Girl Murdered Because 'She was dressed like a goth'

[MarkMono]

As opposed to the one we're now having, about apologists and the council.

Jesus.

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Jesus.

Don't bring religion into it too!

[StuntGirl]

I'm sorry, I thought on the basis of this quote...

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.

Of course, it's actually his local council that are at fault for not providing him with any non-goth-killing activities to partake in...

we were assuming that he had taken part in her death?

Also, you dont know if he kicked the shit out her. I'm loving how you're turning a kick, flying or otherwise, into "kicking the shit out of her". Also, what good would "naming and shaming" a minor do? Where would his chance of rehabilitation be? Let me guess, you dont believe in potential rehabilitation for offenders, right?

and your last comment is idiotic because it implies you believe everything you read on, for the love of jeebus, the internet.

[Tacky]

I dont get it - ok, she has her style about her from what i can tell in the pictures have seen, but metro - which has smaller articles because they arent full of adjectives and the word 'chilling' every 2nd line - purely explained that it was an unprovoked attack. Did it have anything to do with the fact that, yes, she could be considered as a 'goth'?

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Tacky

I dont get it - ok, she has her style about her from what i can tell in the pictures have seen, but metro - which has smaller articles because they arent full of adjectives and the word 'chilling' every 2nd line - purely explained that it was an unprovoked attack. Did it have anything to do with the fact that, yes, she could be considered as a 'goth'?

Not as far as anyone knows. It's a good angle for the papers, though.

[Zippy]

Hahahaha, the Daily Scapegoat!

[Rev Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by StuntGirl

I'm sorry, I thought on the basis of this quote...


we were assuming that he had taken part in her death?

Also, you dont know if he kicked the shit out her. I'm loving how you're turning a kick, flying or otherwise, into "kicking the shit out of her". Also, what good would "naming and shaming" a minor do? Where would his chance of rehabilitation be? Let me guess, you dont believe in potential rehabilitation for offenders, right?

and your last comment is idiotic because it implies you believe everything you read on, for the love of jeebus, the internet.

I'll withdraw the throwaway sarcy comment about the council, then.
And I do believe in rehabilitation - But I think the main priority should be protection of the public.
Put him away for a time so he cannot even launch one more flying kick at anyone's head... And I think people in his area do deserve to know who he is and what he did.
It was a random, unprovoked attack - Would you not prefer to be aware that there's a risk of such a thing happening to you?
I think the age at which offenders can be named in the press should be lowered by a good few years.
If someone's old enough to commit a violent crime, then they're old enough to be held accountable for it.
Not that his parents are entirely without blame... there should be some eyes looking their way as well in situations like this.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by StuntGirl

and your last comment is idiotic because it implies you believe everything you read on, for the love of jeebus, the internet.

It's possible the incident never took place at all, and that those people don't even exist. I didn't witness it, I haven't met them... I have no direct proof of conflict in Iraq either.

I think though it's quite reasonable to argue something having made a few assumptions. "If all that stuff in the story is true, then_________" makes more sense as an assumption and reaction then "well you can't believe everything you read, clowns probably ran out of the bushes and did it." Skepticism only goes so far and remains useful.

Also, thankfully, Scapey doesn't actually get to convict and sentence anyone, so we needn 't fret too much about his black and white views.

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

I'll withdraw the throwaway sarcy comment about the council, then.
And I do believe in rehabilitation - But I think the main priority should be protection of the public.
Put him away for a time so he cannot even launch one more flying kick at anyone's head... And I think people in his area do deserve to know who he is and what he did.
It was a random, unprovoked attack - Would you not prefer to be aware that there's a risk of such a thing happening to you?
I think the age at which offenders can be named in the press should be lowered by a good few years.
If someone's old enough to commit a violent crime, then they're old enough to be held accountable for it.
Not that his parents are entirely without blame... there should be some eyes looking their way as well in situations like this.

Surely the public would best be protected by the guilty party firstly; being excluded from society, and seconldy by being given the chance to reform. Naming and shaming has no place in the protection of the public, just helps those vigilantes out there make the lives of the family of the boy hell.

Incidently, do you think there is any link between peoples glorification of recreation violence (as evidenced in your sig and avatar) and 15 year old boys kicking people in the head?

Originally Posted by djtoast

Also, thankfully, Scapey doesn't actually get to convict and sentence anyone, so we needn 't fret too much about his black and white views.

He's a racist too?!

[Dario]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

I'll withdraw the throwaway sarcy comment about the council, then.
And I do believe in rehabilitation - But I think the main priority should be protection of the public.
Put him away for a time so he cannot even launch one more flying kick at anyone's head... And I think people in his area do deserve to know who he is and what he did.
It was a random, unprovoked attack - Would you not prefer to be aware that there's a risk of such a thing happening to you?
I think the age at which offenders can be named in the press should be lowered by a good few years.
If someone's old enough to commit a violent crime, then they're old enough to be held accountable for it.

Oh, right, glad you cleared that up. So basically, anyone who has committed a violent crime must by default be 'old enough' to be held accountable for it? Good one.
And, pray tell, how exactly do you think naming and shaming minors is going to help to reform them into people fit enough to be reintegrated into society, as opposed than magnifying their sense of being persecuted, and further alienated from society?

[Rev Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by supernothing

Incidently, do you think there is any link between peoples glorification of recreation violence (as evidenced in your sig and avatar) and 15 year old boys kicking people in the head?

There's a major difference between recreational simulated violence, and real violence.
Folk have tried this argument before and IMHO it's a stupid one.
If there was a direct link, then airsoft and paintball should be banned.
So, though, should boxing and WWE - Both of which are far more "violent" than either.
Action movies, video games... Bin the lot of them.

Or not... And just make sure anyone stupid enough to actually attack someone for fun is harshly punished for it.

[MarkMono]

I'm glad a girl died so you could air all this bullshit.

[McLeary]

Wait a minute, I thought after the Luke Mitchell thing that goths were the baddies? Or has that focus shifted onto emos now?


It's hard to keep up with half-arsed moral panics.

[Rev Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by Dario

Oh, right, glad you cleared that up. So basically, anyone who has committed a violent crime must by default be 'old enough' to be held accountable for it? Good one.

You reversed what I said.
Anyone old enough to be physically capable of committing a violent act should be held responsible for it. And if they are not, then their parents should be.

A good example would be the little cunt that tried to mug Kat and myself a few years back, and threatened us with a 12" kitchen knife.
If he'd been caught, either he himself should have been up in front of the childrens' panel and monitored for a good period of time, or his parents should have been heavilly fined or otherwise punished.
Preferably both.

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I'm glad a girl died so you could air all this bullshit.

Sorry, I forgot that your moral compass is so much straighter than the rest of us and that your views on how the world should be and how people should treat one another are the correct ones that everyone else should abide by.
I'll try to bear that in mind in any future dealings I have with people.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

You reversed what I said.
Anyone old enough to be physically capable of committing a violent act should be held responsible for it. And if they are not, then their parents should be.

A good example would be the little cunt that tried to mug Kat and myself a few years back, and threatened us with a 12" kitchen knife.
If he'd been caught, either he himself should have been up in front of the childrens' panel and monitored for a good period of time, or his parents should have been heavilly fined or otherwise punished.
Preferably both.

I didn't 'reverse' what you said at all: "Anyone old enough to be physically capable of committing a violent act should be held responsible for it."
Well, you can't hold someone responsible for committing a violent act if they're physically incapable of doing so-- precisely because they are incapable of doing it. Therefore your statement can only be aimed towards people who are capable of doing so anyway. So, essentially, it boils down to anyone who commits any violent act being, by your own logic, automatically deemed 'old enough' to be held accountable. Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

By the way, it's nice to see that you're being objective in this judgement, and aren't resorting to using irrelevant anecdotes from 'personal experience' to prop up your otherwise incomprehensible proposal here.

Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat

Sorry, I forgot that your moral compass is so much straighter than the rest of us and that your views on how the world should be and how people should treat one another are the correct ones that everyone else should abide by.
I'll try to bear that in mind in any future dealings I have with people.

This coming from the guy who, in his second post in the thread, decided to refer to those with differentiating views form him on this matter as 'apologists'.