If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
'Happy Slap' killers sentenced
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34
'Happy slap' killers locked up for artist's death
Friday, June 22, 2007
Two teenagers who killed 40-year-old artist in a planned "happy slap" attack were detained for a total of five-and-a-half years today.
The boys, who were 15 and 13 at the time, had bullied and teased Canadian-born Peter Ramsey.
They hatched a plan to happy slap him as part of their campaign against the father-of-two.
The gang of 13 to 15-year-olds were following Mr Ramsey and his girlfriend Vicky Lewis home from a supermarket in Southampton, Hampshire, when the youngest boy slapped him and the elder boy punched him hard in the face in October last year.
One of the group had been asked to film the attack on his camera phone but did not want to get involved and refused saying he had no memory space left.
Prosecuting Justin Gau told Winchester Crown Court in Hampshire: "This is a very sad case where anti-social behaviour turned to tragedy, where happy slapping turned to manslaughter."
Mr Ramsey fell over like "a domino" and hit his head on the concrete floor, Mr Gau said.
He added: "He had been hit so hard his body appeared to Miss Lewis to cross the road."
Miss Lewis found him collapsed and covered in blood in their bedroom after he went to rest later that evening on October 10.
Mr Ramsey was taken to Southampton General Hospital with brain damage, was operated on twice and suffered two strokes.
His life support machine was switched off on October 13 after doctors decided nothing more could be done and he died shortly afterwards.
The boys, who can't be named for legal reasons and the rest of their gang, ran off after the attack.
Both boys, now aged 16 and 14, turned themselves in to police the day after the attack.
They both pleaded guilty to manslaughter at earlier hearings.
Mr Justice Irwin detained the eldest boy for three years and told him he would serve 18 months minus 250 days already served which means he could be eligible for release on license in around 10 months.
The younger boy was detained for two-and-a-half years and told he would serve one year and three months minus 233 days already served which means he will be eligible for release on license in around eight months.
The judge said: "You two killed Peter Ramsey by hitting him on October 10 last year.
"You did not intend to do that or to cause him really serious harm, that's the distinction between manslaughter and murder, but you killed him nonetheless and that event was made worse by an intention to record the attack on the telephone as if to boast of if rather than to be ashamed of it.
"This was a senseless death borne of stupidity and it was the end of a process of bullying and tormenting Mr Ramsey over a period of weeks and months, a process in which I'm satisfied both of you played a part."
The judge said the group threw stones at Mr Ramsey, said "foul" things to him, stole his hat, "and he reacted to all this with gentleness".
What an absolute tragedy to start off with I'd not heard about this and what a fucking joke, a joke, our justice system is. It was manslaughter, yes, not murder, but this man is dead and these little cock suckers have gotten off far too lightly!
It's scandalous. It makes me sick and so angry!
0
Comments
Example number two of why I have no confidence whatsoever in the justice system of this country.
Change the fucking record SG. Unless for once you'd like to back up your assertions that more "liberal" policies, are somehow negative to crime levels with a bit of evidence for once?
I reckon the sentence given was a bit lenient, but then again, you're looking at manslaughter, not murder, carried out by two children (in the eyes of the law) who handed themselves in immediately, and pleaded guilty to all offences. That's the way it goes I'm afraid, but I certainly reckon that an unprovoked violent offence like this should be given a far greater sentence than, say, causing death by dangerous driving, or even manslaughter as a result of a fight which accidentally kills someone. Manslaughter carries a sentence of 2-10 years for adults. Given the nature of this attack, I still think it should be far closer to 10 than 2 for these criminals.
That's your opinion. You seem to think every crime that gets mentioned is too lenient, so no surprises there.
But SG - Why don't criminals deserve human rights? Do you think NO "criminals" should have human rights?
And what gives you or the state the right to MURDER?
As for the other question, we're not here to discuss the death penalty. Lord only knows that my views on that have been discussed often enough recently.
Which they aren't. They lose the right to wipe their arse without asking someone first, as well as all the other rights they lose. Death penalty for kids for what was essentially an accidental death caused by stupidity is ridiculously ott though. You honestly believe they're beyond rehabilitation at that age, considering they are certain to mature as they grow up, and the very crime they committed what essentially exclusively a result of immaturity and stupidity?
I believe this is just an extention of that gone tooooo far and now someone is dead. The sentance is leniant, but then again, those kids will change so much anyway.
I agree to that. It is lenient but then if they were given community service everyone would be outraged further but then if they are kept in prison too long they will probably come out worse criminals than they were before, just a short while will hopefully make them realise they don't want to come back to such places.
As I'm with stupid said, they were children, they handed themselves straight in, pleaded guilty and it probably was their first offence so the time they serve wasn't going to be too long.
True.
At 13 and 15 you KNOW full well what you are doing. No lienience needed, life or indeed, death would do them good. I'd rather life. Life doing forced labour.
Welcome to our new culture, it seems.
In a workplace you do get isolated incidences of bullying, but in schools its epidemic. Teenagers who dont go along with that culture either by doing it or overlooking it happening, are generally ESPECIALLY mature for their age - not the norm.
Well whoopy do!
The cowards realized their wrong doing and shit their pants, thats all it was. First offence? they'll probably get some sickly street credit for this and go on to re offend when they get out. This man is dead! Two children have lost a father and why? No fucking reason! This man had done nothing wrong. Imagine walking home with 'your' boyfriend/girlfriend, and a bunch of lads approach you, slap you in the fucking face whilst videoing it, laughing. Can you imagine the shock and terror!? Then to go home and die from it?! Kids like this will grow up, breed more kids like this and so the circle continues, civilized people are treated like shit for years and years to come.
No doubt their identities will be withheld to save them any grief from the public in later life. No shame. Exterminate the scum and do us all a favour!
I am with you here. I know and have known these sorts of kids - as soon as they did something with consequences and realised they'd be caught - they were all tears and "im so sorry".
They greivously assaulted a man fully knowing that something like this could happen. They fucked up and realised it too late - should have thought about this beforehand.
Besides, as far as I am concerned - anyone with such a mentality thinking it's fun and games to go about assaulting people is a threat to the public. Aren't we calling ones that are Muslim "Terrorists" ?
Wasn't it said a few months ago, the likelihood offenders re offended when they were released was rather high?
I hope they do learn from it, just the age these two lads are approaching I get the feeling they'll use it as some sort of street 'tag' when they're older, thus feeling the need to sustain it and go onto re offend in similar ways in the future.
There should be more laws to protect people from bullying, however, and I'd suggest a tariff scale of a maximum of 10 years prison for bullying ending in death (and that would include suicide).
Well of course not. But I think the fact that it was an unprovoked attack, as well as violence for the sake of violence, should result in a slightly longer sentence though. Imo, this is far worst than punching someone in anger, or to steal their iPod, for example. I reckon you'd get far more for causing death in a robbery or mugging, for example.
Certainly in my experience I've seen some pretty nasty GBHs committed by children get rewarded with sentences in the 24-36 months region.
With that in mind the sentence should be bigger IMHO. You don't attack someone "just to give him a little bruise".
Of course they do, teenagers like this are feral little bastards, a result of decades of "I can do no wrong, neither can my kids" mental thinking.
So you're saying somewhere that according to 15 year old logic the events unfolded thus
"Hmm, I'm going to follow this bloke, then I'm going punch him. I'm going to get my mate to film it. It probably won't hurt though, in fact he may een thank me for it."
"Hmm, he seems to have fallen over......odd. Maybe he's fallen asleep?"
e.t.c.
I've met enough 15 year olds to know they know full well what they're doing and what the results of their actions will be, 3 years for taking a life, is a woefully pitiful sentence, when you consider the ONLY mitigating factor is their age, and the aggravating factors are:
Sustained abuse and harrassment
Planned and not spur of the moment
I agree they did know what they were doing and after the case where those two boys tied that child onto a railway track or something similar didn't they hold that the age a child can be responsible for their actions is 12. Is that correct or have i made this up?
:yes:
I can't believe some people here are seriously suggesting they get life for this.
i thought it was 10?
Yeah you're right i just found this:
Between the ages of 10 and 14 you can be convicted of a criminal offence if the prosecution can show you were aware that what you were doing was seriously wrong. For example, the case of Jamie Bulger, who was killed by two 10 year olds, was based on this principle. The prosecution showed that the two boys knew that what they were doing was seriously wrong and they were given prison sentences.
After the age of 14 the law considers you are fully responsible for your actions in the same way as an adult. As such you will be treated as an adult in a court of law in terms of criminal responsibility (although not in terms of sentencing).
They killed someone.
Honestly. If people aren't made to be responsible for thier actions, what sort of precedent does this set?
"Oh, they only meant to ruff him up, injure him a little on video then laugh at him with thier mates watching it. They didn't mean to kill him!"
It's like saying "Assaulting people is ok, just make sure you don't kill them"
These kids didnt mean to kill him. They meant to bully him, which is vicious and horrible, but not uncommon amongst schoolkids unfortunately and it doesnt mean theyre likely to be a big danger to society as adults. I dont know the kids involved obviously so its hard to say,but doing this doesnt NECESSARILY mean theyre evil or bad to the bone. They need re-educating more than anything. Its really shit, and im not saying what they did was in any way good or ok, but I dont think life or death penalty would be appropriate.
No it's not.
What good would it serve to give these nippers any longer?