Student set alight in a nightclub, guy who did it gets 5-year sentence

Baggy Trousers · 09-07-2015 02:30PM

Hrududu wrote: »

When someone lights a lighter and holds the flame to a 'thing' they do so in the expectation that the 'thing' will catch fire.

Thanks. Please reply to my entire post to understand the point.

kylith · 09-07-2015 02:34PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Exactly.

So the guy in the linked video should be charged with attempted murder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErmx5WywWE

A case could probably made for it, but he clearly takes stays to take action to extinguish the flames which would be a mitigating factor making it different from the Irish case as the perpetrator in that case left the scene immediately after setting his victim on fire.

Any sane person would be aware that setting something or someone on fire can be reasonably expected to cause serious injury to that thing/person so 'I didn't mean to hurt him' is not a defence.

AngryDiMaria · 09-07-2015 02:36PM

ken wrote: »

I'm deadly serious. In 3 or so years the attacker will be able to resume his life and carry on. The victim will be reminded of that night every time he looks in the mirror or takes off his clothes. If I had my way I'd make it so the attacker had to carry a pic of the victims burnt body in his wallet so he sees and remembers what he did a few times a day.

He will do 21 months total, I already said this earlier in the thread.

09-07-2015 02:39PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

They both did the same thing, they both set somebody else's clothing on fire. The question of whether it was attempted murder does not depend on the final outcome. Do you really believe either of these people were attempting to murder their targets?

Say I shoot at your head, hit you and you are left brain damaged. Or I shoot at your head and the bullet grazes your temple but you survive ok. In both cases I did the exact same thing but the result were different. How can one be attempted murder but the other isn't?

The two incidents are identical in the set up it's just the outcome which is different. In both cases someones life was put in danger and could very easily have lost their life. Ideally both, if taken to court would be tried as attempted murder or manslaughter.

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 02:40PM

kylith wrote: »

A case could probably made for it, but he clearly takes stays to take action to extinguish the flames which would be a mitigating factor making it different from the Irish case as the perpetrator in that case left the scene immediately after setting his victim on fire.

My question concerns the intent. People are talking about attempted murder, and that comes down to a question of intent. In both cases I believe the intent at the moment of lighting the flame was the same, so either both are attempted murder or neither is.

What happens afterwards in each case is of course different due to many factors.

Fat Christy · 09-07-2015 02:44PM

Reading that article was horrific. That poor lad, life ruined forever.

I can't even comprehend why someone would approach a random stranger, drunk or not, and light them on fire. A prank? Really?

Life is so precious and you only have one shot at it. For someone to do something like that to another individual they didn't even know, is beyond me.

Makes me despair for humanity.

The Adversary · 09-07-2015 02:46PM

The thing's that pass for "pranks". I know this is slightly irrelevant, as his "prank" excuse was just that, an excuse. But the things that pass for "pranks" these days. You see it on Youtube all the time, I can honestly imagine a title for a video like "Setting a guy on fire prank GONE WRONG!!" There was one recently in London where they tricked a lad going on a Tinder date, humiliated him and made him withdraw cash from his bank account. Only to rush out with the cameras laughing "It's just a prank bro" These "social experiments" are just an excuse to act the nob.

5 years is much too lenient. He should be put away for double that at least.

endacl · 09-07-2015 02:46PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Exactly.

So the guy in the linked video should be charged with attempted murder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WErmx5WywWE

No. He should be shot in the face with pellets of his own frozen shyte for thinking pranks of any sort are in any way funny.

Tosser.

kylith · 09-07-2015 02:47PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

My question concerns the intent. People are talking about attempted murder, and that comes down to a question of intent. In both cases I believe the intent at the moment of lighting the flame was the same, so either both are attempted murder or neither is.

What happens afterwards in each case is of course different due to many factors.

But there is a difference in intent; in the youtube video the firebug stays with the intent to extinguish the flames; his (reckless, stupid, dangerous) intent is to scare his friend. In the Sheridan case Keane immediately leaves the scene, making no attempt to help his victim. His intent was purely to set fire to Sheridan.

Do I think it was attempted murder in the Sheridan case? No, I don't think he intended to kill Sheridan. There is no such thing as 'attempted manslaughter' as one cannot intend to commit manslaughter - that would be murder. Assault is all it can be tried as, had Sheridan died then it would be a manslaughter case. I don't think that the sentence is long enough though; by his wilful actions he has maimed a man, disfigured him, and potentially ruined his career.

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 02:48PM

endacl wrote: »

No. He should be shot in the face with pellets of his own frozen shyte for thinking pranks of any sort are in any way funny.

Tosser.

No argument there.

Unfortunately there are thousands of these tossers, and thousands more idiots who think they are the height of 'great craic'.

wakka12 · 09-07-2015 02:55PM

So if I sneaked into some strangers home and set them on fire would that be a prank? Is this considered a prank because its male youths involved?

osarusan · 09-07-2015 02:59PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Is this considered a prank because its male youths involved?

It's considered a prank because they know each other, are clearly friends, and even the victim of the prank was laughing afterwards. The general interpretation would be that there was no intent to actually cause any lasting physical harm.*

None of which would likely be the case if you went to a stranger's house and set themselves on fire. As it clearly wouldn't be a prank, other possible motives would come under serious scrutiny, I would imagine.

*More interesting would be the question regarding what the crime/charge would be, had the guy in bed actually been seriously burned. I'd guess it would be something similar to the case from the OP.

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 03:01PM

kylith wrote: »

But there is a difference in intent; in the youtube video the firebug stays with the intent to extinguish the flames; his (reckless, stupid, dangerous) intent is to scare his friend. In the Sheridan case Keane immediately leaves the scene, making no attempt to help his victim. His intent was purely to set fire to Sheridan.

It's not hard to imagine that the defendant in the OP may also have extinguished the flames had events not immediately gotten out of control. The idiot in the video had the chance to extinguish those flames, but in the club it appears the poor guy immediately went up in a fireball due to the glue and materials in his costume. The idiot in the club may have expected a small fire, such as you see in hundreds of those videos, but what he got instead changed the scenario completely.

I think he is a scumbag for leaving the club, but realistically once he lit that flame he lost control of the situation. He wasn't putting that genie back in the bottle whether he stayed or not.

Regardless, again this is all after the fact and my point concerns the original intent and what was in each idiots head as they prepared to light the flame. Both expected a flame, probably a frantic patting at the flame until it went out and then back slaps all round. One situation turned horrible and the other didn't, but both started with the same intent.

B.A._Baracus · 09-07-2015 03:17PM

That's evil.
Can't help but think that because he was a law graduate too that his sentence was lighter. Would it have been the same if he was someone "unemployed and uneducated from finglas" - you know yourself.

But why did he do it? It's just evil. He wasn't lighting his shoe laces on fire. It was a man in a sheeps costume. Right there that says he wanted him to go up in a blaze.

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 03:20PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Would it have been the same if he was someone "unemployed and uneducated from finglas" - you know yourself.

I thought those guys just got released to reoffend the first few dozen times?

wakka12 · 09-07-2015 03:21PM

Icemancometh wrote: »

Judging from the incredibly moving victim impact statement, the apparent lack of remorse seemed to be a large part of the victim's suffering. He referenced it several times, and noted the lack of any form of an apology. Also incredibly, the accused waited until the eleventh hour to admit culpability. You's think that if it was a "dumb prank" as has been suggested, then he would have tried to help, or at least done something other than run away. The act was appalling, but his behaviour after was equally reprehensible.

I have no sympathy for the attacker but I can understand where he was coming from when he ran away. He probably thought he killed the lad, and there were people all around who I would have thought would beat me up for doing that. Again no sympathy for him but I can see why he would run away/

Egginacup · 09-07-2015 03:23PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

No, just compensate the victim for the money he would have made had he not been burnt to a crisp. Stop when he reaches retirement age.

Great, can we factor in that the victim might be killed in a car accident 6 months after becoming a surgeon? Can we factor in that he might hate the profession and fcuk to Nepal to be a mystic? Can we factor in that he might have failed all the exams and never became a surgeon? Can we factor in that he might have been stricken off for malpractice?

Rayne Wooney · 09-07-2015 03:36PM

Should have gotten a longer sentence for stupidity and the suffering he caused but I don't think he meant it to be as bad as it was

I remember back in school a guy a couple of years ahead put a Bunsen burner to his friends backside for a couple of seconds as a "joke". This was forgotten about the next day but could have been a similar outcome if he was wearing a highly flammable outfit

Egginacup · 09-07-2015 03:46PM

I'm surprised the death penalty proponents haven't weighed in here. Their argument is always "an eye for an eye". I wonder would they propose setting the defendant on fire as punishment for his actions?

4zn76tysfajdxp · 09-07-2015 03:57PM

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm surprised the death penalty proponents haven't weighed in here. Their argument is always "an eye for an eye". I wonder would they propose setting the defendant on fire as punishment for his actions?

Are you starting a hypothetical argument?

Thargor · 09-07-2015 03:59PM

No mention of compensation money?

tawnyowl · 09-07-2015 04:03PM

shampoosuicide wrote: »

ffs... he didn't whip out a flamethrower here, he held a lighter up to a costume.

Irrelevant - what he did caused severe injuries and trauma to the victim.

i could be horribly wrong but he probably didn't think the costume was as flammable, and the process as fast, as it turned out. genuinely wondering if anyone has thought about this as opposed to jerking their knee.

It's stating the blindingly obvious to say that there are many fabrics that are flammable. Likewise to say that holding a lighter up to someones' clothing is dangerous is also blindingly obvious. What on earth did he expect to happen?

do people really think this guy had murder in mind and was just waiting until the opportune moment that someone was wearing a suitably flammable costume? it was a stupid, stupid mistake.

His behaviour was reckless, to the point of causing severe injuries and trauma.

eisen1968 · 09-07-2015 04:06PM

Trying to put myself in the situation, Party drink music craic. This guy thinks it will be great craic to light the costume of another. Pull out his lighter and lights costume, probably expected a small flame and some smoke until the somebody shouts " hey im on fire WTF. Flames are patted out and yeah that was a great little stunt. That's how I see it. Now what I think happened was, the very second that lighter was put to the fabric, it turned into an inferno in a split second. And in that split second two lives were destroyed. Pranks go badly wrong sometimes. I don't think this guy actually meant for such an incident to happen. If that is the case we are talking bout a complete psychopath. This guy is an idiot, who tried to impress his mates cos he thought this was cool. And now in the process he has destroyed an innocent life as well as his own. That's the price he pays for being an arsehole and unfortunately the medical student paid an even heavier price because he just happened to be in the vicinity of this arsehole when he tried to impress his mates at his expense.

foggy_lad · 09-07-2015 04:07PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats results orientated thinking, as a gambling Mod I assume you know why thats the wrong way to judge things.

This guy intentionally set another kids clothing on fire, just as the defendant in the OP did. Should he be charged with attempted murder?

In that video the "prank" is totally staged! the guy in bed is fully clothed and appears to be ready, also the fire-starter uses lighter fluid which is great for the appearance of flame but is very easy to extinguish and rarely soaks through layers of clothing enough to burn the skin.

If the guy in bed had been working in a solvent factory and his clothes were soaked with highly flammable glues and solvents then the outcome would have been very different and the idiot with the lighter should be charged similarly to the idiot in the Sheridan case.

I believe Brian Keane just wanted to see someone(anyone) "burning alive" and he got what he wanted!

ongarboy · 09-07-2015 04:13PM

Reading the guilty party's statement of the complete and utter shame and remorse he now feels and that he is going through psychological and psychiatric therapy suggests the emotional punishment he lives with will be far longer and more impacting than a jail sentence.

Perhaps they are just words (and I do agree a jail sentence is also appropriate to demonstrate to others the ramifications of pranks that can go wrong) but he came across as someone who does in fact have a conscience and will be tormented by this for many years to come.

There are no winners in this case.

Ash.J.Williams · 09-07-2015 04:22PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

In that video the "prank" is totally staged! the guy in bed is fully clothed and appears to be ready, also the fire-starter uses lighter fluid which is great for the appearance of flame but is very easy to extinguish and rarely soaks through layers of clothing enough to burn the skin.

If the guy in bed had been working in a solvent factory and his clothes were soaked with highly flammable glues and solvents then the outcome would have been very different and the idiot with the lighter should be charged similarly to the idiot in the Sheridan case.

I believe Brian Keane just wanted to see someone(anyone) "burning alive" and he got what he wanted!

are you actually serious?

eisen1968 · 09-07-2015 04:25PM

See it everyday folks. Remember some years ago student rugby players set upon one guy ( cant remember his name) he died, think two were sent to jail. Well respected families, good schools promising careers all destroyed because they didn't "THINK" about possible consequences until it was too late.

Roquentin · 09-07-2015 04:29PM

ongarboy wrote: »

Reading the guilty party's statement of the complete and utter shame and remorse he now feels and that he is going through psychological and psychiatric therapy suggests the emotional punishment he lives with will be far longer and more impacting than a jail sentence.

Perhaps they are just words (and I do agree a jail sentence is also appropriate to demonstrate to others the ramifications of pranks that can go wrong) but he came across as someone who does in fact have a conscience and will be tormented by this for many years to come.

There are no winners in this case.

i agree. he made a huge mistake. a prank gone wrong. id forgive him, but i still think the sentence should have been at least the five years. a moment of madness that has ruined two lives.

bucketybuck · 09-07-2015 04:30PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

I believe Brian Keane just wanted to see someone(anyone) "burning alive" and he got what he wanted!

I'm sure it comforts you to believe that this was some evil demon, sick in the head and out to cause pain.

In reality the truth is usually more mundane than that. This guy probably isn't some evil sicko, he's just a guy who badly ****ed up and now, quite rightly, has to face the consequences.

If you want to believe that he really wanted to see somebody burned alive then thats up to you, others will have a more realistic interpretation of events.

Snickers Man · 09-07-2015 04:30PM

eisen1968 wrote: »

See it everyday folks. Remember some years ago student rugby players set upon one guy ( cant remember his name) he died, think two were sent to jail. Well respected families, good schools promising careers all destroyed because they didn't "THINK" about possible consequences until it was too late.

That was the Annabel's case, I believe. Deceased was called Murphy.

I don't think this is the same sort of situation at all.

Student set alight in a nightclub, guy who did it gets 5-year sentence

Comments