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

Egginacup · 09-07-2015 11:45PM

Cormac... wrote: »

And that's ok by you is?

Christ, burning people is not a prank, life isn't presented by Johnny Knoxville and 4 Paramedics and Fire safety crew

Nor is spiking someone's drink for the craic only for them have a heart-attack, just because you wanted to see them fall about the place.

Just think of something you did to either an acquaintance or stranger that could have gone horribly wrong. French firecrackers in a bag of dog-sh1t, a plank over an ajar door, getting on all fours behind someone when a mate pushed them over you?

All retarded and funny but all with potentially fatal consequences.

You can go on all you want about how fire is so different and sinister and dangerous. The fact remains that this cretin took a lighter to a guy's costume and it went horribly wrong.
The guy could just as easily have taken his lighter to a girl dressed as a vampire, all black nylon and pvc/rubber just because he thought it was "hilarious" to singe off her fake eyelashes or embarrass her by spoiling her costume.

Sounds like a cocksucker to me who deserves to be hammered by patrons and bouncers alike. But that still doesn't make him a murderer NOR an attempted murder.

K4t · 09-07-2015 11:52PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Sounds like a cocksucker to me who deserves to be hammered by patrons and bouncers alike. But that still doesn't make him a murderer NOR an attempted murder.

Agree with Swearengen.

Shanotheslayer · 09-07-2015 11:55PM

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

He wore a highly flammable and hazerdous homemade costume. If it had been sold to him I have no doubt your supreme outrage would be directed at both the retailer and manufacturer. Explain my stupidity Shano, assuming you've read my entire post. Be my guest.

You do realize what you're saying yes? This wasn't an accident. So it's irrelevant. I guess women should never use hairspray so. Blame the retailers who sell it?.

Son Of A Vidic · 10-07-2015 12:19AM

Riskymove wrote: »

In this case the Judge can only sentence for the offence the guy was guilty of

The DPP did not charge him with attempted murder

I'm well aware of what the DPP charged him with. And guilty plea or not, suspending 18 months of a sentence for a guy that set a human being on fire. Really just about sums up some of the nonsense dished out by the judiciary.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 12:24AM

Zhane wrote: »

If you put a flame to any fabric you run the risk of it going on fire. It was a stupid ****ing idiotic thing to do. He got off lightly.

And if you light your lighter to spark up somebody's cigarette you run the same risk. She could have a hair full of lacquer that would almost detonate her.

Just because it was fire that was the catalyst in this tragedy doesn't mean that the guy knew anymore about the ramifications of his action than if it were any other act of dumb but also dangerous recklessness.

People are barking about how if it was a skanger from Tallafornia then the sentence would be stiffer. Others are bleating on that it would have been a fcuking walk. What on Earth has that got to do with the price of tea in Shenzhen?

While it's so easy to scream about light sentencing in Ireland when violent offenders are convicted, it's always a case of "something will have to be done, Joe" ... just as long as I don't have to do it.

There are rules and there are regulations in this country. There are interest rates and there are mandates. There are sentencing guidelines and there are constitutional guarantees.

I have never once, and I've lived in many countries, seen an Irishman or woman complain so much about (a) the situation, (b) do nothing about it, AND (c) vilify anyone as a crank or subversive who tries to change it.

This bollocks was tried...well rather plead guilty, and was convicted and sentenced within the parameters of the law of the land. And good. I wish him loneliness in his incarceration, unlike so many who would wish him torment, violence and rape.

The fact remains that while people are howling for more punitive measure against all, then why are they not campaigning for such?

JillyQ · 10-07-2015 12:41AM

I was actually admitted to the casualty in UHG that same night. I remember seeing the poor guy coming in. He is lucky to have survived it. I really am stunned at how lenient the sentence is. I hope the DPP appeals the leniency of the sentence this thug got & gets a much harsher one for him.

Ferris_Bueller · 10-07-2015 01:07AM

I remember hearing about this when it happened, very sad story. It's horrible that a young man can go out socializing and through no fault of his own have his entire life ruined because of the stupidity of someone else, probably happens more often than we think as well with fellas throwing punches or getting in fights with random people on nights out. What would be a fair sentence though? It's hard to say. Not trying to defend the offender here at all but I'd imagine he never even considered the potential outcome of his actions and in his head all he thought that would happen would be some of the costume would be lit for a few seconds and then put out. I do believe that he didn't intend to hurt the victim but I don't understand how he didn't think what the outcome would be.

It was a cowardly thing to run off but at the time I'd imagine he didn't realise the severity of the situation and also probably panicked. Not that anyone here would be stupid enough to do something like this in the first place, but IF anyone of us did I'd imagine every single one of us would also panic severely. The victim does sound very upset too that he didn't receive an apology which is hard to fathom, I'm only assuming that his legal team advised him not to do so. Where would you even begin with the apology?

I do believe he didn't mean to cause him any harm or injuries but no excuse is acceptable for his actions. The victims life is now ruined forever and no punishment or prison sentence will ever change that unfortunately. I would think a 5-7 year prison sentence is as appropriate of a punishment as there can be. Hopefully the best thing that can come out of this is it will make people think about what could be the consequences of a 'prank' from now on. The lives of two young men ruined forever because of nothing but stupidity really.

retro:electro · 10-07-2015 01:22AM

If it was a prank gone wrong he'd be mortified, express his sincerest sympathies and offer compensation or anything he could do to help. He hasn't done any of them and has conducted himself terribly since the incident. I'm glad he got what he got but personally I think it should have been tougher. Disgusting unprovoked attack, attempted murder whatever way you look at it.

I went to the same college with the injured lad and had friends in the nightclub the night it happened and have heard the horror stories surrounding the incident. It's just awful. There he was having a good time minding his own business and for that to have happened to him is just disgusting.

retro:electro · 10-07-2015 01:27AM

Egginacup wrote: »

And if you light your lighter to spark up somebody's cigarette you run the same risk. She could have a hair full of lacquer that would almost detonate her.

Ya except there is no malice or intend to injure someone in that scenario. That would be completely accidental. Stupid comparison.

Zhane · 10-07-2015 01:50AM

Egginacup wrote: »

And if you light your lighter to spark up somebody's cigarette you run the same risk. She could have a hair full of lacquer that would almost detonate her.

Just because it was fire that was the catalyst in this tragedy doesn't mean that the guy knew anymore about the ramifications of his action than if it were any other act of dumb but also dangerous recklessness.

People are barking about how if it was a skanger from Tallafornia then the sentence would be stiffer. Others are bleating on that it would have been a fcuking walk. What on Earth has that got to do with the price of tea in Shenzhen?

While it's so easy to scream about light sentencing in Ireland when violent offenders are convicted, it's always a case of "something will have to be done, Joe" ... just as long as I don't have to do it.

There are rules and there are regulations in this country. There are interest rates and there are mandates. There are sentencing guidelines and there are constitutional guarantees.

I have never once, and I've lived in many countries, seen an Irishman or woman complain so much about (a) the situation, (b) do nothing about it, AND (c) vilify anyone as a crank or subversive who tries to change it.

This bollocks was tried...well rather plead guilty, and was convicted and sentenced within the parameters of the law of the land. And good. I wish him loneliness in his incarceration, unlike so many who would wish him torment, violence and rape.

The fact remains that while people are howling for more punitive measure against all, then why are they not campaigning for such?

That would be an actual accident though. This scumbag walked over to this guy, took out his lighter, lit his costume on fire and walked away. Do you see a difference?

con___manx1 · 10-07-2015 02:11AM

I don't think either the victim or the assailant realised how flammable cotton is. I have worked in a cotton gin. there were fires in the place all the time. I was amazed how much water it used to take to put out the fires .you would have to drown the cotton before it went out. The guy might aswell of been doused in petrol wearing that costume out.

Betty Bloggs · 10-07-2015 03:39AM

Horrifying story, the victim statement is heartbreaking to read. I know there must be some legal reasoning behind it, but I can't fathom why the defendant's legal team advised him to not apologise to the victim. I would find it so hard to live with myself if I did that to another human being and legal advice or not I can't see myself waiting several years to apologise to the victim and I would also want to apologise to their family if even only by written means if they didn't want to see me.

Unfortunately I can very easily believe that a level of stupidity exists that this gobshite did actually intend this as a "prank".

You would think that anybody of sound mind and of at least reasonable intelligence (which you would assume somebody with a law degree might possess) could forsee that this could go badly wrong, but over the years I've seen enough prank videos or read articles that have convinced me otherwise.

Some of the stuff I've seen or read that pass as "pranks" are so mind-boggling STUPID that it really just leaves me open mouthed at the actual dumbness of it all.

This is not the first time this has happened and sadly I doubt it will be the last time it happens either.

There have been several near identical incidents of sheep costume -cotton wool - flammable glue - set on fire and 'prank gone wrong' in the past.

Examples:

Just last year: 21st birthday, lad in sheep costume with cotton wool balls and flammable hairspray used to stick balls, in smoking area and a stranger purposely lights him on fire with a lighter.
Victim missed final 2 months of his university course. Had to give up his job. 12% body surface area burns. Will need 2 years of treatment for burns.
Offender pleads it as an: "incredibly stupid prank, not a deliberate assault on Mr Collins."
Sentence: 18 months
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrifying-moment-bouncer-sets-fire-3843067

Article from 2013 which states UK have found six such cases of sheep costumes being set alight in the past five years alone.
A plastic surgeon from Livingston also references two cases they've had in the past 2 years alone of sheep costumes being set alight as a prank;

Surgeon Stephen Goldie said: “It is done as a practical joke to start with and then turns into a disaster.
“Serious burns can quite easily cause death. There’s no two ways about it – large burns kill people.”
He said the problem stemmed from home-made sheep costumes, made from flammable glue and cotton wool.
He added: “Our regional burns unit has dealt with two such sheep costume cases in the past two years.
“One involved a 24-year-old male who suffered 40 per cent burns, and more recently an 18-year-old male who was admitted with 36 per cent burns.
“Both required significant reconstructive surgery and prolonged rehabilitation.”

The defendant who set the 24 year old on fire who received 40% burns was only ordered to pay 25000 sterling in compensation. No jail time.
The defendants who set the 18 year old on fire and caused 4th degree burns with 36% coverage were teenagers charged with culpable and reckless conduct but don't know the sentence.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plastic-surgeon-warns-home-made-sheep-1795523

From 2008: Another idiot who set fire to a 26 year old in a sheep costume and described it as a "stupid, drunken prank that went very badly wrong" walked away with just a suspended sentence, 7.5 k in compensations and some community service despite victim having 13% burns and needing skin grafts. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/19/ukcrime1

There are no doubt several other examples of these setting people on fire type of pranks that have gone wrong. Despite some of the examples I've given not causing the same extent of damage as the man in question in this thread, the actual scenario of home-made sheep costume and somebody setting it alight as 'a prank' are the exact same situations except caused different outcomes.

Due to the massive extent of injuries, the fact the guy fled the scene in his Batman costume (possibly considering he might get away with it due to disguise of costume?), the fact he had to be convinced by a friend to turn himself him, and possibly the lack of earlier apology too (even it was under legal advice) - all these things makes me find the sentence much too lenient.

I can believe it was a an outstanding display of stupidity and dickheadness or prank gone wrong, but I just feel because of the way he acted afterwards and the fact that he has managed to live his life well enough to the extent that he was well able to complete his degree and a masters, all whilst the victim has been suffering tremendously both mentally and physically and will continue to suffer for years to come with no mention of any compensation to cover his massive medical bills, it just seems unfair that this guy will only serve about 2.5 years and will then be free to carry on his life from then.

Maybe 8 years actual prison time and some way of compensation to be paid too might have been more appropriate but I am just basing that of a gut reaction of what might be fairer and not basing it of any legal knowledge of what is actually appropriate.

shampoosuicide · 10-07-2015 06:40AM

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

Horrifying story, the victim statement is heartbreaking to read. I know there must be some legal reasoning behind it, but I can't fathom why the defendant's legal team advised him to not apologise to the victim. I would find it so hard to live with myself if I did that to another human being and legal advice or not I can't see myself waiting several years to apologise to the victim and I would also want to apologise to their family if even only by written means if they didn't want to see me.

Unfortunately I can very easily believe that a level of stupidity exists that this gobshite did actually intend this as a "prank".

You would think that anybody of sound mind and of at least reasonable intelligence (which you would assume somebody with a law degree might possess) could forsee that this could go badly wrong, but over the years I've seen enough prank videos or read articles that have convinced me otherwise.

Some of the stuff I've seen or read that pass as "pranks" are so mind-boggling STUPID that it really just leaves me open mouthed at the actual dumbness of it all.

This is not the first time this has happened and sadly I doubt it will be the last time it happens either.

There have been several near identical incidents of sheep costume -cotton wool - flammable glue - set on fire and 'prank gone wrong' in the past.

Examples:

Just last year: 21st birthday, lad in sheep costume with cotton wool balls and flammable hairspray used to stick balls, in smoking area and a stranger purposely lights him on fire with a lighter.
Victim missed final 2 months of his university course. Had to give up his job. 12% body surface area burns. Will need 2 years of treatment for burns.
Offender pleads it as an: "incredibly stupid prank, not a deliberate assault on Mr Collins."
Sentence: 18 months
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrifying-moment-bouncer-sets-fire-3843067

Article from 2013 which states UK have found six such cases of sheep costumes being set alight in the past five years alone.
A plastic surgeon from Livingston also references two cases they've had in the past 2 years alone of sheep costumes being set alight as a prank;

The defendant who set the 24 year old on fire who received 40% burns was only ordered to pay 25000 sterling in compensation. No jail time.
The defendants who set the 18 year old on fire and caused 4th degree burns with 36% coverage were teenagers charged with culpable and reckless conduct but don't know the sentence.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plastic-surgeon-warns-home-made-sheep-1795523

From 2008: Another idiot who set fire to a 26 year old in a sheep costume and described it as a "stupid, drunken prank that went very badly wrong" walked away with just a suspended sentence, 7.5 k in compensations and some community service despite victim having 13% burns and needing skin grafts. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/19/ukcrime1

There are no doubt several other examples of these setting people on fire type of pranks that have gone wrong. Despite some of the examples I've given not causing the same extent of damage as the man in question in this thread, the actual scenario of home-made sheep costume and somebody setting it alight as 'a prank' are the exact same situations except caused different outcomes.

Due to the massive extent of injuries, the fact the guy fled the scene in his Batman costume (possibly considering he might get away with it due to disguise of costume?), the fact he had to be convinced by a friend to turn himself him, and possibly the lack of earlier apology too (even it was under legal advice) - all these things makes me find the sentence much too lenient.

I can believe it was a an outstanding display of stupidity and dickheadness or prank gone wrong, but I just feel because of the way he acted afterwards and the fact that he has managed to live his life well enough to the extent that he was well able to complete his degree and a masters, all whilst the victim has been suffering tremendously both mentally and physically and will continue to suffer for years to come with no mention of any compensation to cover his massive medical bills, it just seems unfair that this guy will only serve about 2.5 years and will then be free to carry on his life from then.

Maybe 8 years actual prison time and some way of compensation to be paid too might have been more appropriate but I am just basing that of a gut reaction of what might be fairer and not basing it of any legal knowledge of what is actually appropriate.

thanks for this, i was almost sure i'd heard of a very similar case before. horrible stuff.

kylith · 10-07-2015 07:55AM

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

He said the problem stemmed from home-made sheep costumes, made from flammable
glue and cotton wool.

I have to disagree with this; the problem stems from morons thinking it's hilarious to set other people on fire, the costumes are hardly combusting spontaneously.

10-07-2015 07:58AM

anna080 wrote: »

Disgusting unprovoked attack, attempted murder whatever way you look at it.

I really don't think so.

As did the DPP in deciding what charge to bring.

EDit · 10-07-2015 08:02AM

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

Horrifying story, the victim statement is heartbreaking to read. I know there must be some legal reasoning behind it, but I can't fathom why the defendant's legal team advised him to not apologise to the victim. I would find it so hard to live with myself if I did that to another human being and legal advice or not I can't see myself waiting several years to apologise to the victim and I would also want to apologise to their family if even only by written means if they didn't want to see me.

Unfortunately I can very easily believe that a level of stupidity exists that this gobshite did actually intend this as a "prank".

You would think that anybody of sound mind and of at least reasonable intelligence (which you would assume somebody with a law degree might possess) could forsee that this could go badly wrong, but over the years I've seen enough prank videos or read articles that have convinced me otherwise.

Some of the stuff I've seen or read that pass as "pranks" are so mind-boggling STUPID that it really just leaves me open mouthed at the actual dumbness of it all.

This is not the first time this has happened and sadly I doubt it will be the last time it happens either.

There have been several near identical incidents of sheep costume -cotton wool - flammable glue - set on fire and 'prank gone wrong' in the past.

Examples:

Just last year: 21st birthday, lad in sheep costume with cotton wool balls and flammable hairspray used to stick balls, in smoking area and a stranger purposely lights him on fire with a lighter.
Victim missed final 2 months of his university course. Had to give up his job. 12% body surface area burns. Will need 2 years of treatment for burns.
Offender pleads it as an: "incredibly stupid prank, not a deliberate assault on Mr Collins."
Sentence: 18 months
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrifying-moment-bouncer-sets-fire-3843067

Article from 2013 which states UK have found six such cases of sheep costumes being set alight in the past five years alone.
A plastic surgeon from Livingston also references two cases they've had in the past 2 years alone of sheep costumes being set alight as a prank;

The defendant who set the 24 year old on fire who received 40% burns was only ordered to pay 25000 sterling in compensation. No jail time.
The defendants who set the 18 year old on fire and caused 4th degree burns with 36% coverage were teenagers charged with culpable and reckless conduct but don't know the sentence.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/plastic-surgeon-warns-home-made-sheep-1795523

From 2008: Another idiot who set fire to a 26 year old in a sheep costume and described it as a "stupid, drunken prank that went very badly wrong" walked away with just a suspended sentence, 7.5 k in compensations and some community service despite victim having 13% burns and needing skin grafts. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/19/ukcrime1

There are no doubt several other examples of these setting people on fire type of pranks that have gone wrong. Despite some of the examples I've given not causing the same extent of damage as the man in question in this thread, the actual scenario of home-made sheep costume and somebody setting it alight as 'a prank' are the exact same situations except caused different outcomes.

Due to the massive extent of injuries, the fact the guy fled the scene in his Batman costume (possibly considering he might get away with it due to disguise of costume?), the fact he had to be convinced by a friend to turn himself him, and possibly the lack of earlier apology too (even it was under legal advice) - all these things makes me find the sentence much too lenient.

I can believe it was a an outstanding display of stupidity and dickheadness or prank gone wrong, but I just feel because of the way he acted afterwards and the fact that he has managed to live his life well enough to the extent that he was well able to complete his degree and a masters, all whilst the victim has been suffering tremendously both mentally and physically and will continue to suffer for years to come with no mention of any compensation to cover his massive medical bills, it just seems unfair that this guy will only serve about 2.5 years and will then be free to carry on his life from then.

Maybe 8 years actual prison time and some way of compensation to be paid too might have been more appropriate but I am just basing that of a gut reaction of what might be fairer and not basing it of any legal knowledge of what is actually appropriate.

I don't usually condone the "death wish" approach to justice, but a part of me would love to hear about some of these victims playing a similar "prank" back on the perpetrators

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 09:42AM

ongarboy wrote: »

The infamous Annabels nightclub case....yes...it involved well heeled southside boys and their Cavan mate... Only the Cavan guy got jail. If they came from any other place in the country, they would all have done time!

Monaghan actually.

ongarboy wrote: »

I believe all 3 southsiders are doing well in cushy jobs right now sponsored by their well connected dads while Brian Murphy's parents suffer the life sentence of grief.

Ironic that you're whinging about "well heeled southside boys" getting off lightly in a thread where the victim was a "southside boy" and the perpetrator, who has been treated remarkably leniently, is from Thurles.

And for the record, I think the Annabel's case was disgusting. Especially when the convictions were overturned, if I remember rightly, because it was felt that "alcohol induced apnoeia" might have been the cause of death instead of the kicking he got from a gang of "rock" boys.

Reminiscent of another case, whose anniversary is about now and which is getting some coverage, of a priest (Father Molloy) who died in the house of some old friends 30 years ago. He had head injuries and had lost a lot of blood but the trial hardly got going before the judge ruled that a heart attack might have been the possible cause of death and so the case was dismissed.

The two hosts, at least one of whom is now dead, refused to say anything about the incident.

None of the parties involved were from south Dublin.

dont bother · 10-07-2015 10:07AM

i hope the guy who did it gets shanked in prison

foggy_lad · 10-07-2015 11:00AM

Might the reason for the delay in apologising and pleading guilty have been because the cûntnwas in trinity and would most likely have been booted out if he pleaded to something like this? Seems very convenient that it only comes to the court when his studies have finished and he has his M.A. from trinity in the bag.

He should be stripped of any qualification earned since the incident and any time spent in college or university should not be recognised.

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 11:51AM

FalconGirl wrote: »

Very idiotic of anyone to try light an item of clothing on fire in an uncontrolled environment. He should be charged with attempted murder.

Nobody agrees more than I that the guy with the lighter was a recklessly irresponsible idiot who endangered somebody's life but that is NOT the same as attempted murder.

Had the victim died, the lighter guy would almost certainly have been charged with manslaughter or some other lesser crime, not murder. It is hard to prove that there was any intent to kill. And a common sense reading of the facts supports that.

Which is not to say that manslaughter is not a serious offence; you can get life for it.

"Batman" is a lucky boy that the guy has "only" been maimed for life.

10-07-2015 12:03PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Might the reason for the delay in apologising and pleading guilty have been because the cûntnwas in trinity and would most likely have been booted out if he pleaded to something like this? Seems very convenient that it only comes to the court when his studies have finished and he has his M.A. from trinity in the bag.

Unlikely to be a factor. Presume the investigation would have taken it's own course and time, and the DPP was not too bothered about his studies one way or the other, or indeed whether he apologised or not. These things take time, usually simply because of the natural delay in gathering evidence and the inevitable backlog in the criminal Courts.

Ben1994 · 10-07-2015 12:36PM

I just want to point out for the people saying "he didn't even apologize" If you read the article you will see that he wanted too and had it wrote up ready but on the advice of his solicitor he didn't. He was hardly going to go against his own solicitors advice.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 12:48PM

Zhane wrote: »

That would be an actual accident though. This scumbag walked over to this guy, took out his lighter, lit his costume on fire and walked away. Do you see a difference?

Yes, I know he deliberately took a lighter to the man's costume and the lighting of someone's cigarette would of course be a dreadful accident. But can you honestly say it was his intention to immolate the victim?

There are people on here who just refuse to think and just mentally shut down with the "He took a lighter to his costume!! OF course it was his intention to set it on fire!!" rant.

VisibleGorilla · 10-07-2015 12:48PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

He should be stripped of any qualification earned since the incident and any time spent in college or university should not be recognised.

Why? What good would this do for anyone?

Stupid post.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 01:00PM

anna080 wrote: »

Ya except there is no malice or intend to injure someone in that scenario. That would be completely accidental. Stupid comparison.

I agree. But try to stretch the limits of your thinking here for a moment. Do you think the guy intended for the victim to be engulfed in flames and nearly die? Yes or no? Don't deflect away from the simple question with "He lit his costume!!!!! What else could his intention be??"

Let's go back to the scenario of a girl with her hair all teased out in spikes with lacquer. Now let's picture a group of youths, little toerags, and one of them decides he's going to come up behind her and start singeing her hair spikes with his cigarette just to ruin her look only the lacquer goes up and she's torched.

Can we honestly say it was his intention to kill or horribly injure her or was his intention to be a wanker ruining someone's style/costume/hairdo?

kylith · 10-07-2015 01:12PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Yes, I know he deliberately took a lighter to the man's costume and the lighting of someone's cigarette would of course be a dreadful accident. But can you honestly say it was his intention to immolate the victim?

There are people on here who just refuse to think and just mentally shut down with the "He took a lighter to his costume!! OF course it was his intention to set it on fire!!" rant.

He put a lighter to someone's clothes, of course his intention was to set it on fire! He hardly thought 'I'll just put a flame to this, that'll give it a pleasing scent of peppermint". It went up in flames rather than smouldering, whether or not he intended for that to happen is irrelevant; that was the outcome of his actions.

Egginacup wrote: »

I agree. But try to stretch the limits of your thinking here for a moment. Do you think the guy intended for the victim to be engulfed in flames and nearly die? Yes or no? Don't deflect away from the simple question with "He lit his costume!!!!! What else could his intention be??"

Let's go back to the scenario of a girl with her hair all teased out in spikes with lacquer. Now let's picture a group of youths, little toerags, and one of them decides he's going to come up behind her and start singeing her hair spikes with his cigarette just to ruin her look only the lacquer goes up and she's torched.

Can we honestly say it was his intention to kill or horribly injure her or was his intention to be a wanker ruining someone's style/costume/hairdo?

Was the intention to kill? No. But when you purposefully set fire to someone you shouldn't get a more lenient sentence because they went 'more on fire' than you thought they would. Once you put a lighter to their clothes what happens next is outside of your control. If a person ran up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head and they fell over, split their head open, and were left brain damaged do you think that the puncher should get a more lenient sentence because they 'only' meant to hurt the victim a bit? Should an arsonist who burns down a house get a more lenient sentence because they only meant to torch the kitchen?

LenaClaire · 10-07-2015 01:32PM

For those who are saying - regular clothes don't burn quickly, how would he have known the cotton wool costume would burn quickly.

My question to you is - if he only wanted to singe someone, why did he pick the person wearing cotton wool to light? Why did he not pick any other costume there that night?

He picked the cotton wool costume because it looked flammable, because it would cause a greater reaction.

He deserves time in jail.

Roquentin · 10-07-2015 01:33PM

LenaClaire wrote: »

For those who are saying - regular clothes don't burn quickly, how would he have known the cotton wool costume would burn quickly.

My question to you is - if he only wanted to singe someone, why did he pick the person wearing cotton wool to light? Why did he not pick any other costume there that night?

He picked the cotton wool costume because it looked flammable, because it would cause a greater reaction.

He deserves time in jail.

pure chance.

LenaClaire · 10-07-2015 01:35PM

Roquentin wrote: »

pure chance.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Betty Bloggs · 10-07-2015 02:05PM

kylith wrote: »

I have to disagree with this; the problem stems from morons thinking it's hilarious to set other people on fire, the costumes are hardly combusting spontaneously.

Just to be clear, I fully agree with you.

I know the surgeon is just explaining that certain costumes are very risky to wear anyways because I imagine a person wearing them could very easily be engulfed in flames by a lit cigarette butt landing on them or a even an accidental quick brush against any type of open flame, but I completely agree that if a person does attempt this type of "prank" on another without consent and it goes wrong then the full blame lies with them alone and not the design of the costume or with the victim in any way.

Just giving examples of previous very similar cases because some people are convinced it was deliberate 'attempted murder' whereas I can believe it was actually something he thought would just be "funny".

That's not trying to excuse his actions, and if it was my own brother he attacked then I would want the fecker to never see the light of day again. Just saying though that as an outsider, if I had a say in the outcome of trial in this case I could never find him guilty of 'attempted murder'. I would have given him a much harsher sentence though than a couple of years jail time.

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

Comments