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
Killer Bullies get two years inside
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
Another day, another story of disgusting bullies getting away with taking the life of an innocent child.
A two-year DTO for attacking someone for no reason and causing them to die? maybe we should all start doing it, there's obviously no deterrent.
Scum.
Another day, another story of disgusting bullies getting away with taking the life of an innocent child.
A two-year DTO for attacking someone for no reason and causing them to die? maybe we should all start doing it, there's obviously no deterrent.
Scum.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Of course they "didn't mean to hurt her", just kick her in the head until it gave her a heart attack.
They do, but they weren't convicted of GBH, they were convicted of manslaughter arising from affray, which- bizarrely- isn't as serious. They only intended to commit the affray, if she didn't have a weak heart she would have not had a problem.
I think the CPS could and should have made a murder charge stick, tbh. Kicking somebody in the head shows intent to GBH in my opinion, and if you intend to GBH and you kill the person then that is murder.
Or shot. In the kneecaps.
Funny how they always go ''we didn't mean it'' :yeees:
not to be sadistic but they were aiming to follow the principle of bullying
'kill the victim and you only get to beat them once, beat them just about and you can beat them again in a few days'
did they mean to hurt her? course they did. they were bullies. they wanted to hurt her and they wanted to humiliate her.
did they mean to kill her? i really don't think so.
i'm not entirely sure where i stand on this. they definitely assuaulted her, and while it is criminal and totally unacceptable to kick someone and to punch someone, it ain't murder.
Even if they did not mean to kill her - the fact is, they were beating her and DID kill her.
Life without parole, I would say. Or more if we had it here - this is unnacptable, and they needt oget the worst punishemnt they can. And that is NOT death - that is the easy way out.
What I mean is:
Of course this is all theory. In practise, how can you be sure what the intention was?
Well no shit Sherlock but surely this scum deserve a sentance greater than 2 years. For fuck's sake, people get more for posessing a tiny bit of coke.
What I would do if I was PM... or Home Secretary for that matter.
the thing is that the beating didn't kill her. the sprint home killed her. if they had beaten her and she'd died from the beating, then i'd be agreeing with you all.
think about it this way: you pull a practical joke on a friend which involves jumping out to scare them. you jump out, they are really scared, they have a heart condition that you didn't know about and they didn't know about, and have a fatal heart attack as a direct result of you jumping out. are you responsible for their death? are you a murderer?
these kids are criminals and they're bullies. but i don't think they're murderers. they deserved the sentence they got. they maybe could have done with a harsher sentence. but along the lines of assault/GBH.
I didn't exactally kick the shit out my freind did I? I intended to cause them NO HARM. Hence the difference.
you intended to frighten him. you did. you frightened him to death.
i'm not defending the attackers, i think they did a horrible thing and deserve custodial sentences. however, the report i read said she was punched once in the face, and kicked once in the back of the head or the back. and i just don't think that shows any sort of intent to kill. intent to harm, most definitely. but at the end of the day, these kids are bullies, not killers.
the beating didn't kill her. that's the point. she died from an undiagnosed heart condition, and the combination of being very scared and the exertion of running away gave her a heart attack.
that's what makes this more complicated.
I tend to agree with the principle, but I don't think firearms is a good example, you shouldn't be shooting them randomly anyway.
I've got to disagree with this.
If you intend to commit GBH on a person, and you do and they die then that is murder. You don't have to intend to kill to be convicted of murder, you have to intend to kill or commit GBH upon them.
In my book the CPS could and should have made a s18 GBH charge stick against these people, as they kicked her in the face and head repeatedly. I've come across s18 GBH charges where the person has knocked a tooth out with 2 or 3 punches, and I think the CPS lawyers who did not go for the murder and s18 GBH charge should be sacked.
The only thing that would stop the s18 GBH becoming murder would be a lack of causality, because it was the exertion of running away that caused the heart to pack up, but I think a decent barrister would have made causality stick because of the exertion of getting beaten would have contributed to the heart failure.
They were convicted of affray and manslaughter arising from it, which is why the sentence is so pathetic. Because they were bairns affray carries a maximum of two years DTO, with a guaranteed 6-month reduction for an early guilty plea.
To answer the question of how to determine intent, you look at the actions of the victim and defendant. If you push someone and he falls and fractures his skull on a step then you have committed GBH, but you didn't intend to, so you get charged with s20 GBH without intent. If you push someone to the floor and stamp on their head repeatedly then you do intend to commit the GBH, and are charged with s18 GBH with intent.
To use it with murder, if I push someone over and they die on the step, then I didn't intend to commit GBH, and so can't be done for murder. If I stamped on someone's head, only intending to wound them, and they die, then because I intended to commit GBH I can be convicted of murder.
In my opinion a murder charge could have stuck because I think kicking someone in the head illustrates intent to commit GBH, which is enough to convict of murder.
an unfortunate situation all round, i think.
I think in moral terms they should have been done for murder too, they attacked a girl and stole her life by being bullying scum.
They need to start making an example of some of these scum, and I think doing some of them for murder would make a nice start.
The ones who drive people to suicide should be spending a very very very long time residing at her maj's leisure too.
yeah, it's unfortunate, because an innocent girl had her life stolen from her, and her bullies have got away with it. The bullies should have had the book thrown at them, and eighteen months for directly causing a death through your own vile behaviour does not do this.
Maybe I am thinking more of retribution, but I think that's what some cases need. Bullies need to be taught a lesson, and giving more of them life sentences would do that rather well I feel.
Is it always that black and white?
in my experience, bullies aren't born, they're created. so we can either chuck them in a cell to rot, and when they get out they'll be fully fledged little re-offenders, or we can try to find out where their behaviour is coming from, and try to do something about it.
i know you're just going to reply with : urgh, no, scum, kill them all, so i'm not entirely sure sure why i'm bothering, but i think there's a point somewhere.
If the judge was any good at being a lawyer, he wouldn't be a judge, would he?
Think about it.
I agree that life factors should be taken into account, and that bullies are often created not born.
But at the same time I don't want to start putting everyone in moral incontinence pants, making nothing their fault and blaming "society" for everything.
The fact of the matter is that these bullies robbed an innocent child of her life, and have destroyed a family. And it was intentional- they intended to bully the girl, they intended to cause her pain, they intended to do it. They didn't intend to murder her, but they did intend to cause her serious pain and injury, or they wouldn't have done it.
Given this, two years imprisonment for a pre-meditated attack on a defenceless and innocent child is not suffiicient punishment. It was a serious and heinous attack; yes, it went further than they intended, but they intended to severely hurt her and they should be forced to accept the consequences of their actions.
My belief is that they murdered this child, because I believe they intended to commit GBH on her, and they should face the penalty for murder. The penalty for murder is life imprisonment.
I personally don't agree that the penalty should be mandatory life imprisonment, but them's the rules.