Bobgok23 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Someone as just dropped concrete blocks off a motorway bridge which hit a car and injured the passenger, the police are looking for someone for attempted murder. Whilst I completely agree that whoever dropped it should be charged with attempted murder, I would class someone who kicks the crap out of another person whilst they are on the floor as a much worse individual and more likely to cause death or injury. The concrete block could have missed whereas a kick to the head won’t miss, one is an idiot and one is a violent thug. Yet the idiot could face attempted murder and prison and the thugs just got a slap on the hand. Well if the nutters throwing concrete blocks of bridges are drunken Muslims what will the charge be? Littering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Well if the nutters throwing concrete blocks of bridges are drunken Muslims what will the charge be? Littering? Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 So according to this sentance if you have never driven before and get into a car and acidentally run someone over you would be excused for not having had prior experiance. How on earth do you come to such a bizarre conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Would that judge have allowed the same mitigating circumstances if the perpetrators had been British born and had never drunk alcohol before either? All this kind of stupidity does is to further inflame resentment and racial tensions Of course it does, the offenders are not to blame for the sentencing ,its yet another stupid ruling by someone who has no idea at all of the trouble he could cause through sheer ignorance....how much is a pint of milk ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SultryMaiden Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Just watched the video and felt utterly sick. Plus the disgustingly pathetic punishment, what is wrong with these judges!! Do you think the judge didnt see the video before the trial? Thats the only possible thing i can think and even then im trying my best to look for the good in this judge and a way that explains the very bad judgment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 The victim has obviously not received anything resembling justice in this matter. If the perpetrators are still legally minors she could always hire a shark of a lawyer and go after the parents for all the money she could get out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 How on earth do you come to such a bizarre conclusion?What do you find bizarre ? Does this judgement not say that inexperience excuses responsibility or am I missing the point ? Was the drink forced on these girls ? Wouldn't they have known that they would not have had the tolerance or that drinking in general had its bad side ? Even if they were not aware of the negative side to drink from their 'teachings' they must have known of the negative social side of alcohol just from the media, not that any of that is relevant because ignorance should not be a defence anyhow. What I'm saying is if in the eyes of the law you can be irresponsible and then claim that it was down to 'inexperience' then doesn't that blow a big hole in legal argument ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Do you think the judge didnt see the video before the trial? Thats the only possible thing i can think and even then im trying my best to look for the good in this judge and a way that explains the very bad judgment It isn't a bad judgment. The judge isn't responsible for them not being prosecuted for attempted murder - he can only sentence them for ABH, which is by definition an assault of fairly minor violence not causing a lot of injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 What do you find bizarre ? Does this judgement not say that inexperience excuses responsibility or am I missing the point ? Was the drink forced on these girls ? Wouldn't they have known that they would not have had the tolerance or that drinking in general had its bad side ? Even if they were not aware of the negative side to drink from their 'teachings' they must have known of the negative social side of alcohol just from the media, not that any of that is relevant because ignorance should not be a defence anyhow. What I'm saying is if in the eyes of the law you can be irresponsible and then claim that it was down to 'inexperience' then doesn't that blow a big hole in legal argument ? Then there’s the fact that alcohol doesn’t make you do something you didn’t want to do, it just removes your inhibitions enabling you to do something you wanted to do but had been to embarrassed or afraid to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frazzle123 Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 There is nothing GREAT about this country anymore!!!!The justice system is shocking, im ashamed to be british!!! Excusing these vile young women because they arent used to drinking is shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.