.  If Churchill were alive, he'd be madder than hell--but I digress...
 
2013-03-24 02:57:03 AM

Gyrfalcon: germ78: FTA: The teen had reportedly been dared to strip down to his underpants before being doused in tanning oil, after which Sheard set him aflame at the party. ... Sheard's attorney said his client had been "deeply and significantly affected by what he has done and the tragic consequences that ensued," which describing Simpson's death as a "stupid prank that went wrong in a bad way,"

WTF did you expect to happen when you doused a person in oil and set them on fire? Are you so farking stupid that you didn't know that oil is flammable? That's no farking prank; that's torture. Seriously, this guy needs to get hurt in the worst possible way.

People are stupid. Also, the stuff isn't "tanning oil" on the label, it's "tanning spray" and I'll bet you dollars to donuts 80% of the public that uses that crap has never read the side of the can to notice the little warning that says it's flammable.

I don't doubt for a second that the intent here was to cause the victim some pain and make him look like a fool. But I also don't think that anyone there had any idea that tanning oil could burn someone so badly they would die from it, or that the intention was to kill him by doing it, or even to "torture" him as you say. And unfortunately--or fortunately--intent is a very necessary element of common-law crimes like murder. You just can't condemn someone for being thoughtless and stupid. Or even mean and hateful.

Now, if you can show that this idiot deliberately doused the victim with oil and set him on fire with the intent of killing him because he hated him for being gay; that there was premeditation involved in his choice of accelerant and the way he lured the victim in, then fine. But since they didn't and couldn't, you have to accept that it was nothing more than voluntary manslaughter. Sorry.


This.

Also a reminder to all: when a jury in the farking courtroom disagrees with your conclusion drawn from a two paragragh article, you should keep an opem mind. They may have just possibly discussed facts you don't know about.

/doesn't mean all juries are right
//does mean I wouldn't second guess them without knowing as much as possible first.
 
2013-03-24 02:57:24 AM

alienated: Nina Haagen Dazs: t's the 3 1/2 years that I can't get over. It took that kid 1 day to die from his injuries. Even loaded up with morphine, he would have suffered horribly. For being gay.

Aye.  spawn73: Because he didn't intend to kill him.

Why the hell would it be murder?

....If you set someone on freaking fire, whats the goal, to have a laugh about it ?


This. Anyone care to explain to me how setting a person on fire is funny?

Really, you intentionally cover someone in a flammable fluid and set them on fire, what is the best that could happen? Sure, you didn't intend for them to die but it was going to be so funny when they lie in hospital with third degree burns later? Hilarious stuff. Definitely worth the risk.

Any person who thinks this is a neat 'prank' needs to do it to themselves, then nothing of value would be lost.
 
2013-03-24 02:58:13 AM

alienated: Nina Haagen Dazs: t's the 3 1/2 years that I can't get over. It took that kid 1 day to die from his injuries. Even loaded up with morphine, he would have suffered horribly. For being gay.

Aye.  spawn73: Because he didn't intend to kill him.

Why the hell would it be murder?

You must the dullest spoon in any drawer in the world. If you set someone on freaking fire, whats the goal, to have a laugh about it ?
I swear the complete tool level here keeps going up and the smart folks just dont post as much anymore.


You notice how it's usually the morons who need to claim they're smart?

RTFA. will ya, you can read?
 
2013-03-24 02:58:28 AM

Psycat: Or bending over backwards to suck up to Islamic clerics who are openly hostile to the civilised world .

FTFY, Hth
 
2013-03-24 02:59:02 AM

germ78: Psycat: germ78: Gyrfalcon: But I also don't think that anyone there had any idea that tanning oil could burn someone so badly they would die from it, or that the intention was to kill him by doing it, or even to "torture" him as you say.

A prank that goes too far is essentially a light form of torture. This 'prank' crossed all sorts of boundaries and dove head first into torturous behavior. Getting sprayed with a flammable substance and lit on fire was the cherry on top of a cruel joke.

I love practical jokes as much as anybody, but those with a Vitamin IQ deficiency don't know the diff between a practical joke and violence.  A good practical joke doesn't hurt people or insult them, just freaks them out in a harmless way.  A good example was a mansion in 1930s Hollywood that had a room that was decorated completely upside-down; when a person passed out drunk at a party, they'd be carried to this room to sober up--usually, they'd let the victim onto the joke after a minute or two of screaming.  A version of this idea that was done in my high school had students completely reverse the furniture in a room when the teacher stepped out for a minute--and even the principal thought it was a good joke.

A lot of so-called practical jokes, however, are socially-accepted forms of cruelty by idiots who aren't man enough to be real criminals.  Usually some dipshiat too underqualified to be a professional Village Idiot playing around with electricity, flammable liquids, or explosives.  Like the morons at a party who thought it would be fun to run household current through a person who was passed-out drunk and ended up committing manslaughter...

Well put. While I see the need for practical jokes in our society (it takes people down off their pedestals), learning to take a joke was one of the more difficult lessons in my life. Between having social difficulties and been bullied unrelenting in my middle school years, I used to be extremely sensitive to being the butt of the joke ...


Thanks, germ78!  I had to tolerate my share of bullying in school myself.  A lot of so-called practical jokes is just socially-accepted bullying by Neanderthals who have a retarded sense of humor.  I don't mind being the butt of a joke as long as it's a good, funny joke and not an act of violence being treated as a joke.  Writing gay slurs and setting somebody on fire isn't good clean fun; it's assault and battery, and in this case, murder...
 
2013-03-24 03:00:32 AM

spawn73: RTFA. will ya, you can read?


At a much higher level than you, of that I have no doubt. Also- comprehension of what I have read is probably eleventy times yours.
 
2013-03-24 03:00:59 AM

Shryke: spawn73: GAT_00: Here I was expecting that England was actually being intelligent by not handing out life sentences to a juvenile.

Then I checked the article and saw the age. How the fark is that not a murder charge?

Because he didn't intend to kill him.

Why the hell would it be murder?


Hahahahaha, wow. You'd make a smashingly stupid prosecutor, wouldn't you?

Wait, what am I saying? You'd make a smashing stupid anything.

Let's review your metric:

I drunk drive, plow into a school bus, kill all kids aboard. I didn't mean to kill anyone. No murder charges!
I start firing a gun in to my wall, killing all my neighbors. What in heck I just wanted to shoot my wall! No muder charges!


"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."

Do remember to breathe, retard.
 
2013-03-24 03:02:44 AM
The murderer must have had a hell of a lawyer, because the court bought the story that he was so stupid he didn't realize setting someone on fire would cause grievous injury.

That's something that seems to come up more often than one (with an I. Q. over room temperatur) would think in criminal cases. I remember  a case where some "hilarious pranksters" set the long hair of a random girl on fire in a metro station and afterwards claimed they had no idea that would actally set her on fire and hurt her.
 
2013-03-24 03:03:50 AM

alienated: spawn73: RTFA. will ya, you can read?

At a much higher level than you, of that I have no doubt. Also- comprehension of what I have read is probably eleventy times yours.


Yeah, turn that reading comprehension to 11 and try reading it then.

If you're come back from that being unable to distinguish between manslaughter and murder, then go masturbate with the rest of the moron crowd.
 
2013-03-24 03:04:09 AM

Shryke: Let's review your metric:

I drunk drive, plow into a school bus, kill all kids aboard. I didn't mean to kill anyone. No murder charges!
I start firing a gun in to my wall, killing all my neighbors. What in heck I just wanted to shoot my wall! No muder charges!


You're right.  No murder charges.  The perpetrator in both of your scenarios would be charged with homicide, not murder.
 
2013-03-24 03:05:04 AM
he'll move on to religious hate crimes and get his ass killed.
 
2013-03-24 03:07:17 AM

unamused:  How in the hell did we ever let the government decide it had the authority to determine what we can smoke, or where we can smoke it, or who we can have sex with and what techniques we might use?  Where in our founding documents did we gran the government the power to license a religious ceremony like a marriage; what's next, a baptism license?


You are confusing weddings with marriage.  They're quite different things.  The US government does not license weddings; it grants marriage licenses.
 
2013-03-24 03:11:53 AM

spawn73: Yeah, turn that reading comprehension to 11 and try reading it then.


You do not even get a Tolkien reference. You get a special colour and plonked. Whats the Danish word for dumbass ? Oh, thats right, dumbass. Pendejo .
 
2013-03-24 03:14:16 AM

Europos: The murderer must have had a hell of a lawyer, because the court bought the story that he was so stupid he didn't realize setting someone on fire would cause grievous injury.

That's something that seems to come up more often than one (with an I. Q. over room temperatur) would think in criminal cases. I remember  a case where some "hilarious pranksters" set the long hair of a random girl on fire in a metro station and afterwards claimed they had no idea that would actally set her on fire and hurt her.


So just act like you are too stupid to know deadly actions might result in death, even though your actions have absolutely no legitimate worth, and get off a murder charge.  Maybe push someone off a tall building, but declare it was supposed to be a joke because it is so funny to hear them screaming on the way down.

Stupidity really needs to be a crime if it causes harm to another person.

If ignorance of the law is supposed to be no excuse, how come plain old ignorance is?
 
2013-03-24 03:15:23 AM
Well, homosex detected. Nuke it from orbit, etc.
 
2013-03-24 03:16:47 AM
By the by, I have had 2nd degree burns on my chest and legs due to a pure accident. It was sheer agony for 4 months afterwords.
This poor lad was set on fire, for fracks sake, 3rd degree burns are even more painful, and that poor lad suffered for the last day of his life due to not just one, but several assholes.
I would put you in a pain amplifier for even 5 minutes and see what you thought of that, spawn73 .
 
2013-03-24 03:17:43 AM
Yes, everything is murder in the U.S. What with your strange Murder 1 2 3 distinctions, but in Europe its usually:

murder (something very very specific; what spawn73 said) ----->manslaughter (fights; heat of moment stuff)---->indifferent killing (letting someone die because you just don't care)----->negligent killing (accidentially the whole human).
 
2013-03-24 03:20:42 AM
Okay ailenated, we get this is personal for you but we're not talking about feelings here but legal procedure.
 
2013-03-24 03:21:44 AM

Psycat: Thanks for clarifying that.  BTW, do you think that setting some guy on fire constitutes malicious intent if the firebug didn't understand how flammable tanning oil is?  I think it is, but if he's drunk or very stupid, it might count in his favor...


IANAL, but personally knowing what I know, yes. I believe that setting someone on fire would count as Murder. If not second degree murder, then first due to either premeditation, or the heinousness of the crime. (Torturous, Cruel Death). In the United States, I could also see them seeking the death penalty based on the second part of that, in addition to the fact it falls under a hate crime statute. (Burned him because he was gay)

It would be manslaughter if they were able to prove the act was done in the heat of a moment where the perpetrator was overcome with emotion, IIRC. This is why people who walk in on their wife getting nailed and shoot the guy tend to get charged with Manslaughter.
 
2013-03-24 03:28:49 AM

Psycat: In the first case, the pedestrian was crossing at a crosswalk and the driver ran a red light.  Pretty cut 'n' dried.  In the second case, the pedestrian was walking on the shoulder of a road without sidewalks.  What gets me is that the driver didn't get his license permanently revoked after the first fatality.  I'm not 100% sure, but I think in Minnesota, it's always the driver's fault unless the pedestrian actually tries to get himself run over, and being a drunk driver in a fatal accident is usually an open 'n' shut case.


Well, there ya' go. In the first case, the driver ran a red light. I don't care how sober you are, running a red light is NEVER acceptable. My guess is that the guy who did that would also run red lights when he was sober.

Being drunk can impair your judgment and slow your reaction time but it doesn't make you run red lights.
 
2013-03-24 03:29:14 AM

ciberido: unamused:  How in the hell did we ever let the government decide it had the authority to determine what we can smoke, or where we can smoke it, or who we can have sex with and what techniques we might use?  Where in our founding documents did we gran the government the power to license a religious ceremony like a marriage; what's next, a baptism license?

You are confusing weddings with marriage.  They're quite different things.  The US government does not license weddings; it grants marriage licenses.


If the minister performs a wedding, and there is no marriage license, there is no marriage.  Therefore, the license is also a defacto wedding license because the wedding is not valid without it.
 
2013-03-24 03:30:46 AM

alienated: spawn73: Yeah, turn that reading comprehension to 11 and try reading it then.

You do not even get a Tolkien reference. You get a special colour and plonked. Whats the Danish word for dumbass ? Oh, thats right, dumbass. Pendejo .


But all the same you felt the need to reply to me?

I'm not a part of your circle jerk group, do piss off and stay there.
 
2013-03-24 03:36:12 AM

unamused: Agree with you that there is a lot of shiat to straighten out in criminal justice, but there is also a lot we have to straighten out in our society that causes our justice system to get farked up. How in the hell did we ever let the government decide it had the authority to determine what we can smoke, or where we can smoke it, or who we can have sex with and what techniques we might use? Where in our founding documents did we gran the government the power to license a religious ceremony like a marriage; what's next, a baptism license? Where in the hell does a person get the idea that applying fire to someone else will be funny?

Unfortunately the only way we can decrease violent crime is to segregate the violent from the non-violent.

There is quite a bit of research showing that our personalities and our interaction abilities are set by the time we are eight. If you are setting people on fire as a teenager, you ain't fixable.


I agree with everything here (though some scruples with the very last part).

But to segregate them.. our population has gotten to the point if we want to, we can't afford to do it with prisons. Unless we end the war on drugs (and I dont mean just weed) and that simply isnt' going to happen.

It's land-intensive (and for a modern society to consider it's revolutionary) but I think it's time we try a new penal colony experiment. And I'm dead serious myself with that. If you can't be fixed in 10 years and the system can't justify killing you, then you'll be released into an isolated society.

How is this different from prisons? <- anyone that's seen a real-deal Fed or State lockup doesn't need to ask this... (unless you are in CA, then you'll probably be surprised that you're looking at a prison and not a penal colony. We got murderers living in dorm halls out there ffs)

We need a solution that most certainly deals with the rotten apples but one we can live with knowing a certain margin of error means we are going to be applying that same justice unwittingly to an innocent or someone much less deserving. After all. as an alleged free society, it's the crimes we may commit against an innocent citizen that we have to be mindful of above all.

---------

As to that last part, I'd agree if you can make a sound argument that they really are cruel and without mercy or empathy. A true bad egg. But the problem with teenagers is (the ones that aren't shiatstains) they can still be cruel and not even realize it until they get much older... the kid that did this could simply be very very stupid and wise up one day.

Yeah, he's 18, and he's both an adult and a stupid kid. Legal boundaries don't change reality and judges know this.

That may not meet the muster for many. Many would say "tell that to the family of the dead kid" but as a person that knows plenty of people that lost family due to the misshaped crimes of some dumb kid I can tell you there are good people that just end up in stupid situations that they let get away from them. And I don't think that always equivocates to a death sentence (in fact I think rarely it should, if ever), even when someone loses their life.

I've seen plenty of shiatstains in my life. I've also seen people that some (you) might have had lined up against a wall and shot who not only turned their lives around and realized their wrong ways, but went on to dedicate their lives to keeping other kids from doing wrong. I think the redemption of a person is not something to be lightly dismissed. That might sound trivial on it's face, but let me tell you that it's those people have more of an impact on turning kids lives around than many other attempts/measures.

Someone commented earlier about DUIs that turn into vehicular homicides. I've known several of them too. They are usually especially tragic cases, like when the victim ends up being one of the kids in the vehicle and who drove came down to a coin toss instead of a call to a DD. For every parent that wants revenge and the drunk driver locked up for life, I see parents of victims cry and plead for leniency of the person that killed their own child.

The former want revenge, the latter want something good to come of it... if I have to support a policy that is an extension of either of these, I'll pick the merciful latter every time. I'd rather let a shiatstain fall between the cracks than go crazy revenge style on a potential good person and citizen that happened to be the wrong place, wrong time doing a stupid thing most of us have done at one point or another with less tragic results.

Without more details, for all I know the perp here was the same as the giggling dumb asses I saw... even into college, playing pranks with shiat like fire not even considering the consequences.

Not that they shouldn't be punished, and not that what happened to this kid didn't sound cruel and inhumane, but at the end of the day this could be one tragic accident, we just dont know. And sentencing should be measured accordingly.

Because of all of this, the laws in most states and many many judges agree (I base this off typical sentences for negligent/vehicular/other non-first and second degree murders) that a sentence of 1-2 years with strict probation to follow is just for first time offenders of crimes like this. And again, very very common.

Though the revenge sentiment seems to be pushing it's way politically. The "lock em up and throw away the key" or "shoot em" approaches that some seem so big on are pushing so that deaths associated with DUIs or even drug overdoses are tried as murder 2 (or in some cases even 1st degree) by very ambitious DAs.

/tldr: csb
 
2013-03-24 03:43:47 AM

Europos: Okay ailenated, we get this is personal for you but we're not talking about feelings here but legal procedure.


Its not personal- I never met or even knew this kid. I got burned not by a prank, but my own stupidity, by the sun, on senior ditch day when i was a junior in high school. I am also talking about legal procedure, but a bit about based on my own experience with being burned just how paniful it can be. Not to mention this kids terror of seeing with his own eyes himself, on fire.
 
2013-03-24 03:52:11 AM

duenor: something is missing here.
it's the gay kid's own birthday party. if this guy hated him so much, why was he invited?

this is what it sounds like to me:

1. gay kid throws party, invites a bunch of stupid friends
2. gay kid strips, lets his friends write all sorts of dumb stuff on him, enjoys the attention he's getting.
3. stupid friend decides it would be funny to see him try to put out the burning oil, figures it would just last a few seconds like he's seen on youtube
4. gay kid starts burning and can't stop it because the oil is all over and soaked into his skin, dies from massive loss of skin

It sounds like they are casting this as "bully writes anti gay stuff on poor helpless gay kid and then sets him on fire", but it just doesn't add up with the situation. for that to happen the "yob" would have to push his way into the kid's party, write all the stuff on him and set him on fire right in front of all his presumably friendly friends and family (it was at his home), without anyone trying to stop him.


I'd buy that more if he'd tried to put the kid out after.  A neighbor was the only one who did.  It may not have been intended to kill him, but considering the age and the difficulties mentioned in the article, it wouldn't be surprising if the kid invited people who were not really friends while trying to fit in better.
 
2013-03-24 03:58:02 AM

GAT_00: Then I checked the article and saw the age. How the fark is that not a murder charge?


Because there was no intent to kill. Did you read the article?
 
2013-03-24 04:04:15 AM
Congrats for creating one of the more idiotic response threads in human history...
 
2013-03-24 04:04:24 AM

unamused: England can't have murders; they have gun control.

They are a "civilized" society.


UK murder rate: 1.14 per 100,000
US murder rate: 4.67 per 100,000
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report