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 49
    More: Sick, Tyler Clementi, Yorkshire Post, Don Lemon, batty boys, Asperger syndrome, Trevor Project, Ottawa, Canada, Jim Swilley  
•       •       •

14356 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-24 12:32:58 AM  
6 votes:
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 12:51:13 AM  
4 votes:
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
2013-03-23 10:51:42 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2013-03-24 12:06:43 AM  
3 votes:

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?
2013-03-23 11:50:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:46:53 PM  
3 votes:
England can't have murders; they have gun control.

They are a "civilized" society.
2013-03-24 06:19:58 AM  
2 votes:

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 04:16:55 AM  
2 votes:
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 02:44:44 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:08:47 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:16:36 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:08:00 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:01:15 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:45:38 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:39:41 AM  
2 votes:
"Stay classy England"
As babies are shot and kindergarten kids massacred in America.That is rich.
2013-03-24 12:22:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:03:46 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-23 11:49:44 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-24 12:46:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:46:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:17:37 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:52:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:18:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:24:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:52:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:50:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:36:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:44:24 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:37:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:25:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:08:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:00:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:54:25 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:46:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:45:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:38:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:38:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:08:43 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-23 11:57:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:40:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:38:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:22:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:45:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report