Girl Murdered Because 'She was dressed like a goth'

[Rev Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Bit of respect wouldn't go amiss.

Full respect for the deceased... No respect for the accused, or any apologists that come out of the woodwork.

Prosecuting, Michael Shorrock QC told the court the young couple, from Bacup, were walking home from a friend's house when they "fell into conversation" with a group of teenagers.

The talk was friendly and good-natured, the court heard, but five of a group of youths "turned" on Mr Maltby.

The accused had started the violence, with a flying kick to the head of Mr Maltby, the jury was told.

The gang, "encouraging each other and laughing" punched, stamped and jumped on his head until he was unconscious, Mr Shorrock said.

As Ms Lancaster kneeled down, cradling her boyfriend's head on her lap and calling for help, the accused and another 15-year-old youth who has already pleaded guilty to murder, turned on her.

The second boy kicked her in the head, with the accused joining in, the court heard.

That is evil. There's no other word for it.

[StuntGirl]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

Full respect for the deceased... No respect for the accused, or any apologists that come out of the woodwork.

That is evil. There's no other word for it.

I'm not being funny, but whatever happened to "innocent before proven guilty". One of the boys is still denying murderous involvement and in group attacks you cant always tar everyone with the same brush. I'm not condoning what they did, but I think your moralist stance is oversimplifying things somewhat.

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

or any apologists that come out of the woodwork.

Its exactly this bullshit that makes your empassioned frothing inappropriate. Though I must admit, I'm now regretting dignifying it with a response. No-one is trying to excuse anything, and you're basing your ranting on a newspaper article and your own prejudices. I mean, what the fuck have the council got to do with anything? Please think before you type anything again.

[Largest of Gregs]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

The little cunt should be named, shamed, and put the fuck away for a very long time.
No excuse for that shit. None at all..

hahahahaha

[Goth_pixie]

That's horrifying.

[Bunnylingus]

Personally I dont understand why naming and shaming will make any difference.


I dont really know what I'd expect the local council to do about this - predjudices are hard to change, and are always going to exist.

Makes you wonder if they would have done the same to anyone,regardless of how they were dressed.

[Rev Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by StuntGirl

I'm not being funny, but whatever happened to "innocent before proven guilty". One of the boys is still denying murderous involvement and in group attacks you cant always tar everyone with the same brush. I'm not condoning what they did, but I think your moralist stance is oversimplifying things somewhat.

If someone genuinely wasn't involved, then they're by definition not at fault.

But the boy in question, according to the article, started the violence by aiming a flying kick to the head of his victim.
Whether or not he intended to kill anyone, he still did that - Something else there's absolutely no excuse for.
The fact that his victim subsequently died just makes his actions all the worse.

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by Bunnylingus

Personally I dont understand why naming and shaming will make any difference.


I dont really know what I'd expect the local council to do about this - predjudices are hard to change, and are always going to exist.

Makes you wonder if they would have done the same to anyone,regardless of how they were dressed.

I think what the Daily Scapegoat was trying to say is there a lot of liberal minded folks on here who believe one of the reasons behind youth crime is a lack of services provided by the council to keep them occupied that leads to anti-social behaviour such as vandalism and such. He was using the death of this young woman to have a go at us as, obviously in the eyes of the stupid, our views that teenagers are neglected by authorities leads to murder.

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

But the boy in question, according to the article, started the violence by aiming a flying kick to the head of his victim.
Whether or not he intended to kill anyone, he still did that - Something else there's absolutely no excuse for.
The fact that his victim subsequently died just makes his actions all the worse.

Are we going to find people guilty on the basis of the BBC quoting a prosecuting lawyer from now?

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

The fact that his victim subsequently died just makes his actions all the worse.

Why does the outcome make the actions worse?
The morality of the action is independent of the outcome.

If his kick hadn't killed her but had, say, dislodged and broken up a blood clot in her head that was going to kill her, thereby saving her life, would that make his actions any better?

[Dario]

Originally Posted by ¡Punk!

I think what the Daily Scapegoat was trying to say is there a lot of liberal minded folks on here who believe one of the reasons behind youth crime is a lack of services provided by the council to keep them occupied that leads to anti-social behaviour such as vandalism and such. He was using the death of this young woman to have a go at us as, obviously in the eyes of the stupid, our views that teenagers are neglected by authorities leads to murder.


Are we going to find people guilty on the basis of the BBC quoting a prosecuting lawyer from now?

May I request that someone administer 100cc's of pos rep to Mick on my behalf, stat?

[Rev Scapegoat]

Mick - I don't deny that teenagers are neglected by the authorities.
I do, however, feel that using that fact as an excuse for any sort of anti-social or violent actions is ridiculous.

"Are we going to find people guilty on the basis of the BBC quoting a prosecuting lawyer from now?"
Let's assume that any comments I make on this case are being made under the assumption that the kid did do what the article states he admitted to doing.

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

Mick - I don't deny that teenagers are neglected by the authorities.
I do, however, feel that using that fact as an excuse for any sort of anti-social or violent actions is ridiculous.

So it's got hee-haw to do with this lassie getting murdered? You just feel the need to use a girl dying to have a broad swipe at those who disagree with you?

Each to their own I guess.

[StuntGirl]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

If someone genuinely wasn't involved, then they're by definition not at fault.

How can you decipher who is and who is not involved in the death of a young woman though? Recent case law shows that merely kicking someone during an assault which leads to death, or even starting the assault is not enough to find someone guilty of murder, so what are you basing your "genuinely wasn't involved" on? There are shades of grey in every case.

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

But the boy in question, according to the article, started the violence by aiming a flying kick to the head of his victim.
Whether or not he intended to kill anyone, he still did that - Something else there's absolutely no excuse for.
The fact that his victim subsequently died just makes his actions all the worse.

I'll just reiterate Punk and Les, the quotes of the prosecution council via a BBC website does not constitute objective evidence of guilt, and even if he did start it, please see what I have said above. This does not constitute a mens rea for murder. Thin skull rule aside, if I slap my boyfriend and then five of my mates jump in an beat him to death does that make me guilty of murder? No, of course not. I may have initiated the attack, but I had neither the mens rea or took part in the actus reus. Just because this boy alledgedly initiated this attack does not mean he had the necessary mens rea or took part in the actus reus.

The fact that the girl died does not make the initial action worse, because as Les said, the initial action and the morality of the outcome are arguably independant from one another. A kick is a kick if the boy is without the necessary murderous intention.

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

Let's assume that any comments I make on this case are being made under the assumption that the kid did do what the article states he admitted to doing.

Thats the most idiotic thing I think i've ever heard in my natural.

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by StuntGirl

Thin skull rule aside, if I slap my boyfriend and then five of my mates jump in an beat him to death does that make me guilty of murder?

Most people? No. You? You've probably got some Manson Family shit going on so yes.

[Rev Scapegoat]

I've at no point said he should be found guilty of murder - He won't be anyway, unless intent could be proven.
But kicking the shit out of someone in an unprovoked attack should be enough to see someone put away, no?
And he should be named and shamed so that he won't even have the chance to do anything like that again.

Unsure how my last comment is idiotic, though...
Unless the author of the article is lying, the kid admitted that he did start the attack by aiming a flying kick at the head of his victim.
If he'd denied having any involvement at all, the discussion would be an entirely different one.