Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

14362 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
 
2013-03-23 09:57:24 PM  
What, no hate crime penalty enhancer England?
 
2013-03-23 09:59:10 PM  
This kid is gonna do it again

But of course you will be there with more "rehabilitation" to help.
 
2013-03-23 10:45:57 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-23 10:46:53 PM  
England can't have murders; they have gun control.

They are a "civilized" society.
 
2013-03-23 10:51:42 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-23 11:00:22 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.


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.
 
2013-03-23 11:08:09 PM  
Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.
 
2013-03-23 11:09:09 PM  

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.

 
2013-03-23 11:12:18 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.


Whoops. Wrong button. I really don't know what I expect. More. I probably shouldn't compare England to the U.S, but I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.
 
2013-03-23 11:18:26 PM  

Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.


I sure hope that's sarcasm.
 
2013-03-23 11:22:48 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.

I sure hope that's sarcasm.


Yes. You may want to have your sarcasm meter checked...
 
2013-03-23 11:38:26 PM  
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?
 
2013-03-23 11:40:37 PM  

Nina Haagen Dazs: I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.


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

But necklacing an 18 year old? That alone deserves a harsher punishment.

Burning is one of my least favorite injuries. I've had burns all over my bod, or at least the parts you'd least like to be burnt. Not a good way to go.
 
2013-03-23 11:41:37 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-23 11:47:09 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-23 11:49:44 PM  

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.


Honest question here. Not taking anyone's side. I am curious, is there some sort of crime rate report from the medieval ages? I have always wondered when we started writing this shiat down.
 
2013-03-23 11:50:15 PM  

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.


And studies on US crime have conclusively shown that the best indicator of predicting if someone commits a crime is having previously been in prison.

The only evidence that physical punishment actually brings down the crime rate comes from places like Denmark, where prisoners are actually rehabilitated, taught skills, treated as humans while in jail, and then returned to society.

We do none of that.
 
2013-03-23 11:51:07 PM  

doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.

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

But necklacing an 18 year old? That alone deserves a harsher punishment.

Burning is one of my least favorite injuries. I've had burns all over my bod, or at least the parts you'd least like to be burnt. Not a good way to go.


I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.
 
2013-03-23 11:57:59 PM  

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 Britain, that's why.

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.
 
2013-03-23 11:59:08 PM  

GAT_00: And studies on US crime have conclusively shown that the best indicator of predicting if someone commits a crime is having previously been in prison.


What conclusively shows they will commit a crime before they get to prison?
 
2013-03-24 12:03:46 AM  
GAT_00:
...and then returned to society.

We do none of that.


Bullshiat.  We let murderers out so they can increase their kill score, and we do it routinely.
 
2013-03-24 12:06:43 AM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: And studies on US crime have conclusively shown that the best indicator of predicting if someone commits a crime is having previously been in prison.

What conclusively shows they will commit a crime before they get to prison?


If you want a treatise on crime theorem, look elsewhere. There's 20 different theorems, and since it's sociology, none of them acknowledge the other.

One of the few testable versions has shown quite well that low socioeconomic status is a strong predictor. Basically, you leave people with no job and no hope of a future because your holy job creators left, people tend to choose to get what they can.

And since you've been gradually taking away government assistance too, they're even more desperate. And once they get out, they have no hope of anything. So they commit more crimes.

Long story made short: conservative economic and government philosophies have left blighted areas with no jobs, no income, no education, and no hope.

Why wouldn't you steal?
 
2013-03-24 12:08:43 AM  

Nina Haagen Dazs: doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.

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

But necklacing an 18 year old? That alone deserves a harsher punishment.

Burning is one of my least favorite injuries. I've had burns all over my bod, or at least the parts you'd least like to be burnt. Not a good way to go.

I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.


How can you say you don't like it while wishing you had it. Here's your proof that the legislation is necessary.

You can't have it both ways. What it sounds like to me is you want to pick and choose where to apply it when you find a case where you've decided the sentence isn't harsh enough.
 
2013-03-24 12:12:19 AM  

GAT_00: Nina Haagen Dazs: doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.

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

But necklacing an 18 year old? That alone deserves a harsher punishment.

Burning is one of my least favorite injuries. I've had burns all over my bod, or at least the parts you'd least like to be burnt. Not a good way to go.

I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.

How can you say you don't like it while wishing you had it. Here's your proof that the legislation is necessary.

You can't have it both ways. What it sounds like to me is you want to pick and choose where to apply it when you find a case where you've decided the sentence isn't harsh enough.


See, this is one reason I'm not a judge.
 
2013-03-24 12:16:34 AM  

Nina Haagen Dazs: I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.


This is exactly the time you shouldn't use it.

You don't start an opiate addiction by saying "Boy, I'd like to spend my whole life chasing the dragon. I'm gonna go start an opiate addiction." You start it in legitimate case of pain that opiates work well to treat. Then you slowly build tolerance, increase the dose instead of weaning off, and well things go downhill from there.

Allowing hate crimes to gain traction will just lead to more legislation like hate crimes. Pretty soon you're in a Les Miserables situation where stealing a loaf of bread for your starving baby will get you 20 years' hard labor because you stole from a gay baker and so it's 3 days' time for the theft and 19 years 362 days' time for the hate crime and child endangerment by getting their parent arrested.

But again you'd think necklacing a kid would get you more punishment than 3 years regardless.
 
2013-03-24 12:21:24 AM  

cman: Honest question here. Not taking anyone's side. I am curious, is there some sort of crime rate report from the medieval ages? I have always wondered when we started writing this shiat down.


I don't know about the medieval period, but I do know that they gradually became more and more interested with quantitative analysis from the Enlightenment forward, particularly in the Victorian era.
 
2013-03-24 12:22:50 AM  

doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.

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

But necklacing an 18 year old? That alone deserves a harsher punishment.

Burning is one of my least favorite injuries. I've had burns all over my bod, or at least the parts you'd least like to be burnt. Not a good way to go.



I agree on the hate crime thing. This was a brutal assault which ended in death. We shouldn't need hate crime enhancement to punish it harshly. 3 1/2 years is not early enough.

It's not quite the same as necklacing - I thought that involved a gasoline filled tire around the neck. Still, it's not much better.

Being burned is a pretty intense pain and I'm lucky that mine have been limited to small areas (mostly cigarettes, the occasional soldering iron and kitchen accident too) none of which required seeking medical attention. This guy was burned so badly it killed him

cman: Honest question here. Not taking anyone's side. I am curious, is there some sort of crime rate report from the medieval ages? I have always wondered when we started writing this shiat down.



This chart doesn't go back quite as far as medieval, but it's interesting nonetheless.

marginalrevolution.com

The site where it came from: Link  (it links to a PDF which includes a graph showing estimated homicides in parts of England going back to 1200. PDF was way too long for me to even start reading)
 
2013-03-24 12:23:58 AM  

Nina Haagen Dazs: GAT_00: Nina Haagen Dazs: doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: I'd like to think he'd get a much harsher sentence here.

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

But necklacing an 18 year old? That alone deserves a harsher punishment.

Burning is one of my least favorite injuries. I've had burns all over my bod, or at least the parts you'd least like to be burnt. Not a good way to go.

I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.

How can you say you don't like it while wishing you had it. Here's your proof that the legislation is necessary.

You can't have it both ways. What it sounds like to me is you want to pick and choose where to apply it when you find a case where you've decided the sentence isn't harsh enough.

See, this is one reason I'm not a judge.


It's simple. It either applies always or not. If you think a hate crimes law should exist for one case, it exists for all cases.

There is no real question here. Only your own morals that are apparently in your own way from recognizing that hate crimes exist and there should be a law for them.
 
2013-03-24 12:30:42 AM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 12:30:49 AM  
3 1/2 years? Wow England is pretty draconian with their anti-smoking laws.
 
2013-03-24 12:31:23 AM  

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.


That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. Congrats?
 
2013-03-24 12:32:46 AM  

GAT_00: And studies on US crime have conclusively shown that the best indicator of predicting if someone commits a crime is having previously been in prison


Perhaps it's the best predictor, but 100% of people who are sent to prison have been convicted of a crime. Not everyone returns to prison for a subsequent offense.

Nina Haagen Dazs:
I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.


Why?

Do you think if he were straight and just disliked for other reasons that he would have suffered any less?
 
2013-03-24 12:32:58 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 12:33:04 AM  
I guess being burned alive is so much more humane than being shot.
 
2013-03-24 12:33:50 AM  

doglover: Nina Haagen Dazs: I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation either but it seems appropriate here.

This is exactly the time you shouldn't use it.

You don't start an opiate addiction by saying "Boy, I'd like to spend my whole life chasing the dragon. I'm gonna go start an opiate addiction." You start it in legitimate case of pain that opiates work well to treat. Then you slowly build tolerance, increase the dose instead of weaning off, and well things go downhill from there.

Allowing hate crimes to gain traction will just lead to more legislation like hate crimes. Pretty soon you're in a Les Miserables situation where stealing a loaf of bread for your starving baby will get you 20 years' hard labor because you stole from a gay baker and so it's 3 days' time for the theft and 19 years 362 days' time for the hate crime and child endangerment by getting their parent arrested.

But again you'd think necklacing a kid would get you more punishment than 3 years regardless.


Herpity derpity doooo!
 
2013-03-24 12:35:20 AM  

Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.


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.
 
2013-03-24 12:37:23 AM  

Happy Hours: It's not quite the same as necklacing - I thought that involved a gasoline filled tire around the neck. Still, it's not much better.


Accelerant + full body coverage. Potato, potahto.

Three years seems light.

dave2198: That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination is in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[64] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71]


But you know, only the Supreme Court agrees with me. I guess I'll just give up on the ideals of freedom because dave2168 has a keyboard.
 
2013-03-24 12:38:13 AM  
Really? No "that boy was FLAMING" jokes yet?  Well ... actually that is probably for the best.
 
2013-03-24 12:38:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 3 1/2 years is about the best the judge could do.


I'd have him dig his own hole and shoot him.
Done.
Never happen again.
 
2013-03-24 12:38:52 AM  

doglover: Happy Hours: It's not quite the same as necklacing - I thought that involved a gasoline filled tire around the neck. Still, it's not much better.

Accelerant + full body coverage. Potato, potahto.

Three years seems light.

dave2198: That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination is in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[64] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

But you know, only the Supreme Court agrees with me. I guess I'll just give up on the ideals of freedom because dave2168 has a keyboard.


This just in: The Supreme Court has never made a mistake.

Also, people steal bread because they hate, according to the genius doglover.
 
2013-03-24 12:39:11 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?


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.
 
2013-03-24 12:39:41 AM  
"Stay classy England"
As babies are shot and kindergarten kids massacred in America.That is rich.
 
2013-03-24 12:40:13 AM  
"Simpson had Asperger's syndrome, a speech impairment and epilepsy" put aside the hate crime aspect for a second. In most American courts sentences are doubled for assaulting children, the elderly or handicapped. In most stated he would get 3 1/2 years for assaulting the kid let alone murder.
 
2013-03-24 12:41:47 AM  
3 year for murder? I'm gonna fly my ex-wire over there and have a few words with her.
 
2013-03-24 12:42:06 AM  

cman: This kid is gonna do it again

But of course you will be there with more "rehabilitation" to help.


pics.imcdb.org
 
2013-03-24 12:45:33 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: I'm gonna fly my ex-wire over there and have a few words with her.


It has ceased to be. It is deceased. It is no more. It bereft of life. It is an ex-wire.

www.jimandchris.com
 
2013-03-24 12:45:38 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 12:46:18 AM  

duenor: without anyone trying to stop him.


Defending yourself, or your family will get you put in prison, in England.
 
2013-03-24 12:47:00 AM  

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.


Yeah there are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-ZVFee_CHs
 
2013-03-24 12:47:09 AM  
"Ok, yeah, I lit him on fire. It got a few laughs from the rest of the group and it seemed like a good idea at the time. How was I suppose to know it would kill him?"
 
2013-03-24 12:50:37 AM  

dave2198: That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. Congrats?


What?  You don't proof read?
 
2013-03-24 12:50:42 AM  
Light him on fire.

/100%
 
2013-03-24 12:51:13 AM  
How long, exactly, would the appropriate sentence be?

And what is accomplished by that theoretical ideal that isn't in three and a half years? (other than satiating revenge and sticking the murdered somewhere you never have to think about him again.)

Long prison sentences serve no one well as we either:
-pay for them to sit around and die of old age
-place them somewhere they learn to be a real criminal (because once your in, you'll never get a legit job again. The money associated with crime starts looking appealing even to the most rehabilitated cons) which is followed by...
-let them out into society after spending 10,20,30,40 years detached from it. The only thing they know is a violence-controlled world and whatever they learned from their fellow cons in those decades. Surrounded by naive, sexy, innocent normal citizens ready to be taken advantage of in all sorts of ways. Even if you are talking about the lucky few that try to rehabilitate, even many of those (and just about all the rest) are WORSE for society after you held them for decades and then released them.

No one likes crap like this but their prison sentences are much more reasonable than the land of the free with the highest % incarceration in the world. I've long said there is nothing that can be accomplished by 10 years in prison that can't be accomplished in 5.

And for anything longer than 10 the society should just man up and accept they are already taking a life and just execute the perp, instead of paying for them to sit in the "no one has to think about you now" box for a lifetime.

/And this is coming from a person opposed to capital punishment
 
2013-03-24 12:51:30 AM  
I thought the Brits loved their queens...
 
2013-03-24 12:51:55 AM  

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.


Really???  Now I'm outraged!  I thought it was because he was autistic.
 
2013-03-24 12:53:10 AM  

Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.


Yeah, I'd feel bad about punishing the mentally deficient as well, but I doubt that was this particular bully's case...
 
2013-03-24 12:54:21 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.


Well, that explains why they have to go easy on murderers.  Gotta control the population somehow.
 
2013-03-24 12:56:00 AM  

GAT_00: If you want a treatise on crime theorem, look elsewhere. There's 20 different theorems, and since it's sociology, none of them acknowledge the other.


For those playing along at home, note the widespread availability of crime theorems, of which I am not aware.

One of the few testable versions has shown quite well that low socioeconomic status is a strong predictor. Basically, you leave people with no job and no hope of a future because your holy job creators left, people tend to choose to get what they can.

That's an interpretation imposed on the data, and mostly likely false causation.  Increasing research shows that low time preference (i.e., unwillingness to wait for a payoff) correlates very strongly with crime, especially violent crime, and with low SES.  Frustratingly, time preference seems to be a characteristic highly resistant to change.

And since you've been gradually taking away government assistance too, they're even more desperate. And once they get out, they have no hope of anything. So they commit more crimes.

Long story made short: conservative economic and government philosophies have left blighted areas with no jobs, no income, no education, and no hope.

Why wouldn't you steal?


Further and further down the garden path.  The "war on drugs" aside--which is stupidly supported by both conservatives and liberals--please discuss the specific conservative policies that have led to these outcomes.  In particular, how have they brought about the outcomes--no cheating by pointing to disastrous but well-intentioned liberal policies and blaming their effects on the pragmatic but economically effective policies they replaced.
 
2013-03-24 12:56:38 AM  

RatMaster999: I thought the Brits loved their queens...


200 degrees that's why they call him Mr Farenheit.
 
2013-03-24 12:56:51 AM  
Were here! Were Queer! If you kill us youll get three years!
 
2013-03-24 12:57:14 AM  

MurphyMurphy: No one likes crap like this but their prison sentences are much more reasonable than the land of the free with the highest % incarceration in the world. I've long said there is nothing that can be accomplished by 10 years in prison that can't be accomplished in 5.


Ummm.......Bullshiat.  Society gets 5 more years of segregation and safety from the dangerous asshole you want to set free.
 
2013-03-24 12:58:05 AM  
As the parent of a 21 year old, I can't imagine anything more horrible than my child being murdered and dying in a slow painful way. It would be unbearable to contemplate. I can't wrap my brain around that obscenely lenient sentence.
 
2013-03-24 01:01:15 AM  

doglover: Happy Hours: It's not quite the same as necklacing - I thought that involved a gasoline filled tire around the neck. Still, it's not much better.

Accelerant + full body coverage. Potato, potahto.

Three years seems light.


3 years does seem light, but the accelerant in this case probably wasn't intended to be used to burn him alive. He thought these guys were his friends. At some point, they must have been somewhat nice to him.

I'm just speculating here, but maybe he was enjoying the attention and didn't mind having "gay boy" written on his body. And then maybe some idiot thought throwing a match at him would be funny and wouldn't cause him any serious injuries let alone death.

I don't know. I wasn't at the party.It was at the very least an incredibly stupid thing to do, but I'm not sure this started out as a bunch of people looking for a homosexual to burn to death.
I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.
 
2013-03-24 01:02:43 AM  

cman: Honest question here. Not taking anyone's side. I am curious, is there some sort of crime rate report from the medieval ages? I have always wondered when we started writing this shiat down.


Here ya go: http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/  A fascinating website.
 
2013-03-24 01:04:34 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 01:06:02 AM  

Happy Hours: doglover: Happy Hours: It's not quite the same as necklacing - I thought that involved a gasoline filled tire around the neck. Still, it's not much better.

Accelerant + full body coverage. Potato, potahto.

Three years seems light.

3 years does seem light, but the accelerant in this case probably wasn't intended to be used to burn him alive. He thought these guys were his friends. At some point, they must have been somewhat nice to him.

I'm just speculating here, but maybe he was enjoying the attention and didn't mind having "gay boy" written on his body. And then maybe some idiot thought throwing a match at him would be funny and wouldn't cause him any serious injuries let alone death.

I don't know. I wasn't at the party.It was at the very least an incredibly stupid thing to do, but I'm not sure this started out as a bunch of people looking for a homosexual to burn to death.
I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.


Oh yeah. Tanning oil. Bet it was spray on.

I forgot about the recall where they were saying don't use spray on suntan and then have a beach BBQ or a smoke until you've at least dried 20 minutes because something like this would happen. Aresolization is like a skeleton key that unlocks any substance's most flammable state.
 
2013-03-24 01:08:00 AM  

unamused: MurphyMurphy: No one likes crap like this but their prison sentences are much more reasonable than the land of the free with the highest % incarceration in the world. I've long said there is nothing that can be accomplished by 10 years in prison that can't be accomplished in 5.

Ummm.......Bullshiat.  Society gets 5 more years of segregation and safety from the dangerous asshole you want to set free.


So you're delaying the inevitable. Or worse, turning a grade D criminal should you release him today into a grade A criminal by release.

Not that I'd expect someone that equivocates what I typed into me wanting to release dangerous assholes onto the streets to understand that, but that's really your problem.

If someone is able to be 'corrected' or rehabilitated it's going to happen inside of a decade. (It's going to happen inside of 3 years).... telling me that the purpose of the system is not to deal with criminals but to buy society a reprieve from them for X amount of time (at which point they are released into society, let's not forget that part).

It's not an easy problem to solve for: What do you do with the ones too bad to correct, but not bad enough to warrant capital punishment?

If you know anything about the topic you'll know that our current solution isn't working, at all.

We need to start looking at these issue with intelligence instead of 'tough on crime' bullshiat platitudes the people invested in the prison industry are always shoving down our throats.
 
2013-03-24 01:08:08 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.


WHERE WERE THE PARENTS???

It's almost as if the UK media focuses on the criminal instead of seeking someone else to blame.
 
2013-03-24 01:10:29 AM  

Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.


Can't we just chalk it up to "too stupid to live" and drop him into the nearest furnace?  Or make him Prime Minister, since he's proven himself to be politician-grade stupid.
 
2013-03-24 01:11:14 AM  

Happy Hours: I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.


Pubic hair serves as a wick, in a pinch.  Remember that when the power fails.
 
2013-03-24 01:16:36 AM  
chrylis: ... please discuss the specific conservative policies that have led to these outcomes. In particular, how have they brought about the outcomes--no cheating by pointing to disastrous but well-intentioned liberal policies and blaming their effects on the pragmatic but economically effective policies they replaced.

Trickle-down economics, anti-tax zealotry and Randian objectivism as a whole. Unless you're one of those farkwits who are so far to the right they think Reagan was a liberal; of course, anybody who refers to general liberal policies as "Disastrous" and general Republican policies as "Pragmatic" or "Economically effective" is pretty much guaranteed to be a farkwit.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand. Back on topic: What the fark is wrong with people.
 
2013-03-24 01:18:14 AM  

doglover: Happy Hours: doglover: Happy Hours: It's not quite the same as necklacing - I thought that involved a gasoline filled tire around the neck. Still, it's not much better.

Accelerant + full body coverage. Potato, potahto.

Three years seems light.

3 years does seem light, but the accelerant in this case probably wasn't intended to be used to burn him alive. He thought these guys were his friends. At some point, they must have been somewhat nice to him.

I'm just speculating here, but maybe he was enjoying the attention and didn't mind having "gay boy" written on his body. And then maybe some idiot thought throwing a match at him would be funny and wouldn't cause him any serious injuries let alone death.

I don't know. I wasn't at the party.It was at the very least an incredibly stupid thing to do, but I'm not sure this started out as a bunch of people looking for a homosexual to burn to death.
I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.

Oh yeah. Tanning oil. Bet it was spray on.

I forgot about the recall where they were saying don't use spray on suntan and then have a beach BBQ or a smoke until you've at least dried 20 minutes because something like this would happen. Aresolization is like a skeleton key that unlocks any substance's most flammable state.


Seriously - http://youtu.be/mc8KLKCPIlk
 
2013-03-24 01:18:24 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Happy Hours: I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.

Pubic hair serves as a wick, in a pinch.  Remember that when the power fails.


Fritos (90% corn oil) will also burn nicely. Put a handful in a glass jar and you've got a makeshift candle.

Remember that when the power fails.
 
2013-03-24 01:22:13 AM  
3.5 years for murder?  Holy crap that is one seriously farked up country.  Think about it, some guy got three months in jail for some "hate speech" on his Facebook page, yet murder only gets you 3.5 years.  Well, on the plus side we now know that murder is 14 times more serious than hate speech.  That has to be worth something, right?
 
2013-03-24 01:25:06 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 01:32:37 AM  

Ukab the Great: BarkingUnicorn: Happy Hours: I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.

Pubic hair serves as a wick, in a pinch.  Remember that when the power fails.

Fritos (90% corn oil) will also burn nicely. Put a handful in a glass jar and you've got a makeshift candle.

Remember that when the power fails.


How is that going to run my laptop or TV or my refrigerator or A/C?

You don't really need lights most of the time - certainly not during the day unless you don't have windows.
 
2013-03-24 01:33:10 AM  

doglover: Because all crimes are hate crimes.


So shoplifting is exhibiting hate for the object you're stealing?  The store employees that you ignore?
 
2013-03-24 01:34:54 AM  

MurphyMurphy: unamused: MurphyMurphy: No one likes crap like this but their prison sentences are much more reasonable than the land of the free with the highest % incarceration in the world. I've long said there is nothing that can be accomplished by 10 years in prison that can't be accomplished in 5.

Ummm.......Bullshiat.  Society gets 5 more years of segregation and safety from the dangerous asshole you want to set free.

So you're delaying the inevitable. Or worse, turning a grade D criminal should you release him today into a grade A criminal by release.

Not that I'd expect someone that equivocates what I typed into me wanting to release dangerous assholes onto the streets to understand that, but that's really your problem.


False dichotomy is false dichotomy.

If someone is able to be 'corrected' or rehabilitated it's going to happen inside of a decade. (It's going to happen inside of 3 years).... telling me that the purpose of the system is not to deal with criminals but to buy society a reprieve from them for X amount of time (at which point they are released into society, let's not forget that part).

If it has not happened by the time they are 18, it is unlikely to happen.

It's not an easy problem to solve for: What do you do with the ones too bad to correct, but not bad enough to warrant capital punishment?

Put them down like a rabid dog you can't let out.

If you know anything about the topic you'll know that our current solution isn't working, at all.

Of course not.  We are filling our prisons full of non-dangerous folks like pot smokers and consensual fornicators.  Then the lefty government starts letting the assholes out because they "have no room" in order to get us to pay higher taxes.

We need to start looking at these issue with intelligence instead of 'tough on crime' bullshiat platitudes the people invested in the prison industry are always shoving down our throats.


Intelligence is not letting dogs out who have already bitten.  Even though it may be a microbe's fault.
 
2013-03-24 01:37:34 AM  
What you Farkers haven't considered is this:

When Mr. Bloody-Farker-Murderer gets out of gaol (the demented British spelling), what's stopping the LGBT community in Britain from, say, torturing Mr. B-F-M for a few days and then setting *him* on fire?  Worst that can happen is that the LGBT members who got revenge will themselves get a slap on the wrist.

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?

I'm liberal in many ways, but I'm to the right of Jenghis Khan when it comes to violent crime.  What all the learned fools like William Kunstler and the British judiciary don't understand is that having the state mete out retribution for violent crime actually keeps violence down.  Before we had police systems, criminal acts were punished by personal vendettas which would often lead to never-ending feuds that made the Hatfield-McCoy dust-up look like child's play.  The whole eye-for-an-eye thing in the Bible was actually put in there to REDUCE revenge--usually, if somebody poked your eye out, you got even by poking both of his eyes out, burning his crops, raping his womenfolk, and utterly destroying his life.

I don't care much for the privatized prison industry because they're filling up prison with non-violent drug offenders.  However, I do like it that the laws are starting to get tough for violent crime.  I read a lot about crime, and one ridiculous thing I see over and over again is the serial killer who gets a slap on the wrist for his first murder, then goes on to kill a hell of a lot of people.  Or the drunk driver who kills a family, gets out of prison after a year, then goes on to kill more people.  I think a lot of our harsh laws are the direct result of shiatheads like William Kunstler and stupid parole boards who let serial killers loose...
 
2013-03-24 01:40:29 AM  

Mock26: 3.5 years for murder?  Holy crap that is one seriously farked up country.  Think about it, some guy got three months in jail for some "hate speech" on his Facebook page, yet murder only gets you 3.5 years.  Well, on the plus side we now know that murder is 14 times more serious than hate speech.  That has to be worth something, right?


Maybe it's just not a big deal in England, like how killing your husband isnt a big deal here

Woman gets probation for murdering husband http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8034887

Or of course theres the woman who got less than a year for killing her husband by shooting him in the back because he was too critical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Winkler
 
2013-03-24 01:42:53 AM  

you are a puppet: Maybe it's just not a big deal in England, like how killing your husband isnt a big deal here


... The Main tab really is just bigots of various stripes as far as the eye can see, isn't it?
 
2013-03-24 01:43:11 AM  

unamused: If it has not happened by the time they are 18, it is unlikely to happen.


Yeah, I figured you were talking out your ass and knew nothing about the topic.

unamused: Intelligence is not letting dogs out who have already bitten. Even though it may be a microbe's fault.


9.999/10 you are letting them out anyways, a convenient point for you to completely skip over in with your less than witty one-liners.

You're way just makes sure that before release, they spend enough time in Gladiator College so they are well versed in the felonies they didn't know anything about.
 
2013-03-24 01:46:16 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 01:49:39 AM  

Happy Hours: Ukab the Great: BarkingUnicorn: Happy Hours: I didn't even realize tanning oil was that flammable.

Pubic hair serves as a wick, in a pinch.  Remember that when the power fails.

Fritos (90% corn oil) will also burn nicely. Put a handful in a glass jar and you've got a makeshift candle.

Remember that when the power fails.

How is that going to run my laptop or TV or my refrigerator or A/C?

You don't really need lights most of the time - certainly not during the day unless you don't have windows.


Burn enough of anything (Fritos, human flesh, etc)->boil water->steam turns turbine->voltage regulator->laptop, tv, etc.
 
2013-03-24 01:50:57 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.

Yeah, I'd feel bad about punishing the mentally deficient as well, but I doubt that was this particular bully's case...


How did they prove the guy that set him on fire was that dumb?  They present a diploma from an American public high school or something?
 
2013-03-24 01:54:25 AM  
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 hear your POS brother got busted for kiddie porn and might actually go to prison someday
 
2013-03-24 01:57:51 AM  

MurphyMurphy: unamused: If it has not happened by the time they are 18, it is unlikely to happen.

Yeah, I figured you were talking out your ass and knew nothing about the topic.

unamused: Intelligence is not letting dogs out who have already bitten. Even though it may be a microbe's fault.

9.999/10 you are letting them out anyways, a convenient point for you to completely skip over in with your less than witty one-liners.

You're way just makes sure that before release, they spend enough time in Gladiator College so they are well versed in the felonies they didn't know anything about.


I should have figured you couldn't catch on without pictures, but I'll give it one more try.

You are saying let them out in 5 years.  I am not saying let them out in ten.

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."
 
2013-03-24 02:00:04 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.


I heard it cut the crime rate in half.
 
2013-03-24 02:00:06 AM  

Arumat: The My Little Pony Killer: Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.

Yeah, I'd feel bad about punishing the mentally deficient as well, but I doubt that was this particular bully's case...

How did they prove the guy that set him on fire was that dumb?  They present a diploma from an American public high school or something?


Angry because most public schools in VA crank out illiterates, Bunky? Thank your parents for raising you there.
 
2013-03-24 02:00:12 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.



I worked in the local court system before becoming an artist, and my understanding is this:  at least in the US, if you accidentally kill somebody in the commission of another crime, you get charged with murder.  Setting somebody on fire is assault and battery; if he dies, you're guilty of murder even if you didn't try to kill them.  Same with pointing a gun in a random direction and firing; the unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime and if you accidentally hit somebody with a bullet, you go to prison.  Being too stupid to understand the flammability of tanning oil doesn't exonerate a person for murder, at least in the US.  Even if this is knocked down to manslaughter from murder, 3-1/2 years is far too light for manslaughter, unless the British have gone totally balmy.
 
2013-03-24 02:01:20 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: you are a puppet: Maybe it's just not a big deal in England, like how killing your husband isnt a big deal here

... The Main tab really is just bigots of various stripes as far as the eye can see, isn't it?


If that's what you want it to be, sure
 
2013-03-24 02:06:06 AM  
Yes, but drugging, raping, pissing on a girl, and dumping her naked when you're done with her will only get you 12 months, 6 with time off for good behavior.
 
2013-03-24 02:08:47 AM  

Mock26: 3.5 years for murder?  Holy crap that is one seriously farked up country.  Think about it, some guy got three months in jail for some "hate speech" on his Facebook page, yet murder only gets you 3.5 years.  Well, on the plus side we now know that murder is 14 times more serious than hate speech.  That has to be worth something, right?


Our country isn't much better.  IIRC, some black guy in Texas once got 25 years in prison for possessing two, count 'em, two joints.  Then some other creep in Texas raped an 8 year old boy then, a week or two later, set the boy on fire with gasoline to keep him from testifying.  The boy suffered horribly for over a decade before dying of his burns.  And, yes, the same idiotic Texas judiciary that sentenced the black dude to 25 years in prison is about to release from prison on a technicality the same shiatbag who burned the little boy.

It's crap like this that's made me a fan of extra-judicial punishment.  Not lynching which often kills innocent people (e.g. Emmett Till), but deliberately punishing some bastard who knows how to prank the system or has a POS lawyer like William Kunstler.  Why do you think that Dexter is such a popular TV show?
 
2013-03-24 02:08:47 AM  

Psycat: I worked in the local court system before becoming an artist, and my understanding is this:  at least in the US, if you accidentally kill somebody in the commission of another crime, you get charged with murder.  Setting somebody on fire is assault and battery; if he dies, you're guilty of murder even if you didn't try to kill them.  Same with pointing a gun in a random direction and firing; the unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime and if you accidentally hit somebody with a bullet, you go to prison.  Being too stupid to understand the flammability of tanning oil doesn't exonerate a person for murder, at least in the US.  Even if this is knocked down to manslaughter from murder, 3-1/2 years is far too light for manslaughter, unless the British have gone totally balmy.


It depends on what the situation surrounding it was in the US. Homicide with malicious intent is murder, depending on if it's premeditated or not, or if the person committed any kind of special circumstances along with the act, like torture or rape, or the commission of a hijacking. Manslaughter applies if the state of mind or circumstances surrounding the incident mitigate premeditation or malicious intent. Involuntary Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide is what the guy accidentally discharging the gun into the wall and killing his neighbor might find himself charged with.
 
2013-03-24 02:08:54 AM  

cman: 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.

Honest question here. Not taking anyone's side. I am curious, is there some sort of crime rate report from the medieval ages? I have always wondered when we started writing this shiat down.


The Holy Roman Empire was actually anal as fark about writing any official-type-shiat down, so i wouldn't be surprised if there were borough-by-borough, village-by-village judicial records, just like the crazy-detailed weather and harvest records their reeves left us (which have been used by climatologists and historians as a glimpse into the climate during the medieval era.
 
2013-03-24 02:09:17 AM  
I'm not usually not one to encourage "Prison Justice". But in this case...
 
2013-03-24 02:10:53 AM  

Psycat: 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.


Need more details. I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't just being drunk that caused the accident. Was the driver speeding, running red lights, failing to control his vehicle, driving with no headlights?

Was the pedestrian being a farking moran?

Pedestrians belong on sidewalks or crosswalks, not in the middle of the road. If they enter a crosswalk against a light, cars are still required by law to yield for them, but it doesn't relieve the pedestrian of all responsibility if they get smashed by a car and it shouldn't surprise them either.

So fill us in on the rest of the details. Was the drunk driver running red lights or stop signs? Was the pedestrian also drunk and jaywalking?
 
2013-03-24 02:11:41 AM  

hardinparamedic: Psycat: I worked in the local court system before becoming an artist, and my understanding is this:  at least in the US, if you accidentally kill somebody in the commission of another crime, you get charged with murder.  Setting somebody on fire is assault and battery; if he dies, you're guilty of murder even if you didn't try to kill them.  Same with pointing a gun in a random direction and firing; the unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime and if you accidentally hit somebody with a bullet, you go to prison.  Being too stupid to understand the flammability of tanning oil doesn't exonerate a person for murder, at least in the US.  Even if this is knocked down to manslaughter from murder, 3-1/2 years is far too light for manslaughter, unless the British have gone totally balmy.

It depends on what the situation surrounding it was in the US. Homicide with malicious intent is murder, depending on if it's premeditated or not, or if the person committed any kind of special circumstances along with the act, like torture or rape, or the commission of a hijacking. Manslaughter applies if the state of mind or circumstances surrounding the incident mitigate premeditation or malicious intent. Involuntary Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide is what the guy accidentally discharging the gun into the wall and killing his neighbor might find himself charged with.


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...
 
2013-03-24 02:17:43 AM  

Happy Hours: Psycat: 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.

Need more details. I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't just being drunk that caused the accident. Was the driver speeding, running red lights, failing to control his vehicle, driving with no headlights?

Was the pedestrian being a farking moran?

Pedestrians belong on sidewalks or crosswalks, not in the middle of the road. If they enter a crosswalk against a light, cars are still required by law to yield for them, but it doesn't relieve the pedestrian of all responsibility if they get smashed by a car and it shouldn't surprise them either.

So fill us in on the rest of the details. Was the drunk driver running red lights or stop signs? Was the pedestrian also drunk and jaywalking?



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.
 
2013-03-24 02:21:33 AM  

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.
 
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
 
2013-03-24 04:05:45 AM  

orbister: Because there was no intent to kill. Did you read the article?


The Definition of Second Degree Murder is as follows:  a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery
 
2013-03-24 04:15:23 AM  

Mock26: 3.5 years for murder?


No, 3.5 years for manslaughter, which is unintentional killing. Further north we call it "culpable homicide" and I believe you colonials sometimes call it "murder 3".
 
2013-03-24 04:16:26 AM  

germ78: That's no farking prank; that's torture. Seriously, this guy needs to get hurt in the worst possible way.


That's certainly teach him that hurting people is wrong. Where are all the farkers demanding that he be raped to death?
 
2013-03-24 04:16:55 AM  
Again, we are looking at the problem from two directions. You are looking at it from the angles of punishment or revenge.  Obviously I don't look at justice as punishment because punishment only works on people who are fixable.  Revenge is fleeting, and solves nothing.

I look at justice as protection of the law abiding from the lawless.  The predators must be fenced off from the prey. When we, as a society, keep letting violent people out, we are asking some family, somewhere, to risk the life of their child to see if we cured the little bugfark we just sicced on them. More states are opting for concealed carry and stand your ground because the government is too busy locking people up in for profit prisons for victimless crimes. We have gotten so "liberal:" in our treatment of criminals that citizens feel a need to be able to shoot bad guys because the government won't do anything about them.

So long as we keep trying to enforce Jesus, we will continue to fail.

This guy did not accidentally start the other kid of fire, he lit that Zippo on purpose.  If he was lighting a smoke and the other kid went poof, I could see three years.  Lighting someone up intentionally...naaahh.
 
2013-03-24 04:19:12 AM  

Psycat: When Mr. Bloody-Farker-Murderer gets out of gaol (the demented British spelling), what's stopping the LGBT community in Britain from, say, torturing Mr. B-F-M for a few days and then setting *him* on fire?  Worst that can happen is that the LGBT members who got revenge will themselves get a slap on the wrist.


Nope. They would undoubtedly be convicted of murder, since there would be intent to kill. Murder always gets a life sentence in the UK, with a minimum "punishment" term before parole can even be considered. That is rarely less than 12 years. If there was torture as well this minimum to be served would be at least twenty years.
 
2013-03-24 04:20:01 AM  

orbister: No, 3.5 years for manslaughter, which is unintentional killing. Further north we call it "culpable homicide" and I believe you colonials sometimes call it "murder 3".


Except that by the laws of most states he would have been charged with Murder 2, which carries a max of 25 to Life in the US Justice System.

Please, please don't tell me a reasonable man would think that setting someone on fire couldn't foreseeable kill someone.
 
2013-03-24 04:22:56 AM  

orbister: germ78: That's no farking prank; that's torture. Seriously, this guy needs to get hurt in the worst possible way.

That's certainly teach him that hurting people is wrong. Where are all the farkers demanding that he be raped to death?


It's better than giving him a farking cookie.
 
2013-03-24 04:25:46 AM  

hardinparamedic: orbister: Because there was no intent to kill. Did you read the article?

The Definition of Second Degree Murder is as follows:  a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery


As I understand it, English law doesn't distinguish between degrees of murder. Premeditation and intent are also not the same thing - if I get into an argument and pull out a gun and shoot my opponent on the spot that's intentional, but not premeditated.
 
2013-03-24 04:27:13 AM  

Shryke: 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!


Absolutley, because in neither case was the definition of murder met. Each is guilty of other crimes, of course, and would receive severe penalties in court.

But perhaps you have not realised that in the UK, "murder" is only used for premeditated and intentional killing - what the television tells me is called "Murder 1" in the US. We ave different names for other sorts of killing: manslaughter (England) / culpable homicide (Scotland), causing death by dangerous/careless driving and so on.
 
2013-03-24 04:30:24 AM  
Just another reason I am glad we are not more like Europe.  Tis a shame we seem to be rushing head long into being just another EU State.
 
2013-03-24 04:34:18 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.


He lived in his own flat, not with his parents, and nobody turned up to his birthday party, so he went out and rounded up some people. One of these people was the arsehole that set him on fire (someone else put the tanning oil on him)

Sounds like the prosecution would have had trouble making a murder charge, and decided to reduce it to manslaughter.
 
2013-03-24 04:35:22 AM  
Some of us, who have lived in Europe, are fighting it.

;)
 
2013-03-24 04:36:08 AM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 04:37:38 AM  

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.

/i'd prosecute your Brit ass into the stone-age
 
2013-03-24 04:37:44 AM  

jpo2269: Just another reason I am glad we are not more like Europe.  Tis a shame we seem to be rushing head long into being just another EU State.



Some of us, who have lived in Europe, are fighting it.

;)
 
2013-03-24 04:42:58 AM  

orbister: 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?


How do we manage to raise anyone who doesn't realise that setting a person on fire could kill them? The guy was 20 (or at least 19 when he did this, it was the victim who had only just turned 18) which is definitely old enough to understand the consequences of setting a person alight.
 
2013-03-24 04:43:01 AM  
He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do? He shouldn't go to jail; he should go to Johns Hopkins. Surely he's the cure for cancer and Alzheimer's percolating around inside that brain-pan of his.
 
2013-03-24 04:45:52 AM  

hardinparamedic: The Definition of Second Degree Murder is as follows:  a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery


Here is the official Crown Prosecution Service guide to the difference between murder and manslaughter. From it:

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:
1) killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2) conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill, is manslaughter ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3) conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm, that resulted in death, is manslaughter ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").


From the same source, murder requires

intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
 
2013-03-24 04:49:07 AM  

Bullroarer_Took: He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do? He shouldn't go to jail; he should go to Johns Hopkins. Surely he's the cure for cancer and Alzheimer's percolating around inside that brain-pan of his.


Good plan, we mustn't let that great mind go to waste. Of course if he doesn't come up with anything useful, I say we use him as an organ donor. Skin grafts for burns victims maybe.
 
2013-03-24 04:50:00 AM  

orbister: 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


Guns keep people from being victims.

UK violent crime rate: 2034 per 100,000
US violent crime rate: 466 per 100,000
 
2013-03-24 04:50:58 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 04:52:45 AM  

hardinparamedic: Except that by the laws of most states he would have been charged with Murder 2, which carries a max of 25 to Life in the US Justice System.


The maximum penalty for manslaughter in England is life imprisonment.

Please, please don't tell me a reasonable man would think that setting someone on fire couldn't foreseeable kill someone.

The sentence in this case was imposed by a judge who had, unlike us, heard all the evidence. Neither the prosecution nor the defence appear to intend an appeal.

Incidentally, youtube is stuffed full of videos of people setting other people on fire for fun.
 
2013-03-24 04:54:37 AM  

Ukab the Great: The fact that you have a gun tells the jury you intended to kill someone.


Perhaps you could discuss that point with the NRA?
 
2013-03-24 04:56:06 AM  
3 years for aggravated manslaughter?  Damn, in the US the literal minimum is higher than that.

//IIRC the UK has a lower murder rate partially because what's second-degree murder in the US is called manslaughter in the UK.  Albeit ours is still higher, it's just not quite as much higher as the self-reporting indicates.
 
2013-03-24 04:57:03 AM  

orbister: Incidentally, youtube is stuffed full of videos of people setting other people on fire for fun.


The human race doesn't deserve to go on, nuke it from orbit I say.
 
2013-03-24 04:59:08 AM  

Bullroarer_Took: He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do?


Hurt him? Scare him? Amuse him? I don't know, and neither do you. But if he didn't intend to kill, or to cause grievous bodily harm. The definition of GBH is long and complicated, but basically means serious and long lasting injury.
 
2013-03-24 04:59:44 AM  

orbister: hardinparamedic: Except that by the laws of most states he would have been charged with Murder 2, which carries a max of 25 to Life in the US Justice System.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter in England is life imprisonment.

Please, please don't tell me a reasonable man would think that setting someone on fire couldn't foreseeable kill someone.

The sentence in this case was imposed by a judge who had, unlike us, heard all the evidence. Neither the prosecution nor the defence appear to intend an appeal.

Incidentally, youtube is stuffed full of videos of people setting other people on fire for fun.


You seem to be conversant in English law so...

How long will this farkstick serve?  What is the minimum? Sent to bed without dinner for 2 days?
 
2013-03-24 05:02:57 AM  
RatMaster999:

UK violent crime rate: 2034 per 100,000
US violent crime rate: 466 per 100,000


A claim which appeared in the Daily Mail, and therefore doesn't really need the debunking you'll find here. Summary: the US and UK define "violent crime" very, very differently.
 
2013-03-24 05:12:05 AM  
doglover:

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.

Impressive - that qualifies as one of the least factual statements I have ever seen on Fark.  Do you practice ignorance, or does it come naturally to you?
 
2013-03-24 05:12:27 AM  

unamused: You seem to be conversant in English law so...

How long will this farkstick serve?  What is the minimum? Sent to bed without dinner for 2 days?


In general, prisoners on determinate sentences are released on parole after half their sentence, so in this case he'll be out after 21 months. Or possibly less, because any time spend on remand counts as part of the sentence. Since he got less than four years there is no need for a parole board to consider his early release.

Fuller details from the prisons service here.
 
2013-03-24 05:14:25 AM  

doglover: 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?


We are proud of having an (almost) unarmed police service, and police officers themselves are overwhelmingly against being routinely armed.

Are you trying to hold up the state of policing in the US as a model for the rest of us?
 
2013-03-24 05:18:44 AM  

orbister: Bullroarer_Took: He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do?

Hurt him? Scare him? Amuse him? I don't know, and neither do you. But if he didn't intend to kill, or to cause grievous bodily harm. The definition of GBH is long and complicated, but basically means serious and long lasting injury.


How about we go ahead and assume it is still not okay to set people on fire even if the goal is *just* to hurt them.

The rest makes a great multiple choice question. Covering a person in oil and setting them on fire might a) scare them b) amuse them c) result in serious, extremely painful and long lasting injury or possibly even death.

Anyone who answers anything other than c) needs to be taken back to school and not be left unsupervised by an adult at any time. Or in other words, basically be treated like the infant they metally are.
 
2013-03-24 05:23:24 AM  

orbister: RatMaster999:

UK violent crime rate: 2034 per 100,000
US violent crime rate: 466 per 100,000

A claim which appeared in the Daily Mail, and therefore doesn't really need the debunking you'll find here. Summary: the US and UK define "violent crime" very, very differently.


http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
These guys break things up a bit, listing England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland separately, but if you add them all together, it looks like the intentional murder rate is the only one that the US ranks higher than the UK.  5 per 100k versus 3.9 per 100k.

"Compared with our peers, the report shows that we are a high-crime society with a particular propensity to violence short of intentional homicide."
 
2013-03-24 05:24:38 AM  

unamused: If he was lighting a smoke and the other kid went poof, I could see three years.  Lighting someone up intentionally...naaahh.


If he simply lit a cigarette and his friend accidentally caught on fire I wouldn't give him 3 years. If that had been the case, I'm not even sure a criminal charge would be appropriate.

But he did apparently intend to light him on fire and for that, 3 years is not enough.

/just my farking opinion.
 
2013-03-24 05:26:40 AM  

Nidiot: How about we go ahead and assume it is still not okay to set people on fire even if the goal is *just* to hurt them.


We could even sentence them to three and half years in prison if they do it?

The point, though, is that what matters is not what you would have intended, or what I would have intended. It's what the defendant intended, and if he intended neither death nor GBH then it wasn't murder.
 
2013-03-24 05:31:22 AM  
And the kid who committed the crime isn't even a Muslim or some other immigrant.

That's surprising, I wonder why the penalty was so lenient.
 
2013-03-24 05:37:33 AM  

orbister: The point, though, is that what matters is not what you would have intended, or what I would have intended. It's what the defendant intended, and if he intended neither death nor GBH then it wasn't murder.


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.

/so civilized
 
2013-03-24 05:41:41 AM  

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]
 
2013-03-24 05:56:51 AM  

orbister: Nidiot: How about we go ahead and assume it is still not okay to set people on fire even if the goal is *just* to hurt them.

We could even sentence them to three and half years in prison if they do it?

The point, though, is that what matters is not what you would have intended, or what I would have intended. It's what the defendant intended, and if he intended neither death nor GBH then it wasn't murder.


I think what we have here is that people like myself, find it particularly difficult to believe that anyone who is not functionally retarded could not foresee death as a possible result of an oil covered person being set alight. It's akin to saying "yeah I stabbed him but only as a joke, didn't think he'd die" or "yeah I shot him, but only for a laugh". Therefore the claim by the defendant seems farcical and a ploy to get a more lenient sentence.

Three and a half years for intentionally causing pain via burning is still way too light a sentence, if this is was his only motivation.
 
2013-03-24 06:05:36 AM  

doglover: England practically invented the modern idea of the humane death penalty in their Imperial age


Whatever you are smoking, can I have some ?

Ya know, the stuff you apparently smoked all the way through your history lessons.
 
2013-03-24 06:18:07 AM  

orbister: Bullroarer_Took: He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do?

Hurt him? Scare him? Amuse him? I don't know, and neither do you. But if he didn't intend to kill, or to cause grievous bodily harm. The definition of GBH is long and complicated, but basically means serious and long lasting injury.


Either the guy is too slow to understand his actions, a psychopath, or a sociopath. I see nothing to indicate he's an imbecile.

If you can think at a ten-year-old level you know that setting someone on fire is going to cause serious injury and possibly death. If you don't: you should lose your membership in the human race should be revoked. Of course someone is going to claim they didn't "know" they killed would die.
 
2013-03-24 06:19:58 AM  

Nidiot: Bullroarer_Took: He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do? He shouldn't go to jail; he should go to Johns Hopkins. Surely he's the cure for cancer and Alzheimer's percolating around inside that brain-pan of his.

Good plan, we mustn't let that great mind go to waste. Of course if he doesn't come up with anything useful, I say we use him as an organ donor. Skin grafts for burns victims maybe.


Because you are thinking with your emotions instead of your logic. Understandable but not workable in a court of law. And because you are confusing INTENT as it's legally defined with intent as it's commonly used.

Intent in court is not "could a person with more than three functioning brain cells realize that putting oil on someone and lighting a match might kill them." Intent as it applies to murder is "Did Joe Smith have a formulated plan in his mind to end the life of Fred Jones at the time of the killing." And if Joe did NOT have such an intent when he lit the match, then no matter how obvious it should have been to even the dullest moron, whatever crime Joe committed it WAS NOT MURDER. And no matter how heinous you feel his actions were, he can't receive a penalty commensurate with murder.

Also, the burden of proof in the US and in Britain is on the prosecution. They're the ones who have to prove intent. But Joe can't get away with saying "Yeah, ha-ha it was just for funnies, didn't mean any harm!" because clearly he meant SOME harm. But the prosecution has to prove that Joe meant TO KILL, and even more specifically to kill THIS PERSON. And clearly in this case they couldn't meet that burden. And no matter how awful a person is, they can't murder someone by accident.

Which is why, as you were so upset about above, people often can't be charged with murder or manslaughter for drunk driving. Were they careless, wantonly negligent, stupid and even evil? Sure. Did they intend to kill that particular person with their car? Nope. So no murder for them. It's a great argument for changes to the murder laws; but until then, we have to accept that stupid people sometimes kill people in mean and horrible ways and it's just not murder.
 
2013-03-24 06:25:15 AM  

orbister: Nidiot: How about we go ahead and assume it is still not okay to set people on fire even if the goal is *just* to hurt them.

We could even sentence them to three and half years in prison if they do it?

The point, though, is that what matters is not what you would have intended, or what I would have intended. It's what the defendant intended, and if he intended neither death nor GBH then it wasn't murder.


Maybe he said, "He's comin' right for us!" before he lit the kid on fire?

I think setting someone on fire should, de facto, be evidence of intended GBH.
 
2013-03-24 06:31:09 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Which is why, as you were so upset about above, people often can't be charged with murder or manslaughter for drunk driving. Were they careless, wantonly negligent, stupid and even evil? Sure. Did they intend to kill that particular person with their car? Nope. So no murder for them. It's a great argument for changes to the murder laws; but until then, we have to accept that stupid people sometimes kill people in mean and horrible ways and it's just not murder.


Prosecutors in the UK found great difficulty in convincing juries to convict drivers who killed with manslaughter; there was too great an element of "there but for the grace of God go I" in their thinking. That's why we got "causing death by dangerous driving" as an offence and, more recently, "causing death by careless driving".
 
2013-03-24 06:34:31 AM  
Wowee Zowee
 
2013-03-24 06:50:16 AM  

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

They are a "civilized" society.


You're right. They should give every citizen two AR-15s and all the ammo they can carry.  That'll solve everything.
 
2013-03-24 07:24:31 AM  
I guess we'll just have to make another law that specifically makes it illegal to douse people in flammable liquids and then set them alight, with suitably high minimum sentencing. Relying on common sense is just not working, common sense not being common at all.
 
2013-03-24 07:52:48 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 08:01:39 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Bontesla: Why wouldn't we allow a murderer too enjoy a little bit of life?

/from what I read - the murderer didn't intend on killing the teen. He just thought dousing the naked boy with baby oil and setting him aflame would be hilarious.
//and that was factored in to why he was charged with the lesser crime.

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.


Its hard to imagine that he wasn't aware his actions could cause grievous bodily harm potentially resulting in death.

15 to 20 years in prison with mandatory 5 year minimum would fit the crime.

I don't believe in hate crime laws, I think juries can consider it when understanding the motive. Murder is murder.
 
2013-03-24 08:07:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Nidiot: Bullroarer_Took: He didn't intend to kill him?

Wat do he think setting fire to someone covered in oil do? He shouldn't go to jail; he should go to Johns Hopkins. Surely he's the cure for cancer and Alzheimer's percolating around inside that brain-pan of his.

Good plan, we mustn't let that great mind go to waste. Of course if he doesn't come up with anything useful, I say we use him as an organ donor. Skin grafts for burns victims maybe.

Because you are thinking with your emotions instead of your logic. Understandable but not workable in a court of law. And because you are confusing INTENT as it's legally defined with intent as it's commonly used.

Intent in court is not "could a person with more than three functioning brain cells realize that putting oil on someone and lighting a match might kill them." Intent as it applies to murder is "Did Joe Smith have a formulated plan in his mind to end the life of Fred Jones at the time of the killing." And if Joe did NOT have such an intent when he lit the match, then no matter how obvious it should have been to even the dullest moron, whatever crime Joe committed it WAS NOT MURDER. And no matter how heinous you feel his actions were, he can't receive a penalty commensurate with murder.

Also, the burden of proof in the US and in Britain is on the prosecution. They're the ones who have to prove intent. But Joe can't get away with saying "Yeah, ha-ha it was just for funnies, didn't mean any harm!" because clearly he meant SOME harm. But the prosecution has to prove that Joe meant TO KILL, and even more specifically to kill THIS PERSON. And clearly in this case they couldn't meet that burden. And no matter how awful a person is, they can't murder someone by accident.

Which is why, as you were so upset about above, people often can't be charged with murder or manslaughter for drunk driving. Were they careless, wantonly negligent, stupid and even evil? Sure. Did they intend to kill that particular person with their car? Nope. So no murder for them. It's a great argument for changes to the murder laws; but until then, we have to accept that stupid people sometimes kill people in mean and horrible ways and it's just not murder.


Unless the gay kid was in on the joke, it was second degree murder. By all appearances, they were doing him deliberate harm.
 
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.
 
2013-03-24 10:15:25 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.


Just want to point out that there are people out there legitimately carrying firearms who have then proceeded to commit murders.  Cops being one category, but there was an incident involving a man of asian descent hunting with an SKS who got into an argument with some other hunters, then went batshiat and killed quite a few of them.  Up until he pulled the trigger, he was simply hunting.  Had a permit and everything, no previous interactions with the victims, etc...

ciberido: 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.


I'm not a lawyer, but you're correct on the first part.  Just because you bring a gun with you does not mean you premeditated killing with said gun.  You could be a police officer and carry one normally.  It's up to the prosecution to make that argument and sell it to the jury.

As for the 'minimum time' thing, it generally requires "leaving the scene".
 
2013-03-25 12:46:50 AM  

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 think we may be the only country in the world that has formal legal distinctions like "murder in the first degree," versus second degree, etc.  I could be totally wrong, I'm no lawyer.  It's just that I keep seeing blurbs in newspapers from other countries -- some of them printed many decades back -- that mention "we don't have different kinds of murder in the legal system, but America does because... who knows why."
 
2013-03-25 12:57:44 AM  

over_and_done: I think we may be the only country in the world that has formal legal distinctions like "murder in the first degree," versus second degree, etc.  I could be totally wrong, I'm no lawyer.  It's just that I keep seeing blurbs in newspapers from other countries -- some of them printed many decades back -- that mention "we don't have different kinds of murder in the legal system, but America does because... who knows why."


USA, Canada, and Perú, apparently.
 
2013-03-25 01:01:59 AM  

ciberido: over_and_done: I think we may be the only country in the world that has formal legal distinctions like "murder in the first degree," versus second degree, etc.  I could be totally wrong, I'm no lawyer.  It's just that I keep seeing blurbs in newspapers from other countries -- some of them printed many decades back -- that mention "we don't have different kinds of murder in the legal system, but America does because... who knows why."

USA, Canada, and Perú, apparently.


Huh.  I'm not sure what other names on the list I was expecting, but it was not those two.
 
2013-03-25 03:08:54 AM  

over_and_done: 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 think we may be the only country in the world that has formal legal distinctions like "murder in the first degree," versus second degree, etc.  I could be totally wrong, I'm no lawyer.  It's just that I keep seeing blurbs in newspapers from other countries -- some of them printed many decades back -- that mention "we don't have different kinds of murder in the legal system, but America does because... who knows why."


I would guess that almost every country would have different penalties for different types of circumstances in a killing, even if it just givong lots of leeway to a judge/jury.

That being the case I will take our clearly defined system over other ones any day of the week. Do you want murder penalties decided more on the facts, or would you prefer the defendant's charisma and good looks count for more than they already do?

(see: statutory rape and women vs. men, hot vs. ugly)
 
2013-03-25 02:20:59 PM  

Smackledorfer: I would guess that almost every country would have different penalties for different types of circumstances in a killing, even if it just givong lots of leeway to a judge/jury.


Just picking a more or less random country, Australia might not have murder 'degrees', but it does appear to have a few flavors, "Constructive murder", provocation reduces it to manslaughter, etc...
 
2013-03-25 05:43:28 PM  
naked boy? Tanning oil?
 
Displayed 257 of 257 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report