ForumGarden

Andrew Young, 40, became embroiled in an argument with Victor Ibitoye after he had told him that cycling on the pavement was dangerous.

The cyclist rode off but moments later his friend, Lewis Gill, approached Mr Young and punched him in the face without provocation.

The argument goes that the young man pleaded guilty so recieved a smaller sentence, is that the right thing to do in a crime resulting in such a tragic death ?

No. Anyone who intentionally and violently killed someone should spend at least a decade behind bars without parole. You might say, "He didn't intend to kill the guy." I'm not buying that. Every adult knows that they are strong enough to kill someone with their bare hands.

He maybe didn't intend to kill him but he certainly wasn't worried about the consequences of his action.

Maybe a few years ago, I would have said, bang them up for life' but having had the experience of sitting through an entire murder trial, I do think differently now. In that case, the young person was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter simply because the Jury believed them when they said they didn't go out to kill anyone that night Intentionally. He also got 4 years and was out In 2 years. On release, he was very quickly back In prison on another case and Is still there today.

It's very difficult In these cases. In this case, he didn't pre-meditate killing the guy. He didn't carry out a sustained attack and It was one punch. He may have wanted to hurt his victim but I bet as with most of these one punch cases, he never envisaged In his wildest dreams that the victim would die.

So the courts have limitations. If the offender Is of a certain age, the sentencing Is half that of an adult. That's extremely difficult for the victims family to comprehend but It's the law weather we like It or not.

There Is two ways of looking at It. Was It a young man who on that day carried out a reckless act and never Imagined the consequences or was It a violent young man who had a history of violence and has no remorse? We don't know either.

Personally, I feel 4 years Is too short. If It was an act of where a young man lost his temper, never Intended to kill anyone and Is remorseful, then maybe he should have got 10 years, out In 5 but If he had a history of violence then I believe he should serve at least 10 years. However, there are guid lines to sentencing and very often, Judges hands are tied.

I agree almost entirely with Oscar..................and that doesn't happen often.

The law should change a little.

In short each case should be taken on it's merits with all the circumstances taken in to consideration.

I suspect most of us will have been in a situation where a punch or kick thrown in self defence could have done major harm at the time you are lashing out you do actually want to do harm. Having said that this wasn't self defence it looks like this was just one of those mindless thugs belting somebody he knew would not hit back. The aspergers would have made him seem odd that is all the justification some people need.

The Issue I have Is with getting a reduced sentence for pleading guilty and because each case Is different, I do believe sentencing should depend on why the accused has pleaded guilty.

In most cases, when police arrest, they actually have very little evidence. It's only when the accused Is denying the crime that the police then have to launch an Investigation and look for witness's and evidence. That's what happened In my trial. The arresting officer had nothing and hadn't bothered to gather any evidence In the belief that I would take a caution at the Police Station. Only when I refused It, did she have to actually find some evidence. It's why some cases take so long from arrest to come to trial, In order to give police time to gather evidence and build a case.

By sheer co-Incidence, during the Investigation of the murder trial I experienced, the Investigating detective was also Investigating a one punch case In Bournmouth at the time. We were chatting about the severity of the Injuries to the victim In my murder trial and he by comparison told me that In the other case, there had been an altercation where the victim had argued with the attacker. The attacker threw a punch but the victims head had hit the pavement on the way down. Apparently the attacker was mortified and admitted guilt Immediately, pleading guilty. So In genuine cases like that, I believe judges should have the discretion with the accused who Immediately admit guilt, enter a guilty plea and show remorse. Yet, for me, the one's who deny deny deny, until such time the police have gathered enough evidence to prove guilt beyond doubt and then change their plea from a not guilty to a guilty just before the trial, should get longer. Those are the one's who's briefs very often have told them the evidence Is so stacked against them that they haven't a hope In hell of getting off and If they plead guilty they will get a shorter sentence. In those cases, I'd like to see stiffer sentencing.

Saint_;1449014 wrote: No. Anyone who intentionally and violently killed someone should spend at least a decade behind bars without parole. You might say, "He didn't intend to kill the guy." I'm not buying that. Every adult knows that they are strong enough to kill someone with their bare hands.


Words to live by.

Saint_;1449014 wrote: No. Anyone who intentionally and violently killed someone should spend at least a decade behind bars without parole. You might say, "He didn't intend to kill the guy." I'm not buying that. Every adult knows that they are strong enough to kill someone with their bare hands.


I don't know any such thing.

Snooz;1449065 wrote: I don't know any such thing.


Oh, my mistake. Every adult SHOULD know that.

2010 - 5.6% of all homicide in the U.S. are by

Personal

weapons

(hands, fists,

feet, etc.)2

2 Pushed is included in personal weapons

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 7



Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 2006-841 2007-869 2008-875 2009-817 2010-745

1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

tude dog;1449070 wrote: 2010 - 5.6% of all homicide in the U.S. are by

Personal

weapons

(hands, fists,

feet, etc.)2

2 Pushed is included in personal weapons

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 7



Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 2006-841 2007-869 2008-875 2009-817 2010-745

1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


Is that your contribution to the anti gun argument ?

This thread makes me angry. I get this all the time from the high school students, "They were talking smack about me! I'm gonna hit 'em!" Never thinking what would happen if that person was maimed, paralyzed, or even killed. Just thoughtless violence over words.

And our society is making things worse. Hyperviolent music, movies, and video games desensitize us all. Hell, I've even heard parents tell their children, "It's your right to kick their butt if they talk about you!" The other day, our principal went to the park next to the school to stop a fight. He got in trouble for that. One of the parents complained that he had no right to interfere. Sheesh.

I guess, I'd better get with the program, strap a holster to my hip with the rest of the New Mexicans and go try to find someone to blast for playing the wrong music in their car. (Sarcasm - in case you didn't get it.)

Saint_;1449079 wrote: This thread makes me angry. I get this all the time from the high school students, "They were talking smack about me! I'm gonna hit 'em!" Never thinking what would happen if that person was maimed, paralyzed, or even killed. Just thoughtless violence over words.

And our society is making things worse. Hyperviolent music, movies, and video games desensitize us all. Hell, I've even heard parents tell their children, "It's your right to kick their butt if they talk about you!" The other day, our principal went to the park next to the school to stop a fight. He got in trouble for that. One of the parents complained that he had no right to interfere. Sheesh.

I guess, I'd better get with the program, strap a holster to my hip with the rest of the New Mexicans and go try to find someone to blast for playing the wrong music in their car. (Sarcasm - in case you didn't get it.) But Saint, what we are dealing with Is human emotion.

Until such time In the future when a future race Is devoid of all human feelings, you are dealing with emotions such as hurt, anger, resentment, jealousy etc etc.

Simply, It Is Impossible to make laws to eradicate human emotion. Yes, people get hurt but they are far more likely to get hurt In a rail or car crash.

Unless someone activilly pre-meditates killing someone, then accidents will happen. I say accident, because It Is the Intent that is criminal not the outcome.

In this case, the young man Intended to hurt his victim so yes, he needs to go to prison. But he didn't go out that day with a kill kit Intent on killing someone. His emotions ie anger got the better of him following an altercation.

As for stopping a school altercation. I don't know... kids have to learn.

As mad as this may sound, It's a little like raising puppies. The Mother and my boy dog would give the young pups a right telling off to put them In their place If they stepped over the line. They never hurt them and It's madness to Intervene. The pups need to learn other dogs body language so they can sense other dangerous dogs In their adult life should the situation present It's self for their own survival and learn how to Interact with other adult dogs. You have to let them sort It out themselves In order for them to gain that knowledge,

Saint_;1449079 wrote: This thread makes me angry.


I hope it's the topic and some of the arguments

The other day, our principal went to the park next to the school to stop a fight. He got in trouble for that. One of the parents complained that he had no right to interfere. Sheesh.


Back in the old days this was the norm,the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. Now that is an infringement of the childs rights........as you said.....sheesh



I guess, I'd better get with the program, strap a holster to my hip with the rest of the New Mexicans and go try to find someone to blast for playing the wrong music in their car. (Sarcasm - in case you didn't get it.)


No please don't, one day they, whoever 'they' are may see the light and listen......you are at the coalface, the cutting edge, educating whoever is willing to learn, and some will remember years after and say 'He was right'

oscar;1449083 wrote: But Saint, what we are dealing with Is human emotion.


This time you cannot get one iota of agreement from me.................sorry.

Re watch this video, the young chap might have been angry, he is entitled to be angry, he doesn't show his anger until out of the blue and with no forewarning he lays one on the unsuspecting fellow that has been verbally warning his mate for doing selfishly something potentially dangerous and stupid (in that his campanion, the murderer) was walking with him........get off and walk.

No excuse at all, other than he thought it was a way of relieving his anger...................he now has several years to ponder if that was right, hopefully plus a few more, and I am not a malicious sort of person.

Bruv;1449107 wrote: This time you cannot get one iota of agreement from me.................sorry.

Re watch this video, the young chap might have been angry, he is entitled to be angry, he doesn't show his anger until out of the blue and with no forewarning he lays one on the unsuspecting fellow that has been verbally warning his mate for doing selfishly something potentially dangerous and stupid (in that his campanion, the murderer) was walking with him........get off and walk.

No excuse at all, other than he thought it was a way of relieving his anger...................he now has several years to ponder if that was right, hopefully plus a few more, and I am not a malicious sort of person.


Yes... emotion... anger.

You can not enforce laws to stop human nature.

He Intended to hurt his victim... It's the Intent that is criminal and that's why he's In prison.

OK then... how do you propose the legal system eradicates crimes as the result of anger, hatred, jealousy etc? Because It's the emotion that causes the criminal act. No emotion, no act, no act, no crime.

Bruv;1449078 wrote: Is that your contribution to the anti gun argument ?


????

Where did you come up with that?

I thought it was consistent with the thread. A little enlightenment if you will.

Saint_;1449079 wrote: This thread makes me angry. I get this all the time from the high school students, "They were talking smack about me! I'm gonna hit 'em!" Never thinking what would happen if that person was maimed, paralyzed, or even killed. Just thoughtless violence over words.


I am with you on that.

Saint_;1449079 wrote: And our society is making things worse. Hyperviolent music, movies, and video games desensitize us all. Hell, I've even heard parents tell their children, "It's your right to kick their butt if they talk about you!" The other day, our principal went to the park next to the school to stop a fight. He got in trouble for that. One of the parents complained that he had no right to interfere. Sheesh.


OK, this is an old guy talking now. I grew up when the only right to violence was self defense and parents would stand behind the school.

oscar;1449109 wrote: Yes... emotion... anger.

You can not enforce laws to stop human nature.

He Intended to hurt his victim... It's the Intent that is criminal and that's why he's In prison.

OK then... how do you propose the legal system eradicates crimes as the result of anger, hatred, jealousy etc? Because It's the emotion that causes the criminal act. No emotion, no act, no act, no crime.


You do tend to go a tad over the blooming top don't you?

Why didn't he slap him if wanted to hurt him?

Why did he feel the need to hurl a full blooded haymaker at a stranger for a few words with his mate?

Believe me I have been angry in my life, but never ever felt the need to floor a stranger on behalf of someone elses minor problem.

There is no way to curb peoples behaviour other than giving appropriate sentences when such acts occur. The upbringing maybe, and the general feeling that punching solves anything is whats wrong

Take another look at the video, the puncher considers, steps back, winds up and swings...................then walks away, taking a casual look back.

After the act the cyclist stops, considers, dismounts and the video stops.

I suspect he might aid the victim, his reaction shows some compassion as far as the video goes.

The other guy is making good his escape.

tude dog;1449112 wrote:

I thought it was consistent with the thread. A little enlightenment if you will.


I thought it might have been you that ran with the mantra that "Guns don't kill, people do"

According to those figures in the absence of guns......oh hell.....work it out yourself.

oscar;1449083 wrote: But Saint, what we are dealing with Is human emotion.

Until such time In the future when a future race Is devoid of all human feelings, you are dealing with emotions such as hurt, anger, resentment, jealousy etc etc.

Simply, It Is Impossible to make laws to eradicate human emotion.


I don't believe that is what Saint is talking about. It seems to me he is talking about holding people accountable for actions.

oscar;1449083 wrote: Yes, people get hurt but they are far more likely to get hurt In a rail or car crash.

Unless someone activilly pre-meditates killing someone, then accidents will happen. I say accident, because It Is the Intent that is criminal not the outcome.

In this case, the young man Intended to hurt his victim so yes, he needs to go to prison. But he didn't go out that day with a kill kit Intent on killing someone. His emotions ie anger got the better of him following an altercation.


This was no "accident". That boy took a swing to hurt his victim, and hurt him badly.

oscar;1449083 wrote: As for stopping a school altercation. I don't know... kids have to learn.


PRISON is a good lesson for all.

Bruv;1449116 wrote: I thought it might have been you that ran with the mantra that "Guns don't kill, people do"

According to those figures in the absence of guns......oh hell.....work it out yourself.


Rather than hijack this thread, perhaps you could start one of your own.



[edit/ OOps, When I wrote

I thought it was consistent with the thread. A little enlightenment if you will.

That wasn't clear as I was not asking, just saying it was my contribution.

tude dog;1449119 wrote: Rather than hijack this thread, perhaps you could start one of your own.


Carry on hijack away.........this is one of my threads.

Your statistics prove that the absence of guns limit deaths...................wouldn't you agree?

Bruv;1449121 wrote: Carry on hijack away.........this is one of my threads.

Your statistics prove that the absence of guns limit deaths...................wouldn't you agree? No... that's not true.



BBC News - Why is violent crime so rare in Iceland?

Yeah Bruv, stop hijacking your own threads! :yh_rotfl

Bruv;1449121 wrote:

Your statistics prove that the absence of guns limit deaths...................wouldn't you agree?


tude dog's Marginal News & Analysis: Great Britain leads in Violent Crime

See, TD, I pay attention! This is only the second time I visited, but this stuck in my mind.

oscar;1449123 wrote: No... that's not true.



BBC News - Why is violent crime so rare in Iceland?


The exception that proves the rule?

You can't measure two different cultures without taking into account some history and background.

America was born in a cloud of gunpowder smoke,with a population of 322 million.

Iceland is the worlds oldest parliamentary democracy with a population of 320 thousand.

Maybe I should have said 'The absence of guns limit gun deaths' which must apply anywhere it is applied.

Next Switzerland?

AnneBoleyn;1449125 wrote: tude dog's Marginal News & Analysis: Great Britain leads in Violent Crime

See, TD, I pay attention! This is only the second time I visited, but this stuck in my mind.


I have Bookmarked that one.......very interesting.

To put it bluntly.........lotta nonsense (Cleaned that up a lot)

If it is happening around me I am unaware.

Total Murders per 100,000 people by country 2004

Total crimes per 1000: Countries Compared per capita

I thought I knew what per capita meant, according to this Iceland is rife with reported crime........have I got this right ?

Bruv;1449121 wrote: Carry on hijack away.........this is one of my threads.


OK, my mistake. Midstream you choose to change the subject.

Bruv;1449121 wrote: Your statistics prove that the absence of guns limit deaths...................wouldn't you agree?


No, not at all.

Follow the conversation if you will.

Post #9

Quote Originally Posted by Saint_ View Post

No. Anyone who intentionally and violently killed someone should spend at least a decade behind bars without parole. You might say, "He didn't intend to kill the guy." I'm not buying that. Every adult knows that they are strong enough to kill someone with their bare hands.

I don't know any such thing.


Post #10

Saint_;1449069 wrote: Oh, my mistake. Every adult SHOULD know that[/B


Post #11

tude dog;1449070 wrote: 2010 - 5.6% of all homicide in the U.S. are by

Personal

weapons

(hands, fists,

feet, etc.)2

2 Pushed is included in personal weapons

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 7



Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 2006-841 2007-869 2008-875 2009-817 2010-745

1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Bruv;1449121 wrote: Carry on hijack away.........this is one of my threads.


OK, my mistake. Midstream you choose to change the subject.

Bruv;1449121 wrote: Your statistics prove that the absence of guns limit deaths...................wouldn't you agree?


No, not at all.

Follow the conversation if you will.

Post #9

Quote Originally Posted by Saint_ View Post

No. Anyone who intentionally and violently killed someone should spend at least a decade behind bars without parole. You might say, "He didn't intend to kill the guy." I'm not buying that. Every adult knows that they are strong enough to kill someone with their bare hands.

I don't know any such thing.


Post #10

Saint_;1449069 wrote: Oh, my mistake. Every adult SHOULD know that


Post #11

tude dog;1449070 wrote: 2010 - 5.6% of all homicide in the U.S. are by

Personal

weapons

(hands, fists,

feet, etc.)2

2 Pushed is included in personal weapons

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 7



Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 2006-841 2007-869 2008-875 2009-817 2010-745

1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.

FBI - Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


It had zero to do with clubs, knives or what ever. Fact is face to face one person can kill another as it happens, in this country most every day.

You want to talk guns, I'm down with that as guns are a favorite subject of mine. More than once, sometimes in not to subtle ways, people on this site let it be known they tire of guns. I decided lest it be something special to try any avoid that subject.

Your thread, do what you want.

For me, the big difference between guns and bare fists Is that anyone who arms himself with a firearm knows that should they ever need or want to use It, then It will kill. Someone who throws one punch does not expect that person to die... as I've said all along.. It's the Intent. Even the expectation of their action.

I saw the video (cctv footage). That young thug pulled the hardest punch he could muster - you can't tell me that he was not aware that a punch like that could kill ! Did you notice the arrogant way that thug walked off, and did you notice the lad (involved in the original disagreement with the victim) with the bike get off it and look as if he was going to return to the unconscious victim, possibly to help the poor guy ? It's a pity the video was cut short at that point.

Actually it only takes one punch directed at the right place, to kill. If a punch lands at the point of the nose, pushing the nose bone up into the skull, it can enter the brain and kill the victim. Ask any S. A. S. soldier.

oscar;1449156 wrote: For me, the big difference between guns and bare fists Is that anyone who arms himself with a firearm knows that should they ever need or want to use It, then It will kill. Someone who throws one punch does not expect that person to die...


Thanks for clarifying that.

Hate to say it, but in this country people are shot everyday. While I have not stats, I would expect most all to live and see another sunrise.

oscar;1449156 wrote: as I've said all along.. It's the Intent. Even the expectation of their action.


That sounds like a legal definition, and I like it.

A saying I once heard is,

"Behind every bullet, follows a lawyer"

tude dog;1449173 wrote: "Behind every bullet, follows a lawyer"


You like oneliners don't you?

Bruv;1449178 wrote: You like oneliners don't you?


Buddy, you are killing me.

Thank you for advertising my blog,

tude dog's Marginal News & Analysis

seven years of my musings.

You focus on

Happy Birthday 1911

I fail to see where you are going with this.

I think you've been modest far too long, TD. It's about time we all know your greatness.

Bruv;1449178 wrote: You like oneliners don't you?
Stalker

tude dog;1449188 wrote: Buddy, you are killing me.

I fail to see where you are going with this.


Killing with my wit ?

Like these gems?

"Given by God on a mountainside to John Moses Browning to smite thy enemies"

"Dispatching the forces of tyranny since 1911, one 230 grain slug at a time "

tude dog;1449188 wrote: Thank you for advertising my blog,


It was Annie tipped me.........a few posts ago, thank her.

Bruv;1449198 wrote: Killing with my wit ?

Like these gems?

"Given by God on a mountainside to John Moses Browning to smite thy enemies"

"Dispatching the forces of tyranny since 1911, one 230 grain slug at a time " I think you're out of order. Copying and pasting something he's written elsewhere.

Didn't FG once have rules about that unsavoury practice once?

oscar;1449202 wrote: I think you're out of order. Copying and pasting something he's written elsewhere.

Didn't FG once have rules about that unsavoury practice once?


Annie posted the first link to Tudes public Blog.

I reposted the link and advertised Tudes blog, which thanked me for.

The words were not copied and pasted, but transcribed from the posters on his blog, not his words unless he designed the posters.



I don't think that is out of order or unsavoury but if Tude complains I will apologise and delete the offending posts.

Bruv;1449198 wrote: Killing with my wit ?

Like these gems?

"Given by God on a mountainside to John Moses Browning to smite thy enemies"

"Dispatching the forces of tyranny since 1911, one 230 grain slug at a time "


I should be shocked, but I am not.

You quote my blog Happy Birthday 1911

out of context to this thread,

Thank you for showing, at least to me what a dishonest person you are.

Bruv;1449203 wrote: Annie posted the first link to Tudes public Blog.

I reposted the link and advertised Tudes blog, which thanked me for.

The words were not copied and pasted, but transcribed from the posters on his blog, not his words unless he designed the posters.



I don't think that is out of order or unsavoury but if Tude complains I will apologise and delete the offending posts.


My blog is public.

Long time ago wished to drop the 'tude dog".

No complaints here.

Actually, it was Ahso! who, many moons ago, wrote to Tude on this board about Tude's blog. I believe, but am not positive, that it was a complimentary comment. That is how I learned of it.

What other name would you like to use, TD? Larry Fine?

tude dog;1449206 wrote: Thank you for showing, at least to me what a dishonest person you are.


I don't like my honesty being questioned, I fail to see where I am being dishonest anywhere here.

The thread started questioning the short sentence handed down to a single punch killer.

Tude posted a list of American statistics that he said proved that deaths occur without the use of firearms, that is undeniable. My reply reasoned it proved more deaths happened when guns were involved.

Nobody seems to have noticed the link to counter the ridiculous claim that the UK leads in violent crime.

Or the Total Crime per capita figures that puts Iceland top of the league.

Tude then came up with the line "Behind every bullet, follows a lawyer".... which led me to post (from his blog) the other Hollywood block bluster super hero type Buzzwords that intimated that the Almighty gave Browning a handgun to smite (Because kill is not a nice word) his enemies, supposedly because god was on his side?

Then again because killing is too strong a word the following gem said "Dispatching the forces of tyranny since 1911, one 230 grain slug at a time"

I dislike the trivialisation and sanitisation of words for death. Each bullet that hits its target gouges flesh,smashes bones, tears muscle and veins,it doesn't necessarily smite, it does cause massive trauma to victim and all others involved, family, medics.

Life is not a Stallone movie.

It wasn't me that introduced American statistics about violent crime to prove people can kill with their barehands, they told me less people would die if barehands were the only weapon involved.

The thread has meandered from it's central topic, but it is still about senseless viloence and peoples attitude to it.

AnneBoleyn;1449255 wrote: Actually, it was Ahso! who, many moons ago, wrote to Tude on this board about Tude's blog.


That is true.

AnneBoleyn;1449255 wrote: I believe, but am not positive, that it was a complimentary comment. That is how I learned of it.


I am not going back to comment on what Ahso! had to say as at the time.

AnneBoleyn;1449255 wrote: What other name would you like to use, TD? Larry Fine?


Only if Mr. Fine gave me permission.

Actually, this is the second blog of three I started.

First I called "Eyes Wide Open". It had to do with illegal immigration to the U.S. I wish I could share it with ya all as I was very proud of it. Got a lot of RSS feeds etc. Anyway, my host site went down the tubes, with my blog. I suspect even liberals on the other left coast could get my drift.

My third blog lasted not even a week as I really had problems with just what my goal was in it.

Out of curiosity does "tude dog" have some kind of significance to americans is it a colloquialism or is tude just a made up nonsense word?

gmc;1449301 wrote: Out of curiosity does "tude dog" have some kind of significance to americans is it a colloquialism or is tude just a made up nonsense word?


Attitude and dawg?

Bruv;1449304 wrote: Attitude and dawg?


Attitude & Dog. What's up with Dawg?

Dog is a newer term than "Cat", as in Yo Dog (Cat), Wassup? Come to think of it, I guess it might be spelled 'dawg'. Geez, what a world we live in. It's become very hard being in the Spelling Police. Time to retire.