A cowardly act of violence.

[skinz]

The law is quite clear.

 

On what?

 

 

On second thoughts...never mind.

[skinz]

Recycling.

 

:huh:Sentence him to be a bin-man?

[andygardener]

The law is quite clear.

 

Yes it is, and the police/CPS seem to have found no evidence that the victims race played a part in the attack, so why are you suggesting it was a racist attack?

[RootsBooster]

Yes, as above.

 

Thankyou, I agree that could be described as chiding. I also agree to an extent with what GNVQSOS said, as he said it before the full story was confirmed.

 

What he was basically saying is that there were a lot of people making judgements without knowing the facts for sure yet. He definitely did NOT say that the attack was justified, as Mr Smith/maxmaximus suggested.

 

At the point that GNVQSOS made his post, the victim could have done something to provoke him first (for those who like Mr Smith/maxmaximus's way of thinking, I am not saying the attack could have been justified). She could have;

 

a) Shoved past him

b) Kicked his dog

c) Ignored him as he said "Good morning"

d) Said something which he interpreted as offensive

e) Knocked his grandmother down some steps

f) Looked at him in a way he didn't like

 

(anyone think I'm justifying the attack?)

Many of the posters' comments would be different if some of the above had taken place. If option "e" was true, I think some would even have considered the attack justified.

 

Personally I don't think that any of the options would justify an attack like that. I do, however, think that any one of them could have motivated him if they had taken place, which is what GNVQSOS was talking about.

[maxmaximus]

 

He definitely did NOT say that the attack was justified, as maxmaximus suggested.

 

 

I didn't say that GNVQSOS suggested is was justified, your limited understanding of English does appear to confuse you.

 

There isn’t a good enough motive to justify such violence.

 

Maybe you could point out in this sentence where I did claim GNVQSOS suggested is was justified or are you just going to continue trolling.

[RootsBooster]

Some members prior to GNVQSOS calling them foolhardy thought the assault deserved severe punishment, probably because nothing could possibly justify such violence.

According to some posters, "such violence" justifies such violence. Like this post here...

A truly shocking and cowardly act!!

Hopefully when caught and put in jail he will be getting a sock full of pool balls wrapped round the back of his head when he is not expecting it or failing that a cup of boiling water with loads of sugar in it. SCUM

...which is the kind of comment I think GNVQSOS was referring to. I think mafya would have changed his opinion if it came to light that the victim had actually done something equally bad first.

If GNVQSOS thinks they are foolhardy for not taking his motives into consideration then GNVQSOS must think his motives may justify leniency towards him. I can’t think of anything that would justify being lenient.

You've just done your thread-twist trick. Originally you suggested that GNVQSOS was saying the attack itself could be justified.

Now you're saying that GNVQSOS is saying that his motives could justify other's views on it, their leniency toward him. I agree, as in the example above, if it turned out that she had done something as bad, or worse, then I think people would be more lenient towards him. This is not the same as saying that the attack is justified.

 

Anyone who is familiar with your regular posting will know why I'm not going to get drawn into this with you any further. The whole thing started with you twisting words and you've just done it again, it's your only tactic in discussion/debate and it leads to nowhere except page-long, multiquote post dissecting to the point where everyone loses interest in what actually happened to begin with.

[RootsBooster]

I didn't say that GNVQSOS suggested is was justified, your limited understanding of English does appear to confuse you.

Maybe you could point out in this sentence where I did claim GNVQSOS suggested is was justified or are you just going to continue trolling.

Twisty!

If you read my post that you quoted, I didn't claim that you said it. I said that you suggested it, like this...

There isn’t a good enough motive to justify such violence.

Heh, limited understanding.

I'm done playing your game on this thread Smithy, this is how you always derail them.

[maxmaximus]

Originally you suggested that GNVQSOS was saying the attack itself could be justified.

 

Only in you troll mind.

[andygardener]

Thankyou, I agree that could be described as chiding. I also agree to an extent with what GNVQSOS said, as he said it before the full story was confirmed.

 

What he was basically saying is that there were a lot of people making judgements without knowing the facts for sure yet. He definitely did NOT say that the attack was justified, as Mr Smith/maxmaximus suggested.

 

At the point that GNVQSOS made his post, the victim could have done something to provoke him first (for those who like Mr Smith/maxmaximus's way of thinking, I am not saying the attack could have been justified). She could have;

 

a) Shoved past him

b) Kicked his dog

c) Ignored him as he said "Good morning"

d) Said something which he interpreted as offensive

e) Knocked his grandmother down some steps

f) Looked at him in a way he didn't like

 

(anyone think I'm justifying the attack?)

Many of the posters' comments would be different if some of the above had taken place. If option "e" was true, I think some would even have considered the attack justified.

 

Personally I don't think that any of the options would justify an attack like that. I do, however, think that any one of them could have motivated him if they had taken place, which is what GNVQSOS was talking about.

 

The facts that we had at the time were

 

A) Footage of the offence.

B) Police statement/appeals about the offence.

 

A) showed a powerfully built man striking a young girl with full force at the back of the head in a manner that could have caused death to result.

A) Showed the man turning away to walk off as he was in the process of striking her.

A) Showed no attempt to ascertain whether the victim was dead or alive

A) Showed no interest in whether the victim was alive or dead

 

B) Asked for information in identifying the offender and referenced no other offence committed nearby or made any suggestion they were looking for witnesses to any related incident.

 

Based on that very clear evidence we pretty much all came to a conclusion that the possible taking of her life was unjustified in the extreme. Had the victim done the most unimaginable wrong to the perp that might in some way explain his actions then A) does not tally.

 

The posters called it correctly and on the basis of the very strong evidence before them.

[maxmaximus]

Twisty!

If you read my post that you quoted, I didn't claim that you said it. I said that you suggested it, like this...

 

Heh, limited understanding.

I'm done playing your game on this thread Smithy, this is how you always derail them.

 

It’s all in your mind, I didn't suggest anything at all, I simply made a statement that nothing could justify what he did.

That includes all your resent ideas about why he might have hit her, it doesn't matter why he did it or what she may have done to him first, it was unjustified violence against a small girl.