"The law's an ass" - I tend to agree

Forums › Off topic › "The law's an ass" - I tend to agree

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1104475 7-Aug-2014 22:25

tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

HAHA because locking kids up with other violent kids to "rehabilitate" has been has proven so successful in the past right? Taking kids from their family and support structures, is always the way to ensure a childs future. Also worth noting, kids in my opinion aren't significantly more voilent than kids a few years back, my childhood was filled with violent kids, it's just reported now so much more than it was.

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#1104478 7-Aug-2014 22:29

networkn:
tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

HAHA because locking kids up with other violent kids to "rehabilitate" has been has proven so successful in the past right? Taking kids from their family and support structures, is always the way to ensure a childs future.

I said UNTIL. Not lock them up and throw away the key. I don't want some thug murderer running around in the streets until they can see a therapist or whatever they need to move on in life. And if they're already with a "support structure" that has lapsed enough for them to go out and kill someone, then why would it be reasonable to trust them again until professionals have stepped in to help in some way?

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1104487 7-Aug-2014 22:42

tardtasticx:
networkn:
tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

HAHA because locking kids up with other violent kids to "rehabilitate" has been has proven so successful in the past right? Taking kids from their family and support structures, is always the way to ensure a childs future.

I said UNTIL. Not lock them up and throw away the key. I don't want some thug murderer running around in the streets until they can see a therapist or whatever they need to move on in life. And if they're already with a "support structure" that has lapsed enough for them to go out and kill someone, then why would it be reasonable to trust them again until professionals have stepped in to help in some way?

You think these kids were TRYING to kill this other kid? If you read the article the kid who did the attacking has been talking at his church about the impact of his actions etc.. How long do you think it would take a young adult to become irrevocably changed for the worse in the environment you are suggesting? How long do you think it would take for the system to help him to your satisfaction? Which do you think is less time? Good parents can have kids that act badly from time to time or even badly over a long period of time, doesn't mean removing said child from said parental guidance is the best thing. Doesn't make the parent automatically a bad parent. You need to take the emotion out of this argument and think a little more logically I think.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1104502 7-Aug-2014 22:53

i think we need more information.

anyone has the factual transcript of sequence of events

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#1104506 7-Aug-2014 22:57

networkn:
tardtasticx:
networkn:
tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

HAHA because locking kids up with other violent kids to "rehabilitate" has been has proven so successful in the past right? Taking kids from their family and support structures, is always the way to ensure a childs future.

I said UNTIL. Not lock them up and throw away the key. I don't want some thug murderer running around in the streets until they can see a therapist or whatever they need to move on in life. And if they're already with a "support structure" that has lapsed enough for them to go out and kill someone, then why would it be reasonable to trust them again until professionals have stepped in to help in some way?

You think these kids were TRYING to kill this other kid? If you read the article the kid who did the attacking has been talking at his church about the impact of his actions etc.. How long do you think it would take a young adult to become irrevocably changed for the worse in the environment you are suggesting? How long do you think it would take for the system to help him to your satisfaction? Which do you think is less time? Good parents can have kids that act badly from time to time or even badly over a long period of time, doesn't mean removing said child from said parental guidance is the best thing. Doesn't make the parent automatically a bad parent. You need to take the emotion out of this argument and think a little more logically I think.

I'm sure he is sorry and it has an impact on him. I have no doubt about that. But the eldest was 17, and is now 18, and would have 100% known what he was doing was wrong. It sucks for everyone involved that Stephen died, but both of those attackers should have to deal with the consequences.

Since you seem to think that no kid can do wrong and every criminal should walk free so long as they have parents, what would you suggest be done in this case then aye?

What about in this case a few years ago? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10691602

That bouncer wouldn't have killed the guy if he didn't send him to the ground or drag him out as roughly as he did. But then again how was he to know that the patron was going to hit his head and die? Was it his fault that the patron didn't have a thick enough skull to bear the impact/or not wearing a helmet?

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1104509 7-Aug-2014 23:01

tardtasticx:
networkn:
tardtasticx:
networkn:
tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

HAHA because locking kids up with other violent kids to "rehabilitate" has been has proven so successful in the past right? Taking kids from their family and support structures, is always the way to ensure a childs future.

I said UNTIL. Not lock them up and throw away the key. I don't want some thug murderer running around in the streets until they can see a therapist or whatever they need to move on in life. And if they're already with a "support structure" that has lapsed enough for them to go out and kill someone, then why would it be reasonable to trust them again until professionals have stepped in to help in some way?

You think these kids were TRYING to kill this other kid? If you read the article the kid who did the attacking has been talking at his church about the impact of his actions etc.. How long do you think it would take a young adult to become irrevocably changed for the worse in the environment you are suggesting? How long do you think it would take for the system to help him to your satisfaction? Which do you think is less time? Good parents can have kids that act badly from time to time or even badly over a long period of time, doesn't mean removing said child from said parental guidance is the best thing. Doesn't make the parent automatically a bad parent. You need to take the emotion out of this argument and think a little more logically I think.

I'm sure he is sorry and it has an impact on him. I have no doubt about that. But the eldest was 17, and is now 18, and would have 100% known what he was doing was wrong. It sucks for everyone involved that Stephen died, but both of those attackers should have to deal with the consequences.

Since you seem to think that no kid can do wrong and every criminal should walk free so long as they have parents, what would you suggest be done in this case then aye?

What about in this case a few years ago? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10691602

That bouncer wouldn't have killed the guy if he didn't send him to the ground or drag him out as roughly as he did. But then again how was he to know that the patron was going to hit his head and die? Was it his fault that the patron didn't have a thick enough skull to bear the impact/or not wearing a helmet?

Oh give me a break. Get a grip. I never once said kids can do no wrong, READ my replies, but you know that and are trolling quite clearly, something you have a strong tendency to do.

Someone else might interested in this ridiculous line of discussion with you further, but I am not.

tardtasticx

3050 posts

Uber Geek

#1104513 7-Aug-2014 23:10

networkn:
tardtasticx:
networkn:
tardtasticx:
networkn:
tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

HAHA because locking kids up with other violent kids to "rehabilitate" has been has proven so successful in the past right? Taking kids from their family and support structures, is always the way to ensure a childs future.

I said UNTIL. Not lock them up and throw away the key. I don't want some thug murderer running around in the streets until they can see a therapist or whatever they need to move on in life. And if they're already with a "support structure" that has lapsed enough for them to go out and kill someone, then why would it be reasonable to trust them again until professionals have stepped in to help in some way?

You think these kids were TRYING to kill this other kid? If you read the article the kid who did the attacking has been talking at his church about the impact of his actions etc.. How long do you think it would take a young adult to become irrevocably changed for the worse in the environment you are suggesting? How long do you think it would take for the system to help him to your satisfaction? Which do you think is less time? Good parents can have kids that act badly from time to time or even badly over a long period of time, doesn't mean removing said child from said parental guidance is the best thing. Doesn't make the parent automatically a bad parent. You need to take the emotion out of this argument and think a little more logically I think.

I'm sure he is sorry and it has an impact on him. I have no doubt about that. But the eldest was 17, and is now 18, and would have 100% known what he was doing was wrong. It sucks for everyone involved that Stephen died, but both of those attackers should have to deal with the consequences.

Since you seem to think that no kid can do wrong and every criminal should walk free so long as they have parents, what would you suggest be done in this case then aye?

What about in this case a few years ago? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10691602

That bouncer wouldn't have killed the guy if he didn't send him to the ground or drag him out as roughly as he did. But then again how was he to know that the patron was going to hit his head and die? Was it his fault that the patron didn't have a thick enough skull to bear the impact/or not wearing a helmet?

Oh give me a break. Get a grip. I never once said kids can do no wrong, READ my replies, but you know that and are trolling quite clearly, something you have a strong tendency to do.

Someone else might interested in this ridiculous line of discussion with you further, but I am not.

Just being as ridiculous as you are. Put your thinking cap on and maybe I'll try give a half arsed response next time.

MrJonathanNZ

54 posts

Master Geek

#1104561 8-Aug-2014 07:40

vexxxboy:
MrJonathanNZ:
itxtme: I think the key thing in this case is that the kid did die, and to some degree that was caused by the assault. Now that assault has been discharged without conviction.

Did the assault bring the heart condition to the fore, i.e being attacked raised his heart level to the point where it created the cause of his death.
If that were the case then surely the attack is part of the boys death as it lead to the condition worsening.

I could be completely wrong but I liken this to cases where someone has punched someone, they have fallen over, hit their head and died and someone has gone to jail.
Had they fallen a different way they wouldn't have died, had the young boy not had heart condition he would not have died.
And then the out come..
He did fall that way and he did die, jail time. He did have a heart condition and he did die, no jail time.

Im happy to be corrected but I can't see all that much difference between the two.

in the instance of hitting someone and they fall and hit there head and dies then you can prove that if he wasnt punched then he wouldnt have hit his head , in this case they cant prove the the punch caused the heart attack which killed him , , if he hadnt punched him he still could have had a heart attack later the next day or week , so under the law there is a big difference between the two.

Forgive the semantics but the person who was punched and tripped could have tripped themselves and had the accident at a later date. To speculate that the tipper wouldn't have hit his head on the day or at a later date but that the boy who has been playing sports (elevated heart rate etc) would have a heart attack (that may not have killed him) doesn't stack up.

It a shame (and I don't say this out of spite or anger) that they couldn't link the attack to his condition worsening as I would say the chances are HIGHLY likely that it was the cause of it (worsening, not the initial condition).
I know the law has to be very clean and cut but to even suggest for a second that this boy was playing a contact sport for weeks before and had been fine to all of a sudden being attacked (the only variable here) and then dying of his condition.

The other thing that concerns me (although I don't know the attackers or their mind set) is that they are still young and have been given a get out of jail free card, are they going to be aware of even care that they potentially (I have to say that to be fair) killed someone by their actions or will they walk away thinking "were all good, not our problem" and continue having fights etc.

SepticSceptic

2051 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1104588 8-Aug-2014 08:44

tardtasticx:
sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter.

Especially being king-hit from behind. Cowardly

My thoughts are no longer my own and is probably representative of our media-controlled government

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1104593 8-Aug-2014 08:55

Although it sounds heartless, it really doesn't matter (to the case) that the victim died. (And I mean no disrespect to his family by saying that)

The accused was not on trial for manslaughter.

He was charged with "Assault with intent to injure" and he pleaded guilty to that charge.

It is a travesty that he was then discharged without conviction. (Especially in light of the consequences that his actions had on his victim)

I really to despair at NZ's judiciary sometimes.

Lias

5250 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1104596 8-Aug-2014 09:04

If I was Stephen's father, I'd be very tempted to arrange justice myself, given that the farcical joke that is our legal system has clearly failed to deliver any justice here.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

itxtme

2053 posts

Uber Geek

#1104597 8-Aug-2014 09:04

6FIEND: Although it sounds heartless, it really doesn't matter (to the case) that the victim died. (And I mean no disrespect to his family by saying that)

The accused was not on trial for manslaughter.

He was charged with "Assault with intent to injure" and he pleaded guilty to that charge.

It is a travesty that he was then discharged without conviction. (Especially in light of the consequences that his actions had on his victim)

I really to despair at NZ's judiciary sometimes.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, I definitely can see how the manslaughter charges were dropped, as said earlier there have been occasions where they weren't (radio journalist in Wgtn). The "law is an ass" because the judge states she cannot include the fact he died in the aggravating factors and it absolutely is a factor. End result -> Discharged without conviction.

dafman

3791 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1104612 8-Aug-2014 09:50

Let's put aside the fact there was a death for a moment ...

If I was to walk up to someone at the bus stop this morning, king hit them, and then continue to hit them while they were down - I would be charged and convicted of assault. That this happened in a school yard is irrelevant. At a minimum, there should be an assault conviction. End of. I hope the Crown appeal.

vexxxboy

4089 posts

Uber Geek

#1104690 8-Aug-2014 10:52

dafman: Let's put aside the fact there was a death for a moment ...

If I was to walk up to someone at the bus stop this morning, king hit them, and then continue to hit them while they were down - I would be charged and convicted of assault. That this happened in a school yard is irrelevant. At a minimum, there should be an assault conviction. End of. I hope the Crown appeal.

when was the last time you saw someone get charged with assault on a sports field from a fight.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Lyderies

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1104707 8-Aug-2014 10:56

vexxxboy:
dafman: Let's put aside the fact there was a death for a moment ...

If I was to walk up to someone at the bus stop this morning, king hit them, and then continue to hit them while they were down - I would be charged and convicted of assault. That this happened in a school yard is irrelevant. At a minimum, there should be an assault conviction. End of. I hope the Crown appeal.

when was the last time you saw someone get charged with assault on a sports field from a fight.

If a complaint is laid and taken to the police then yes a charge can be laid

I'm going to noob myself past judgement

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5