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.
Options
Little sh*ts who stoned a father to death released after 2 years
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Clicko
Call me whatever, but these little scrotes shouldn't be let out until they're at LEAST 21. They may not have meant to do what they did, but the damage is irreparable.
Discuss.
Call me whatever, but these little scrotes shouldn't be let out until they're at LEAST 21. They may not have meant to do what they did, but the damage is irreparable.
Discuss.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Aye, when they're beyond any chances of being rehabilitated and leading productive lives. They were twats, sure, and they deserve to be punished. But throwing stones at someone, who then has a heart-attack (the connections between which were not established) is not in the same league as being a cold-blooded killer. They'll be retried for something other than manslaughter, and they'll most likely be convicted. It wasn't proved that they killed him. I don't see the issue.
What would you do with these kids, anyway? They probably laughed about it at the time, and will wear it as a badge of honour on their mispelt AOL screen names 'i iz a killa'.
Sometimes it's not worth the hassle. What would we do with a violent dog that mauled someone? Bingo.
Apologies, I'm in a foul mood, feel shit, ill, stressed and the rest.
And I didn't see the article saying what they're like. For all we know (from this article alone) they immediately felt bad and are haunted by it. Or perhaps they were looking forward to the day they'd be able to do it again.
Which they didn't do. It says right there in the article, that there is no evidence that his heart attack had anything to do with the physical attack.
From a linked article on the BBC:
"Post-mortem tests showed Mr Norton died from a heart attack aggravated by a previous condition and a head injury."
So the post mortem obviously did find evidence it was caused by the physical attack. Maybe he was more predisposed to a heart attack because of a previous condition but it doesn't change the fact. On the balance of probablities the man would not have died from a heart attack on that day if it was not for the actions of these children. They should carry the weight of their actions on their shoulders.
You attack someone, they die, no use crying then. The article is cleverly worded, it seems the lawyer is arguing that even if it was a stone that caused the heart attack it can't be proved. The judge comments he will state at a later date the reason for his decision.
I'd love to see a bunch of statisticians churn through data to reliably show there isnt a lage difference between the risk of a heat attack from having rocks hit against your head compared to walking to the shop buying a newspaper