Gordon R Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) He also hit someone else just after. This is not an isolated incident. He was drunk, on drugs and killed a man. If he can't face that, he should not have taken the drink and drugs. I'm sure he was very, very sorry once he realised he was in a spot of bother. Fancied himself as a bit of a hard man, but suddenly hit by remorse. Makes me sick. Are members of the public expected to walk around hoping they don't meet a drunk, druggie whose cheesy chips weren't perfect? As someone else has pointed out - I suspect the family don't think it was long enough. Whenever something like this happens, someone always emerges to make excuses for them - why? :hmm: :rolleyes: Ack-Ack - I shouldn't have found your posts funny - but I did. Edited September 11, 2012 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Hang on, so by that logic it's 20 years if drunk but if you don't drink but throw a 'sober' punch that kills someone just because you're such a scrote you can't keep your temper over some chips then it's just 18 months....am I missing something? I'm afraid that I have known to many people who are good people when they have not been drinking but become complete menaces when they have taken the demon drink that is why I say if you cannot drink and behave yourself then you should not drink or if you need to drink stay at home and do it do not inflict yourself on others. As for the 18 months for a non drinker that would depend on the character of the person concerned if he was a yob then he would get a much longer sentence but if it was something that you would not normally do that was what I was thinking of. Edited September 11, 2012 by four-wheel-drive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankeedoodlepigeon Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 This kind of thing really cheeses me off. Someone goes out with a chip on their shoulder and gets off so lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 This kind of thing really cheeses me off. Someone goes out with a chip on their shoulder and gets off so lightly. Mind you YDP, could be a case of out of the chip frying pan and into the fire when he witnesses the grim reality of prison. He won't believe his fries when he see's what goudas on in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 You mean Edam'd either way..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I really don’t like ‘being drunk’ or ‘on drugs’ being used as mitigating factors. Perhaps if it’s a 17 year old getting drunk for the first time it would be a decent mitigating factor, but if someone is older they know how they act when drunk. They make the decision to start drinking in an evening knowing they turn bad, so it should be an aggravating factor. Perhaps at the far end of the scale a true alcoholic could claim some sort of mental condition mitigation – but I’d see that as very thin ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest topshot_2k Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Not nearly enough cheese references in this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Who is the worse criminal?The guy who throws a punch at 2am after a night out drinking and by a million to one chance it kills someone. Who then hands himself into the police, pleads guilty and says sorry. I really don’t like ‘being drunk’ or ‘on drugs’ being used as mitigating factors. Spot the flaw. Bit of a U-turn. :hmm: :no: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 No U turn at all. My first comment never said anything about being drunk being a mitigating factor. It was just part of the case in question. In fact, you’ve quoted me a bit out of context there as I was trying to compare a single stupid mistake against a repeat offender. My comment stands even if you remove any reference to drink. I’d prefer a justice system where previous convictions and cautions were taken into account from the beginning. I’d like to know if the original case was a one off case of a generally nice man just having a very bad day and wanting to lash out, or, if the man in question was a perpetual drunken thug. I’m sure in the next day or two the press will report if he has any previous. I’m very much of the opinion that everyone deserves a second chance if they make a mistake, even a mistake with tragic consequences. I’m also of the opinion that if someone chooses to waste that second chance then they should be locked away to protect the decent people of the world from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) If he WAS drunk and on drugs, he shouldn't have been. If he wasn't, he was just a thug who can't control his temper. Either way he should have been banged up for a lot longer. Some poor family has got to do without a husband/father/brother/son because of this imbecile. Edited September 12, 2012 by walshie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) I’d like to know if the original case was a one off case of a generally nice man just having a very bad day That remark is just about as crass as it gets. Who cares if he was having a bad day? He "accidentally" killed one person and assaulted another. I don't think you have fully grasped that a man has died. As for quoting you out of context - rubbish. If being drunk wasn't mitigation, why was it included? Edited September 12, 2012 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebarrels Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 If he WAS drunk and on drugs, he shouldn't have been. If he wasn't, he was just a thug who can't control his temper. Either way he should have been banged up for a lot longer. Some poor family has got to do without a husband/father/brother/son because of this imbecile. :good: The laws too soft,he should be punished with a length of rope BB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 If he WAS drunk and on drugs, he shouldn't have been. If he wasn't, he was just a thug who can't control his temper. Either way he should have been banged up for a lot longer. Some poor family has got to do without a husband/father/brother/son because of this imbecile. but we dont know if he was provoked.....always two sides to the story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) He actually got sentenced to extra time in prison for his second offence, despite the odd person seeming to recall only one offence. :hmm: I expect some apologist will be along to say that anyone can make two mistakes and should get a third chance. :no: Edited September 12, 2012 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Yes. He accidently killed a person. It was an accident. The question was whether the sentence was too lenient. Perhaps it was. But perhaps not. If we’re being the judge judy and executioner here then I think we need more facts about the case before we make a judgement. We don’t have those facts so we’re just guessing. My guesswork is approaching it from the point of view of a regular bloke making a tragic mistake. Your guesswork is coming from a different direction. That’s fine, it makes the conversation interesting. On another day I might come from the other point of view and demand he be locked up for life because actions have consequences, or even demand we bring back the death penalty. I mentioned that he was drunk, because he was drunk. I never said it was mitigation then, I’ve clarified that point in a later post. It is a point to consider when making this judgement though one way or another. If you persist in arguing my intent is otherwise then that’s your problem. I’ve never been to prison. But, I have investigated it, I understand it’s not a nice place at all regardless of what the tabloids would have us believe. Three years is a long time to be in prison. But being dead lasts forever. I enjoy discussing this stuff online, but I don’t envy the judges their job when they have to make these decisions for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebarrels Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) but we dont know if he was provoked.....always two sides to the story Sorry chimp i disagree,any decent chap would have walked away been provoked is no reason/excuse to take a life,and in your line of work i bet youve been provoked/pushed a few times Edited September 12, 2012 by Bluebarrels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 He was on drugs, besides being drunk. He assaulted two people and was sentenced for the two separate offences. I never said it was mitigation then, I’ve clarified that point in a later post. You implied it - perhaps you phrased it very badly. It was an accident. That is just silly. He punched him deliberately - not accidentally. The outcome was perhaps not what he intended, but that does not make it just an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Sorry chimp i disagree,any decent chap would have walked away been provoked is no reason/excuse to take a life Absolutely. But, is it an excuse to throw a punch. I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I’m just looking at it a different way. I’m sure there’s a legal precedent case about a man who threw a punch and his target had a brain tumour (or something) and he died. The judge found that the person throwing the punch must accept all consequences of the punch rather than just being judged for throwing the punch (as his lawyer argued). It’s a very interesting read, but I can’t find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 You implied it - perhaps you phrased it very badly. Please go back and re-read that post of mine. I put forward a question. I gave two examples of a criminal as food for thought, and asked about sentencing. I did say that the man in example was drunk because he was in the real world version.. But I did not say it was a mitigating factor. Instead I left it to the reader to decide whether they would take it as a mitigating or aggravating factor when answering the question. I thought it would be an interested branch of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebarrels Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 He was on drugs, besides being drunk. He assaulted two people and was sentenced for the two separate offences. You implied it - perhaps you phrased it very badly. That is just silly. He punched him deliberately - not accidentally. The outcome was perhaps not what he intended, but that does not make it just an accident. :good: BB we all have choices,he made the wrong one, and will now be punished for his actions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebarrels Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Absolutely. But, is it an excuse to throw a punch. I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I’m just looking at it a different way. I’m sure there’s a legal precedent case about a man who threw a punch and his target had a brain tumour (or something) and he died. The judge found that the person throwing the punch must accept all consequences of the punch rather than just being judged for throwing the punch (as his lawyer argued). It’s a very interesting read, but I can’t find it. Well the only way i can look at it "if it was me in that situation"what would i do? I would hope i had the courage to walk away(easy to say i know) but the bigger man would walk BB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Stalker Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Here's another scenario, feel free to add your comments. Chef tells drunken yob to **** off out his shop, if he don't like his cheese, don't come back. Drunk yob smacks chef in the mouth. Chef pushes yob, who falls over, bangs his head and dies. Accident! What happens to the chef? Self defence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Bear Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 The family will brie a bit cheesed off but hopefully they wont camembert a grudge for ever. You have a sick sense of humour sir & I shouldn't laugh. We will both burn in Hell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Here's another scenario, feel free to add your comments. Chef tells drunken yob to **** off out his shop, if he don't like his cheese, don't come back. Drunk yob smacks chef in the mouth. Chef pushes yob, who falls over, bangs his head and dies. Accident! What happens to the chef? Self defence? Nice question. If I’m the lawyer for the chef I’d be going for self defence : tragic accident. If I’m arguing for the tragically deceased I’d be arguing that while he was in the wrong to throw a punch the chef shouldn’t have killed him. He was a good boy really, from a broken home, he was half the size of the chef, and was drunk so not in control. The chef shouldn’t have retaliated. It’s all the chefs fault really for having a shop open so late at night. (of course, I’d need to shower in bleach after arguing such a thing. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Here's another scenario, feel free to add your comments. Chef tells drunken yob to **** off out his shop, if he don't like his cheese, don't come back. Drunk yob smacks chef in the mouth. Chef pushes yob, who falls over, bangs his head and dies. Accident! What happens to the chef? Self defence? Simple answer YES. IMO. There is a difference between pushing someone who has hit you and punching someone because you can't hold your drink / can't control your hissy fit temper. Anyway the title to this thread is not "Was it lenient" it is "Do you reckon this is a bit lenient." and I reckon it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.