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  
•       •       •

14350 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 08:17:37 AM
being doused in tanning oil, after which Sheard set him aflame at the party.

Why would you make a product that's meant to be spread over your entire body flammable?
 
2013-03-24 08:18:04 AM
England has weak sentencing for all crimes.
 
2013-03-24 08:25:39 AM
Oh, look manslaughter. Hence why places like the UK have a lower murder rate than the US. I would just like everyone to remember that when comparing statistics, in the UK setting someone aflame is apparently not considered murder.
 
2013-03-24 08:48:55 AM

IlGreven: You're right. They should give every citizen two AR-15s and all the ammo they can carry.  That'll solve everything.


It has worked so well in Somalia, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, after all.
 
2013-03-24 08:51:36 AM

I alone am best: Oh, look manslaughter. Hence why places like the UK have a lower murder rate than the US. I would just like everyone to remember that when comparing statistics, in the UK setting someone aflame is apparently not considered murder.


The rates I quoted were for intentional homicide, however defined in law.
 
2013-03-24 08:51:40 AM
Should have given him a metal instead.
 
2013-03-24 09:16:00 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.


They got rid of a death penalty due to a case where a man was accused of being a serial killer and sent to death, when it turned out someone else did it.
 
2013-03-24 09:18:48 AM

doglover: PC LOAD LETTER: doglover: 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.

And what did drawing and quartering do to the crime rate? Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

Which is why in the Imperial age, they stopped doing that.

Read a book.


Europe stopped doing that. It fell out of fashion as other forms of execution took its place. And then when capital punishment was no longer fashionable, they got rid of that. Plus, the crimes that drawing and quartering were targeted against (mostly religious offenses), were no longer against the law after a while. Perhaps you should read a book.
 
2013-03-24 09:37:38 AM
Psycat:

And that's the stupid thing about countries that have lenient laws:  if you resort to extra-judicial punishment (i.e. vigilantism) to punish evildoers, you'll just get a lenient punishment yourself.  When Anders Breivik gets out of his Norwegian prison after 3 years and a personal blowjob from the Prime Minister, what's stopping the parents of one of his victims from yanking Breivik off the street, disfiguring the hell out of him with boiling oil, and then dropping off Breivik in front of an emergency room to guarantee that Breivik spends the rest of his life screaming in agony?

No disfiguring. I just wish one of the murdered kids had had the chance to stab the mother farker in the jugularis externa with a fork before they themselves died.

Considering how intelligent most of the people of Norway are I suspect he will die of a 'natural' (and terribly painful) cause the moment he gets out.

And the case will be closed.
 
2013-03-24 10:05:32 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: They got rid of a death penalty due to a case where a man was accused of being a serial killer and sent to death, when it turned out someone else did it.


We got rid of the death penalty because we realised that it was uncivilised and barbaric.
 
2013-03-24 10:08:17 AM

Psycat: When Anders Breivik gets out of his Norwegian prison after 3 years and a personal blowjob from the Prime Minister


Or in reality, "His 21-year sentence can be indefinitely extended for as long as he is considered a danger to society."
 
2013-03-24 10:11:34 AM

Langdon_777: Psycat:

And that's the stupid thing about countries that have lenient laws:  if you resort to extra-judicial punishment (i.e. vigilantism) to punish evildoers, you'll just get a lenient punishment yourself.  When Anders Breivik gets out of his Norwegian prison after 3 years and a personal blowjob from the Prime Minister, what's stopping the parents of one of his victims from yanking Breivik off the street, disfiguring the hell out of him with boiling oil, and then dropping off Breivik in front of an emergency room to guarantee that Breivik spends the rest of his life screaming in agony?

No disfiguring. I just wish one of the murdered kids had had the chance to stab the mother farker in the jugularis externa with a fork before they themselves died.

Considering how intelligent most of the people of Norway are I suspect he will die of a 'natural' (and terribly painful) cause the moment he gets out.

And the case will be closed.


He's not getting out. At least he's not getting out in less than 10 years. He'll be up for a release but that doesn't guarantee an actual release.
 
2013-03-24 10:14:22 AM
Maybe someone will give him what he deserves  while in prison...
 
2013-03-24 10:26:08 AM

BarkingUnicorn: 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.

WHERE WERE THE PARENTS???

It's almost as if the UK media focuses on the criminal instead of seeking someone else to blame.


They are adults....... Their parents stopped holding their hands and hovering over them years ago.
 
2013-03-24 10:29:09 AM

Zebulon: Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Pretty much this.

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought; malice being defined as intent to kill, intent to cause grievous bodily harm (as they say in Britain), wanton and reckless disregard for human life, or death in the commission of another felony.

And no matter how stupid, heartless, evil or hateful this moron's actions were, there's just no evidence he intentionally set the victim on fire intending to kill him OR seriously injure him. He probably thought it would be funny as hell and may not even have thought it would hurt him too much. Just give him a few blisters. And since, as people keep reminding me, stupidity is not a felony, 3 1/2 years is about the best the judge could do.

And to add on:
Just go to youtube.  There's a LOT of videos of dumbasses dousing themselves/friends with baby oil or alcohol for fire stunts like this.

I still don't get it. If I kill someone. they are dead. Gone. Never going to come back. Does it really matter how/why I did it? If I "didn't mean to do it", then doesn't that mark me as MORE dangerous to society, not less? I mean, if someone really hates someone, and goes through the process of planning out how to kill them, and then does it, that shows that they know how to pick a target and take out that target. Net result, one person dead. If someone is so stupid that they end up killing someone without intending to do it, what prevents them from accidentally killing someone tomorrow? Next week? The Thursday after that? This guy could kill again, and again, and again, and as long as each time he says "whoops, my bad, I was too stupid to know that would kill someone" he will keep getting let out after only a couple years in jail.


Right, treat all deaths the same.  Execute people the same for accidental traffic deaths and premeditated murder.
 
2013-03-24 10:41:34 AM
I guess he was...
(Puts on sunglasses).
Flaming.
 
2013-03-24 11:16:01 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: doglover: 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.

And what did drawing and quartering do to the crime rate? Zippo. Nada. Zilch.


What you did there? I sees it.
www.tabpimps.com
Not a fabulous way to go. Just three years is not an appropriate sentence for this crime.
 
2013-03-24 11:20:16 AM
Hey, straight boys will be straight boys and shiat happens. Seriously, sad story but wtf are you going to do?  These kids are assholes but if you went around and jailed every asshole kid you'd eventually run out of people to guard them.
 
2013-03-24 11:27:47 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Zebulon: Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Pretty much this.

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought; malice being defined as intent to kill, intent to cause grievous bodily harm (as they say in Britain), wanton and reckless disregard for human life, or death in the commission of another felony.

And no matter how stupid, heartless, evil or hateful this moron's actions were, there's just no evidence he intentionally set the victim on fire intending to kill him OR seriously injure him. He probably thought it would be funny as hell and may not even have thought it would hurt him too much. Just give him a few blisters. And since, as people keep reminding me, stupidity is not a felony, 3 1/2 years is about the best the judge could do.

And to add on:
Just go to youtube.  There's a LOT of videos of dumbasses dousing themselves/friends with baby oil or alcohol for fire stunts like this.

I still don't get it. If I kill someone. they are dead. Gone. Never going to come back. Does it really matter how/why I did it? If I "didn't mean to do it", then doesn't that mark me as MORE dangerous to society, not less? I mean, if someone really hates someone, and goes through the process of planning out how to kill them, and then does it, that shows that they know how to pick a target and take out that target. Net result, one person dead. If someone is so stupid that they end up killing someone without intending to do it, what prevents them from accidentally killing someone tomorrow? Next week? The Thursday after that? This guy could kill again, and again, and again, and as long as each time he says "whoops, my bad, I was too stupid to know that would kill someone" he will keep getting let out after only a couple years in jail.

Right, treat all deaths the same.  Execute people the same for accidental traffic deaths and premeditated murder.


I didn't say they should be executed, just locked up. And there is a world of difference between "lost control of my car, somebody died" and "lit someone on fire, didn't know that would kill them."
 
2013-03-24 11:46:39 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.


What the hell are you talking about?

"What do you expect from a country that bans everything remotely dangerous" - irrelevant and completely untrue
"arrests people for inhuming home invaders" - use of non-cromulent word. Assuming you mean "harming" or "injuring", between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight. Still irrelevant as well as being untrue.
"doesn't let their police carry weapons" - irrelevant and completely untrue. I walked past two armed policemen (H&K MP5s and Glocks) at Euston Station on Friday. You can't have it both ways - I live in a country where the police don't want to be armed for routine duties, where the public doesn't want them to be and where they don't need to be. You live in a country where you assert the right to bear arms at least in part so you can defend yourself from tyrannous abuses of power, and where I regularly read instances of police misusing their weapons.
"They don't even have a death penalty any more" - irrelevant, but yes, along with almost every other civilised country in the world (and many of the less civilised countries) we have abolished the death penalty and no longer sanction the killing of mentally disturbed people with the IQs of children.

Did I miss sarcasm in your post, or are you as mad as a sack of badgers?
 
2013-03-24 11:47:33 AM

mikalmd: Maybe someone will give him what he deserves  while in prison...


I hope you mean education and life skills but I have a horrible feeling that you may be yet another prison rape fantasist.
 
2013-03-24 12:07:39 PM

Zebulon: Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Pretty much this.

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought; malice being defined as intent to kill, intent to cause grievous bodily harm (as they say in Britain), wanton and reckless disregard for human life, or death in the commission of another felony.

And no matter how stupid, heartless, evil or hateful this moron's actions were, there's just no evidence he intentionally set the victim on fire intending to kill him OR seriously injure him. He probably thought it would be funny as hell and may not even have thought it would hurt him too much. Just give him a few blisters. And since, as people keep reminding me, stupidity is not a felony, 3 1/2 years is about the best the judge could do.

And to add on:
Just go to youtube.  There's a LOT of videos of dumbasses dousing themselves/friends with baby oil or alcohol for fire stunts like this.

I still don't get it. If I kill someone. they are dead. Gone. Never going to come back. Does it really matter how/why I did it? If I "didn't mean to do it", then doesn't that mark me as MORE dangerous to society, not less? I mean, if someone really hates someone, and goes through the process of planning out how to kill them, and then does it, that shows that they know how to pick a target and take out that target. Net result, one person dead. If someone is so stupid that they end up killing someone without intending to do it, what prevents them from accidentally killing someone tomorrow? Next week? The Thursday after that? This guy could kill again, and again, and again, and as long as each time he says "whoops, my bad, I was too stupid to know that would kill someone" he will keep getting let out after only a couple years in jail.


You're arguing against the entire notion of motive.  Yes, it matters why people do the things they do when it comes to determining an appropriate punishment (or lack of punishment)...
 
2013-03-24 12:35:21 PM

Zebulon: I didn't say they should be executed, just locked up. And there is a world of difference between "lost control of my car, somebody died" and "lit someone on fire, didn't know that would kill them."


So, if two friends are drunk and one lets the other try to shoot an arrow off the head of his friend, killing him, we should treat this death exactly the same as someone who plans  for two weeks to rape, murder, rape again, and then eat the body of his mother?

So eliminate the very concept of manslaughter entirely?  That's a bit goofy on the surface of it.
 
2013-03-24 12:36:37 PM

Mock26: 3.5 years for murder? Holy crap that is one seriously farked up country.


Voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

When there is intent to injure but not to kill.
The US's Federal Guidelines for that offense is "up to 10 years".
Even in Texas it is only a 2nd degree felony worth 2-20.
 
2013-03-24 12:40:22 PM

Smackledorfer: 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.


No jury since he pled guilty, which may also have mitigated the sentence.
 
2013-03-24 12:43:47 PM
I can imagine how this could have happened. In other articles the prosecution are reported as saying that they accepted that the boy who died was actually enjoying the situation and it was good-humoured, up until the point he was set on fire. The one who did it was not the same person who put the oil on him, and did it in response to someone else saying 'go on see what it does'. He did try to put the flames out but then ran away. The prosecution also accepted that he was in other respects basically a good kid with no history of violence, who was very upset about what he had done.
 
2013-03-24 12:44:02 PM

Nina Haagen Dazs: 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.


I believe you're thinking of France. Guillotine is pretty effective.
 
2013-03-24 12:45:20 PM

Satanic_Hamster: So, if two friends are drunk and one lets the other try to shoot an arrow off the head of his friend, killing him, we should treat this death exactly the same as someone who plans  for two weeks to rape, murder, rape again, and then eat the body of his mother?


We have a principle here that you get punished for what you did and for what you meant to do but not (generally - murder is an exception) for what you did. So, for example, if you drive drunk and hit a school bus, killing ten adorable orphans with big round eyes you get the same punishment as if you had only injured one of their teachers. Or, to put it another way, you don;t get let off if you get lucky and do less damage than you might have.

Murder is an exception because you actually have to kill someone to commit the offence, but that's why "attempted murder" and "conspiracy to murder" and so on get the same sentence.

So turn it round in this case: if he'd put a match to the other lads oil-drenched pubes and someone had instantly extinguised the flames, should he have been let off because no serious harm occurred?
 
2013-03-24 12:46:16 PM

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.


Asperger's. The fire kid might have been, and probably  was, a real bully; a kid with Asperger's literally  will not figure that out until they have been seriously injured. They will try at every turn to start up a friendship with  everyone. The dumbass with the fire fetish probably wanted to cause some amount of injury to the other kid, but didn't have enough prefrontal cortext to connect 'lighting someone on fire' with 'someone dying'. But yeah, the kid probably got invited to the party  and it was probably a hate crime, because people with Asperger's are not usually capable of distinguishing between 'friend' and 'foe' without a  ton of practice.
 
2013-03-24 12:54:55 PM

orbister: We have a principle here that you get punished for what you did and for what you meant to do but not (generally - murder is an exception) for what you did


No we don't.  Hence, the charge of manslaughter exists.  Even your own examples do not support your belief; under your logic, attempted murderers should go free because they didn't actually do anything.
 
2013-03-24 01:05:24 PM

Europos: 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).


I don't think it's exactly as you say.  Yes, the USA has different degrees of murder (first-, second-, and third-degree), but we ALSO have manslaughter.  Apparently what we call "manslaughter" would be what you call "indifferent killing" would be what we call "3rd-degree murder."  But I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.
 
2013-03-24 01:05:44 PM

unamused: 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?

There is none.  That's why England is a "civilized" country, as evinced by the assailant in this story, and his subsequent punishment by English society.


Then don't bring it up, jackass. I can't even say nice strawman, because you failed MISERABLY.
 
2013-03-24 01:08:14 PM

orbister: Tatterdemalian: Which is why "happy slapping" is so popular in the UK. As long as you're smiling and laughing on camera, and making statements that you are just having fun and not going to hurt anyone, you can beat as many people as you want to death and get only repeated slaps on the wrist.

[Citation needed]


Well, let's see if FARK lets me post links again: Link Link Link Link

Or you can google "Ruby Thomas," "Leon Elcock," "Gavin Waterhouse," or "Chelsea O'Mahoney."
 
2013-03-24 03:05:35 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Smackledorfer: 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.

No jury since he pled guilty, which may also have mitigated the sentence.


Meh, you know what I mean.
 
2013-03-24 03:14:20 PM

unamused: 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.


Let me try again.

Although historically and traditionally they are intertwined, a wedding and a marriage are two distinct things.  A wedding is a ceremony.  A marriage is a legally-binding relationship between two (or more, in some cultures) people, which is in some respects a contract between them.  (One could argue that it's a contract between THREE entities, one of which is the government, but that's not important right now.)

You can have one without the other.  A homosexual couple in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, for example, might elect to still have a wedding ceremony, even though it has no legal significance.  Two people can also get married in the USA without any wedding ceremony whatsoever; this is often referred to as eloping.

So, to repeat myself, the government has a say in marriage.  But (in the USA at least), the government has no say whatsoever in WEDDINGS.  I can put on a cowl, proclaim myself a high priestess of His Supreme Noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and hold a wedding for you and your goldfish in New York City.  No state, local, or federal government could do a damn thing to stop me, nor would they want to.

In fact, I just did.  It was a pity you missed it; it was quite a moving little ceremony.  I hope you two will be happy together.
 
2013-03-24 03:22:38 PM

Cubicle Jockey: No jury since he pled guilty, which may also have mitigated the sentence.


Good point. It's normally a third off for a guilty plea entered at the first opportunity (ie not hearing the prosecution case and then saying "OK, I did it"). However, it's at the judge's discretion, so we'd need to see his remarks when passing sentence to know if this applied.
 
2013-03-24 03:22:52 PM

Ukab the Great: pjc51: if I get into an argument and pull out a gun and shoot my opponent on the spot that's intentional, but not premeditated.

Premeditation does NOT require days or hours. It can be just minutes, even seconds. The fact that you have a gun tells the jury you intended to kill someone.



No, I could be carrying a gun for protection.  I could be carrying a gun because I was on my way to the shooting range.  I've no doubt that the prosecution could make much out of the fact that I was carrying a gun, but it doesn't guarantee they'll prove premeditation out of it.

Also, while you're TECHNICALLY correct that there is no legal "minimum time" in the USA for premeditation, I'd be curious to know what's the shortest length of time ACTUALLY used successfully in court to establish premeditation.
 
2013-03-24 03:25:48 PM

Satanic_Hamster: No we don't.  Hence, the charge of manslaughter exists.


Erm, no. You get convicted of manslaughter if you kill someone. That's something you did. There is no crime of attempted manslaughter.

 Even your own examples do not support your belief; under your logic, attempted murderers should go free because they didn't actually do anything.

The need for a crime of attempted murder, with the same penalty as murder, is precisely the point I made, a couple of sentences later. Thank you for playing. Remedial reading is second door on the left.
 
2013-03-24 03:26:31 PM

Bullroarer_Took: orbister: Psycat: 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.

Mary Bell killed at the age of ten. She served twelve years detention, was released from prison at 22 and has led a blameless life ever since.

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables killed James Bulger when they were ten. They were released after eight years. There is no indication that Thompson has been in any trouble since, but Venables was later returned to prison breaking the terms of his licence, and subsequently convicted of child pornography offences.

What would you have us do with ten year olds who kill? Lock them up until they die, sixty or more years later? Kill them?

Desert island + air-drop.


3.bp.blogspot.com
Catches on quick, doesn't he?
 
2013-03-24 03:32:09 PM
Zebulon:   I still don't get it. If I kill someone. they are dead. Gone. Never going to come back. Does it really matter how/why I did it? If I "didn't mean to do it", then doesn't that mark me as MORE dangerous to society, not less? I mean, if someone really hates someone, and goes through the process of planning out how to kill them, and then does it, that shows that they know how to pick a target and take out that target. Net result, one person dead. If someone is so stupid that they end up killing someone without intending to do it, what prevents them from accidentally killing someone tomorrow? Next week? The Thursday after that? This guy could kill again, and again, and again, and as long as each time he says "whoops, my bad, I was too stupid to know that would kill someone" he will keep getting let out after only a couple years in jail.

Satanic_Hamster:
 Right, treat all deaths the same.  Execute people the same for accidental traffic deaths and premeditated murder.

Zebulon: I didn't say they should be executed, just locked up. And there is a world of difference between "lost control of my car, somebody died" and "lit someone on fire, didn't know that would kill them."


You do realize you just completely contradicted yourself, right?
 
2013-03-24 03:34:46 PM
doglover: [megaderp]

Pert: Did I miss sarcasm in your post, or are you as mad as a sack of badgers?

The latter.
 
2013-03-24 03:34:57 PM

Tatterdemalian: Or you can google "Ruby Thomas," "Leon Elcock," "Gavin Waterhouse," or "Chelsea O'Mahoney."


Ruby Thomas: Seven years for manslaughter after taking part in a single attack

Leon Elcock: Four and half years for manslaughter after taking part in a single attack. The Attorney General said "In this case the judge approached the sentencing exercise with care and, after looking at all the factors involved, I do not consider the terms to be unduly lenient and therefore I concluded that the Court of Appeal would be highly unlikely to increase the sentences."

Gavin Waterhouse: killed by two young men who got seven and six and a half years for manslaughter. The fifteen year old girl who filmed the attack got two years. None had previous convictions for similar behaviour.

Chelsea O'Mahoney: charged with murder, found guilty of manslaughter. Eight years. No previous convictions.

So, you claim that there "you can beat as many people as you want to death and get only repeated slaps on the wrist" and the examples you give show that after a first offence you will generally get between six and eight years in prison.

Perhaps you could give some examples of people who have killed repeatedly and been given trivial sentences each time. Or admit that you are a Daily Mail journalist or, tautologically, full of shiat.
 
2013-03-24 03:47:18 PM

ciberido: a wedding and a marriage are two distinct things.


They weren't up until we created marriage licenses to stop miscegenation.  You are trying to defend the current system because it allows the government to define marriage.

Prior to government licensure of marriage, you had your wedding and entered a record in the family bible and you were married; none of the governments damned business.
Then white girls started marrying slaves and everybody went apeshiat.
 
2013-03-24 03:51:19 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: unamused: 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?

There is none.  That's why England is a "civilized" country, as evinced by the assailant in this story, and his subsequent punishment by English society.

Then don't bring it up, jackass. I can't even say nice strawman, because you failed MISERABLY.


That point went so far over your head you didn't even hear the sonic boom, did you?
 
2013-03-24 04:16:11 PM

Nina Haagen Dazs: I probably shouldn't compare England to the U.S, but I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.


It would depends on which state the crime happened in, I'm afraid.  In some places, you might have a hard time finding a jury that would convict.
 
2013-03-24 05:16:16 PM

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.


It could've been because he had Assburgers. A well done ass burger.
 
2013-03-24 05:51:34 PM
Simpson had Asperger's syndrome, a speech impairment and epilepsy in addition to be a homosexual.

If it makes you feel any better, in his previous life, he was Adolf Hitler.
 
2013-03-24 06:57:22 PM
Call me old fashioned in the UK a crime like that, the penalty used to involve a short walk long drop and sudden stop, usually assisted by a pub owner from Yorkshire.
 
2013-03-24 07:46:57 PM
If tanning oil was ever banned in England, I'm pretty sure the industry would go out of business.
 
2013-03-24 08:40:44 PM

Psycat: What really torques me about stuff like this is that there were two people in my community who got away with murder.

The first one was a drunk driver who killed a pedestrian, got a year in prison, then got out and--yes--killed another pedestrian.  Second time around, he also got a light sentence.  I consider drunk-driving fatalities to be murder--perhaps the driver didn't know what he was doing when he was drunk, but he did know what he was doing when he decided to drink in the first place.  And I'll bet that when he killed the first pedestrian that it wasn't his first time driving drunk--it was probably his 1,304th time, and he should have had some self-awareness that he could kill somebody.

The second one was mostly the result of a very stupid Minnesota law that makes it hard to convict somebody for murder without a body--basically, you could get away with murder for a long time in Minnesota if you were really good at disposing of bodies.  Basically, a guy I met once or twice--and was a stereotypical creep--was accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a little girl.  It came out in the trial that he was friends with the girl's parents and did drugs a lot with them (and I don't mean pot) and when he was too drunk or buzzed to go home, the parents would let him sleep in the girl's bed with her.  On top of that, they found the girl's bloody clothes in his storage locker and he supposedly bragged to his jailmates that the cops would never find the body.  And, yes, this satanic POS is still running free; I've heard a lot of people threaten to hurt him, but nobody actually did anything.  They could re-open the case without double jeopardy based on new DNA analysis, but the dumbshiat prosecutor is too busy busting pot smokers for his masters in Big Pharma to actually care about justice.

/Corrine, I hope you get justice some day
//Bobby, it's too bad I have a thriving art career, otherwise I'd fark you up so badly you'll wish you were murdered instead
///good to he ...




2 seconds google found your second case - that is truly horrible. It's mystifying that he can be walking free with that amount of evidence. One can only hope he gets a very painful incurable cancer. It makes you wonder if his lawyer has children and if so, how can he sleep at night.
 
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