Pragmatopian Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/7052267.stm Five boys have been sentenced to two years' detention for killing a father who collapsed with a heart attack after being pelted with stones and rocks. Ernest Norton, 67, was playing cricket with his son at a leisure centre in Erith, south-east London, when he was targeted in February 2006. Following the sentence, Det Insp Clive Hayes said he hoped the "tough sentence" will "act as a deterrent" to other youths tempted to get involved in anti-social behaviour. Tough sentence? FFS! They stoned a guy to death! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 No, they didn't; that is an emotive comment. Surely they are guilty as hell for killing him (direct cause and all that), but they did not stone him to death. That carries all the biblical implications that the headlines are designed to evoke. Still, they are little shits and got the least of what they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 No, they didn't; that is an emotive comment. Surely they are guilty as hell for killing him (direct cause and all that), but they did not stone him to death. That carries all the biblical implications that the headlines are designed to evoke. Still, they are little shits and got the least of what they deserve. I think it's a pretty reasonable turn of phrase - they threw stones at a guy directly resulting in his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 No, they didn't; that is an emotive comment. Surely they are guilty as hell for killing him (direct cause and all that), but they did not stone him to death. That carries all the biblical implications that the headlines are designed to evoke. Still, they are little shits and got the least of what they deserve. I think it's a pretty reasonable turn of phrase - they threw stones at a guy directly resulting in his death. I think it's pretty accurate too, the guy may have had some heart defect/weakness anyway but you could be fairly certain in saying that if they hadn't thrown stones at him then he wouldn't have died, that day anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I am not defending them at all, (I think they are shits that deserve all they get), but all I am saying is that the media coverage sought to dress this up as a murder by biblical means. It was sensationalism which conjured up a picture of a man being pelted to a pulp by stones. That was not the case. If he had been caused to trip by the onslaught and struck his head against something and that injury caused death, would you still say he was stoned to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 the media coverage sought to dress this up as a murder by biblical means. I didn't believe stoning was a purely biblical method - it is still used as a method of punishment in some more hard-line countries adhering to strict sharia law. I also still think 'stoning' is a pretty reasonable way to describe the act of throwing stones at someone. The media overstep the mark a lot, but this isn't one of those occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 If he had been caused to trip by the onslaught and struck his head against something and that injury caused death, would you still say he was stoned to death? Personally, yes! In that case I would see it as cause and effect. The thrown stones caused him to trip and the effect was that he died from the injuries he sustained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 The article says "Boys sentenced for stoning death" not that the boys "stoned a guy to death" however I don't think the little shits got what they deserved. I think they deserved far harsher punishment. These shits were responsible for this chaps death, I don't think this is a "tough sentence" or that it'll "act as a deterrent" it's a light sentence that relatives of the victim will consider an insult. Like so many others. If this had happened to my Father, I would be utterly and completely pissed off with this tough sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted October 26, 2007 Author Share Posted October 26, 2007 And on a similar note: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/7063366.stm I'd say better to put him down like an animal than set him loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Been to Hartlepool twice - once was enough. A dive. Being a c*nt seems to be a national sport over there. A couple of months ago just along the coast at Redcar, a guy had a heart attack. His wallet was stolen as he lay on the ground and when two Policemen arrived to give him first aid, while they were trying to keep him alive, some tosser stole their first aid kit. It was on the BBC online news at the time. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143248.stm I'm lost for words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143248.stm I'm lost for words. Unbelievable....the law is truly as ass. "At a hearing before the appeal judges on Thursday, Mark Wall QC, challenging the safety of the manslaughter convictions, argued that it could not be established which of the allegedly "unlawful or dangerous" actions, if any of them, had contributed to Mr Norton's heart attack. " I hope you sleep well in your bed at night Mr Wall..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 No the law really is truly remarkable. In the face of criticism, it manages, time after time to uphold the principle of innocent until proved beyond reasonable doubt guilty. Think if you were one of the 5 boys, no one can tell if your stone hit the decesed causing the heart attack or not. How can any of them be guilty of manslaughter....beyond reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143248.stm I'm lost for words. Appalling. I can just about understand questioning the sentence on the basis of not being sure that the incident caused the man's heart attack (although it seems very likely), but I don't understand the reasoning behind "it could not be established which of the allegedly "unlawful or dangerous" actions had contributed to Mr Norton's heart attack" - surely, if we accept for a moment that the incident did cause it, all the kids would be complicit in manslaughter. It almost sounds like the judge is trying to make out that one particular act was the sole reason the man had a heart attack, rather than the entire frightening incident being the cause. Edit: I see you're taking a similar line, John. So you believe one single stone caused the heart attack? This seems an absurd statement to make. Imagine the following analogue: Two men have an argument, it proves too much for one of them and he has a heart attack. Most people would assume that the argument and the stress it placed on the man caused the heart attack, but by your reasoning it would be particular word or clause of the argument caused it! I respect your admiration and defence of the law, and you know far more about it that most of us, but surely you must be able to acknowledge that whilst the various principles that underpin law are generally good, it is nevertheless always going to be an imperfect art put into practice and that sometimes we have legitimate reason to be concerned about the mechanics and the practice of law when they appear to fail to bring justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I am sure the parents of the kids are delighted...their hearts must swell with pride as a result of the technicality.....I trust that in the abances of legislative remedy, Karma will shit on these thugs from a great height! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.