Rapist Killer Get 3 Years

Nuttzz

Good result for the kid in question, 3 year sentence out in 18 months I say.

Alleged I know, but still if it were you......


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13247583,00.html

A teenager who killed his mother's alleged rapist has been jailed for three years.

Mark Bick, who was 16 at the time of the assault last December, attacked 40-year-old Derek Duffet with a cricket bat.


Mr Duffet, a neighbour, suffered a fatal head injury, and died three days later.

Yvonne Bick told her son of her alleged ordeal at the hands of Mr Duffet after he asked why she was constantly crying and vomiting.

She told him Mr Duffet had attacked her in her home in Newport, Shropshire, after threatening her with a wrench.

He went straight to confront Mr Duffet, who told him : "It was only a bit of fun", the Stafford Crown Court trial heard.

Bick then lashed out with the cricket bat, causing the fatal injury.

At last month's trial he pleaded guilty to manslaughter after the charge was reduced from murder. He returned to court today to face sentencing.

His mother Yvonne told Sky News she is proud of her son's actions.

She said: "He's not a violent person, but he couldn't live with the knowledge that someone had hurt his mother.

"He said 'I'll get him', not to kill him, just sort him out. He just flipped. He said 'No-one touches my mum'."

Mrs Bick added: "I'm proud of him. But it's ruined his life."

She said she would be waiting for him when he came out of prison

koneko

"It was only a bit of fun". What a sick ****. Probably not politically correct but he got what he deserved.

woosaysdan

there is other ways to deal with it without hitting the fella!!! imo he should of gotten more!!!

LoneGunM@n

I have to say that if it was my mum that had been raped, I'd have tortured the b@stard first & let him die slowly ... fcuker died too quickly ... "It was only a bit of fun" - makes the oul blood boil :mad:

Stark

"It was only a bit of fun". Hmmm, definition of rape can be a funny thing. She could have had sex with him, not really wanting to, but not vocalising her unwillingness and then decided it was rape afterwards. It does happen. That's why it's important to leave these things to the courts and not dispense vigilante justice.

fiacha

Stark wrote:

That's why it's important to leave these things to the courts and not dispense vigilante justice.

totally agree

pork99

If I was on his jury I wouldn't have found him guilty - he should have got a much lighter sentence at worst - community service, bound over to keep the peace or whatever.

Every day of the week vicious little scumbags are getting suspended sentences or let out on bail because "it's society's fault not mine".

Here's another guy who should never have spent a day in prison; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600929.stm

This is totally f#cking sick;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/danish_paedophiles_20031008.shtml

seamus

pork99 wrote:

Here's another guy who should never have spent a day in prison; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600929.stm

Except

Hoath, who has a previous conviction for attempted murder,

I'm pretty sure that came into play. Having your daughter molested is no doubt enraging, but maybe this guy is a regular hothead who does stupid things on impulse all the time, and never learned.

This is totally f#cking sick;http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/danish_paedophiles_20031008.shtml

Except

insists Hoath had only meant to scare Andersen into leaving his daughter alone. Though quite how shooting someone in the eye can be a warning is hard to tell.

Indeed, as I said above.

The rest of the article does paint a pretty frightening picture of what happens when you get a little *too* liberal. The Danish Peadophiles Association? Wtf?

MrJoeSoap

Stark wrote:

That's why it's important to leave these things to the courts and not dispense vigilante justice.

The fact that the man who raped his mother was free would suggest that the courts hadn't done their job. Maybe?

The story posted isnt the clearest (e.g. - how long ago the rape occured, etc...), but that would be my initial impression.

seamus

MrJoeSoap wrote:

The fact that the man who raped his mother was free would suggest that the courts hadn't done their job. Maybe?

She probably didn't report it. A lot of women don't.

A Dub in Glasgo

That is exactly how I read it - no report therefore no investigation into how truthful the allegations were.

pretty-in-pink

The father and son in question were right. The law dont care about nice, decent, law-abiding, honest, good people- plain and simple. So vigilante groups spring up to help these people out when they are perped by sickos and weirdos, and then people act shocked that "the man on the street" can act so "randomly", its becuase the law let us down that it happens. For those who say vigilante doesn't work, consider this: places that are "troubled", like Belfast etc, they have very low rates of sex crimes cause the UVF and the IRA have ways of dealing with such sick inhuman freaks, and so fear of redemption acts as prevention.

The DPA, its sick, but sadly I'd imagine a world wide trend. Like rape groups. but I digress. Its a sick world out there people, so take care of yourself.

Zulu

He shouldn't have raped her.
He shouldn't have said "it was only fun"
The son shouldn't have approached him with a cricket bat.
The son shouldn't have killed him.

I'm with the judge on this one. 3 years is fair, bordering on lenient.

pretty-in-pink

They were both wrong, but as the old fella was more wrong, he raped her, he goaded on the son. If he had left well alone, then nothing would have happened- and she wouldn't have been raped, he wouldn't be dead and the son wouldn't be in jail

Zulu

naughty_girl wrote:

They were both wrong, but as the old fella was more wrong, he raped her, he goaded on the son. If he had left well alone, then nothing would have happened- and she wouldn't have been raped, he wouldn't be dead and the son wouldn't be in jail

More wrong? Rape is worse than murder?
Now I know this is an emotional subect, but, naughty_girl, I don't think you really mean that. We've discussed this before, and you were pretty level about it.
No, both guys were wrong. The judge handled it quite well I taught (from what I've read). He cut the young lad some slack (no doubt for the same reasons you and I would have).
Lets not forget though - murder is murder.

pretty-in-pink

Murder is murder, no doubt about that, but the young guy was provoked. So its while wrong it's understandable. And its the old guy who set the wheels in motion, by attacking the mother in the first place. His death was a sort of super extreme karma prehaps, but I suspect such things will become more commonplace as time drags by..............

Nuttzz

The kid, and at 16 thats what he was, didnt set out to kill him, however the pleaded to manslaughter, if he had of pleaded not guilty a jury may have aquitted him but if they didnt then the judge would have given him a longer sentence, as they tend to do when you plead not guilty. It was a smart move on the defence teams part. Cant say I would sit around and wait for the cops if I went home and my mother said "X across the road raped me".

3 years, out in about 18 months if he's a good boy and he will be well received on the inside. Easy time really I think.

chill

MrJoeSoap wrote:

The fact that the man who raped his mother was free would suggest that the courts hadn't done their job. Maybe?

Well....... Maybe she didn't report it so how can you slag off the courts ??

Also... "Fact" ? maybe he didn't rape her ..?? How do we know ? it wouldn't be the first time a woman has screamed rape that wasn't.

Venom

chill wrote:

Well....... Maybe she didn't report it so how can you slag off the courts ??

Also... "Fact" ? maybe he didn't rape her ..?? How do we know ? it wouldn't be the first time a woman has screamed rape that wasn't.

With her not reporting the rape, the accused being dead and zero proof of the crime, couldn't the mother be covering for her son's actions by claiming she was raped by the neighbor?

Guess we will never know for sure but 3 years for killing someone with a cricket bat is a pretty lax punishment in my opinion.

Victor

Nuttzz wrote:

The kid, and at 16 thats what he was, didnt set out to kill him

Then why did he have a baseball bat? He intended harm, that result was known before he went to the neighbour. That the harm was fatal is to a degree incidental (but profoundly detrimental to the victim).

Nuttzz

I'm pointing out the difference between murder and manslaughter, yes he did mean to do him harm, but did he set out to kill him?

seamus

Nuttzz wrote:

I'm pointing out the difference between murder and manslaughter, yes he did mean to do him harm, but did he set out to kill him?

A difficult thing to prove or disprove.

IMO, anyone who strikes another person in the head with a heavy, blunt object, is intending to kill them.

You see it in fights, in so many things, kicking people in the head, smashing rocks off of people's heads, that I cannot accept that these people are *not* intending to kill the other party.

The obvious outcome of striking someone full force in the head with an object like a baseball bat, is death. Therefore, in my eyes, it's the intended outcome.

But obviously this is contendable. You could hit someone over the head with a 4 foot broom handle, and kill them, but break that broom handle into 1 foot pieces, and you're unlikely to kill them with one of these pieces because the force behind the blow won't be as much. Same goes for police batons. They're *designed* to just break the skin at full force.

I have a problem with "manslaughter", and that's that someone can be convicted of it, despite having assaulted the other party. I would prefer that manslaughter was restricted to accidental death where assault did not occur - car accidents arising from dangerous driving, negligence, etc. If someone dies as a result of injuries sustained in an assault, then it should be murder. I don't believe that "I meant to hurt him, but I didn't mean to kill him" is adequate.

In this country, you can be arrested for possession of a lethal (or maybe it's dangerous) weapon if you're carrying a baseball bat with the intention of using it for anything but playing baseball. It's happened.

MrPudding

Well said Seamus. IF you don't want to kill someone don't hit him on the fcuking head with a blunt object.

I have to say I am concerned that an alleged rape with no apparent independent corroboration or evidence can be used in a trial to reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter and then secure a lenient sentence. Particularly when the accused has a record of violence.

Now before anyone jumps on me, I think that rape is a heinous crime. I feel that murder is a bigger crime though. And for feel strongly that murder is bigger than an uncorroborated rape for which there is no evidence and could easily be an excuse thought up by a loving mother.

This is not a thread about rape and how wrong it is. I know it is wrong and I am not trying to belittle the pain and suffering of anyone that has suffered a rape. It is about a guy effectively getting away with murder.

MrP

Iago

Nuttzz wrote:

I'm pointing out the difference between murder and manslaughter, yes he did mean to do him harm, but did he set out to kill him?

Of course he meant to kill him, if you believed that your mother had been raped wouldn't you want to kill her attacker?

I'm emphasing the word WANT here....

I'd like to think that I would be able to show some restraint and go about things the right way in this situation, but I honestly don't know whether I could or not. and that's now as a mature(ish) adult. At 16 you're so full of hormones and adolescent ideals that your first reaction would be to hit out at somebody.

While I don't agree with what he did, I can certainly understand the motivation behind it, and to be honest the justice system in Ireland is woefully inadequate and incapable of dealing with these sort of issues. It's hard to watch the system let families down time and again, without resorting to violence.

In a case like this, the lines get blurred, in the end was the son just protecting his mother. Does this justify taking the law into his own hands? No, of course not. I think the sentencing was reasonable, but maybe a caveat should be included that if he is found guilty at a later point of an assault or worse then he should serve a minimum 10 year sentence.

For me this case holds a real dilemma, from an emotional point of view you want to protect your family, but logically all you're doing is lowering yourself to their level. I'd like to think I would let the justice system deal with it, but I hope I'm never in the position where I have to choose...