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

bucketybuck · 10-07-2015 02:23PM

I'm reminded of the two brothers who had a drunken fight in Australia, one threw a punch that ended with the other in a coma. The poor lad came round but still isn't right today, can't even hear properly now.

Clearly the punch was thrown with the intent to do harm, so should the brother be charged with attempted murder?

What if the prank involved two people at a swimming pool. One young lad sneaks up behind another and pushes him in the back into the pool. A great laugh all round. The other lad hits his head of the bottom and ends up paralysed for life.

Clearly pushing somebody unawares off a ledge was an inherently dangerous act, so should the pusher be charged with attempted murder?

There are numerous other hypotheticals and they all boil down to the same thing. Did the perpetrator intend to murder the other person? And in most cases its obvious that he did not. So it isn't attempted murder. That doesn't mean he walks free, that he doesn't suffer the consequnces, that he isn't to blame. But he isn't charged with attempted murder and nor should he be.

And its the same in this case.

Diamond Doll · 10-07-2015 02:29PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm reminded of the two brothers who had a drunken fight in Australia, one threw a punch that ended with the other in a coma. The poor lad came round but still isn't right today, can't even hear properly now.

Clearly the punch was thrown with the intent to do harm, so should the brother be charged with attempted murder?

What if the prank involved two people at a swimming pool. One young lad sneaks up behind another and pushes him in the back into the pool. A great laugh all round. The other lad hits his head of the bottom and ends up paralysed for life.

Clearly pushing somebody unawares off a ledge was an inherently dangerous act, so should the pusher be charged with attempted murder?

There are numerous other hypotheticals and they all boil down to the same thing. Did the perpetrator intend to murder the other person? And in most cases its obvious that he did not. So it isn't attempted murder. That doesn't mean he walks free, that he doesn't suffer the consequnces, that he isn't to blame. But he isn't charged with attempted murder and nor should he be.

And its the same in this case.

There's a legal concept known as the "eggshell skull" law, basically it means that the defendant will still be liable, even if the damage done is far greater than would usually be expected ... This would relate to the scenarios outlined above.

Betty Bloggs · 10-07-2015 02:37PM

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.

A sheep costume is comical looking.

Idiot probably thought "I'll singe the 'sheep's' arse hahahaha," A 'sheep' jumping about patting out a slightly smoking arse may have seemed funnier to him than pulling this 'prank' on say a witch or scary costume that might have been there on Halloween night.

It's incredible stupidity and you or I can easily see why this could go very wrong but I can buy the story that he didn't know that the whole outfit would erupt in flames instantly.

He definitely does deserve jail time though I agree, and longer than what he did get sentenced too imo.

Zen65 · 10-07-2015 03:04PM

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

Idiot probably thought "I'll singe the 'sheep's' arse hahahaha," A 'sheep' jumping about patting out a slightly smoking arse may have seemed funnier to him than pulling this 'prank' on say a witch or scary costume that might have been there on Halloween night.

Yes, the defendant was an idiot. He took an action without any thought or care for its potential consequence. He possibly thought it could make a funny video for YouTube . . and indeed there are many such videos there of people setting themselves and others on fire which appear on Channel 4's "Rude Tube".

It was like pushing somebody into the deep end of a swimming pool and not knowing whether they could swim, and then not being able to swim themselves to carry out a rescue if needed. He walked away from the scene in the club, leaving the victim of his bungled prank to burn, for others to save. I expect that action is ultimately the one which resulted in his jail sentence not being fully suspended.

The defendant's action has been carried out by others many hundreds of times. Setting fire to people's hair, to their clothes etc. happens as part of drunken or childish 'prank' behaviour. Far too often as a society we laugh at it because the consequences have been only minor, with no serious injuries. Then one day it goes horribly wrong and somebody innocent gets disfigured.

Then the internet gang call for attempted murder charges, and longer sentences. :rolleyes:

If we all agree that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable (and I for one do) then we need to stop finding humour in these situations and stop posting this sort of nonsense online.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcMQ1FQiby0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrEUnjyw0qc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt-kHcAwSD4

kylith · 10-07-2015 03:24PM

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

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.

I agree that he did not intend to cause serious harm to, or to kill, the injured party, and that he thought it would be funny. But the fact that he didn't mean it doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve a longer sentence. His 'prank' has disfigured a man for life, and probably left him praying for death at some points, all because he thought it'd be funny to light the sheep on fire. Because of that 3.5 years in jail, and out earlier for good behaviour, isn't enough, imo. Anyone who sets someone on fire should be done for assault, regardless of the outcome of the 'prank'. His victim is just as maimed as he would have been if the defendant had set out to kill him.

SmilesInMass · 10-07-2015 03:28PM

I don't buy the whole "It was a prank, sure doesn't everyone set fire to each other for a laugh" thing that people are saying. He walked up to this person, who he never met before in his life, in a nightclub, and put a lighter to his outfit. Which going by it's description was clearly something that looked like it would go up in flames without much hassle. How in the f*ck can you think that's a prank?

VisibleGorilla · 10-07-2015 03:31PM

kylith wrote: »

g for death at some points, all because he thought it'd be funny to light the sheep on fire. Because of that 3.5 years in jail, and out earlier for good behaviour, isn't enough, imo.

Can you explain why?

What actual good does it do for ANYONE for him to be in custody for this amount of time, or for longer like you would like? Why do you want him locked away for longer periods.

Who will it help? No one. It's a waste of money. The guy is not going to re-offend, he is not an immediate danger to the public, what you're looking for is revenge, not justice.

10-07-2015 08:03PM

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Can you explain why?

What actual good does it do for ANYONE for him to be in custody for this amount of time, or for longer like you would like? Why do you want him locked away for longer periods.

Who will it help? No one. It's a waste of money. The guy is not going to re-offend, he is not an immediate danger to the public, what you're looking for is revenge, not justice.

In addition to the jail sentence, I would have made him (or his family) liable for the medical bills. The injured student mentioned French medical bills that he had to pay. I would definitely have made this idiot pony up for those bills, plus an amount of compensation.

PowerToWait · 10-07-2015 08:17PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Yes, the defendant was an idiot. He took an action without any thought or care for its potential consequence. He walked away from the scene in the club, leaving the victim of his bungled prank to burn, for others to save. I expect that action is ultimately the one which resulted in his jail sentence not being fully suspended.

Agree totally here. It's a hit and run scenario. If he'd been any way decent he would have done his utmost to put the flames out.

Turning and leaving the scene is very callous and self serving. If you fcuk someone up like that, hold your hands up and take your medicine. And do everything in your power to help the person out.

I think he got jail for his actions subsequent to the act more than for the act itself.

eta: what a quoting disaster.

Nidgeweasel · 10-07-2015 08:25PM

SmilesInMass wrote: »

How in the f*ck can you think that's a prank?

There's this thing called a brain right.....:::

SmilesInMass · 10-07-2015 08:41PM

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

There's this thing called a brain right.....:::

Wasn't he the fella that used to be in Westlife?

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 09:17PM

kylith wrote: »

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.

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?

You've answered the question...almost. And don't be flippant. I am trying to point out, and I would ask you to pay attention, that yes he held a flame to the victim's costume. We're not talking about the leniency of the sentence here or should someone get a lighter sentence. What I'm trying to point out, if you would take a moment, is that there are so many on here screaming that he should have been done for attempted murder.

That is utter bullshit. Can you get understand that?
How can it possibly be proven that he intended the victim to burn to death? If you can answer me that then I'd be very impressed.

You just said "was the intention to kill...no" and that's what I am getting at. I'm not saying it was an accident. This isn't a case of just bang him up and facts be damned just because you're incensed by what he did and feel dreadful for the victim as I do.

There is NO WAY IN HELL this can be construed as attempted murder despite the chorus of "legal experts" on here. I'm no lawyer myself but I'm pretty sure manslaughter can only be if there is a dead body but the intent was not to kill.

After that we have assault, we have intent to cause GBH, reckless endangerment, etc.

What are the maximum penalties and tariffs for these? I don't know but I DO know that sentencing is reduced from the maximum for those who display a variety of parameters as opposed to someone who has committed the same crime.

To demonstrate.

Take two people who individually murder someone.

Person A is an habitual criminal who has killed or assaulted before and pleads not guilty all the way to the end, yet is found guilty on the basis of indisputable evidence. So effectively tried to lie his way out of his crime.

Person B with no previous convictions murdered someone who was attempting to extort money from him. He killed his tormentor, turned himself in and pleaded guilty without so much as a trial being held.

Person A is not only a danger to society as displayed but his record but has no remorse for his crime and refuses to accept responsibility.

Person B is not a danger to society. He killed an exclusive person who is or was a one-off in his life. He took complete responsibilty and accepted whatever punishment was determined to befit his transgression.

They both committed identical crimes...IDENTICAL but a judge would never impose the maximum sentence on person B while would most likely bang up Mister A for as long as he could.

They BOTH have to get the minimum but they don't, at the judge's behest, deserve the maximum.

And that's what people fail to understand. The veil just slams down. If you try to introduce a smidgen of logic and rationale into the debate that conflicts or shows up their intransigence as flawed or misguided then you are smeared as "soft on crime" or some other such cliche.

Nobody on this entire thread is or was "defending" the defendant even though the accusations were dished out wholesale. He deserves to go to the big house for what he has done. But just because people are appalled and at the same time clueless about the law (a nice combination of emotion and ignorance) doesn't qualify them to set punishment standards and besmirch those of us who don't let our hearts or our guts overrule our brains.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 09:33PM

anna080 wrote: »

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.

It ISN'T attempted murder "whatever way you look at it"

If you studied LAW at the college you say you went to then you would know that.

And if you plan to come back at me with some accusation that I am sympathising with the assailant I would recommend now that you not bother.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 10:11PM

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.

Why are you and everyone else sounding off like you're mindreaders? Where can you postulate that "he must have known" anything?
You're completely framing the discussion.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 10:16PM

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.

Who's disputing that he deserves jail time?

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 10:24PM

LenaClaire wrote: »

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

So are you saying that the defendant singled out someone whose costume he knew would burst into flames?

Nidgeweasel · 10-07-2015 11:46PM

Glad to see so many of the country's finest legal brains on one thread.

lanos · 11-07-2015 12:04AM

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Glad to see so many of the country's finest legal brains on one thread.

They remind me of The man in the pub from VIZ

11-07-2015 12:22AM

lanos wrote: »

They remind me of The man in the pub from VIZ

A classic...

http://viz.co.uk/man-pub/

lanos · 11-07-2015 12:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A classic...

http://viz.co.uk/man-pub/

Thanks for the link

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

Comments