happy slapping

To punch someone CAN result in death but isn't murder. To continually punch them after they're unconscious takes on a whole different emphasis and to KICK instead is different still. My point, Rokkit, is that they attacked him in a way that they knew was far more potentially fatal than punching or kicking just once. In the mind of an attacker the point about head blows is to render the victim unable to respond, ie by making them unconscious. If you keep on attacking the head once this is achieved then you are attacking with a different agenda. So you tell me, king of the broadsheets, man of the people (well those of a certain class, I don't carry enough hand wipes to meet commoners) and generally condascending fool who measures the man by the size of his morning paper. What WAS their intention? The attack was over once he was out for the count (job done, do a piece to camera and get out of Dodge) so, come on, what exactly was their motivation in their continued kicking of his defenceless head until he was dead? Need help? Here's the list of generally accepted goals in any violent attack in ascending order: 1: Cause pain 2: Render unconscious 3: Cause permanent damage (possibility of death) 4: Death. My guess is number 3 at least. ie, do as much damage as you can now he's defenceless. You know you have no control over his medical condition and that you can't control the exact amount of damage you'll do (you're no Times-reading surgeon after all). Put simply 'fuck him up permanently, if he dies- he dies.' This is, in my opinion, precicely the attitude of those kids supported by their membership of a group for shared guilt and their belief that they're untouchable/uncatchable. That makes them murderers in my book. A felony murder is ruled when a death occurs through a violent act 'even if the intent was not to murder'. That's not manslaughter which is just death caused without intent or pre meditation like, say, an accident. I think we're beyond that here don't you?

No, it's a medium length way of explaining my point to you. Admittedly it would be shorter in length were its recipient broader in mind but that's beyond my control. I take it your response was a short, winded, way of saying "hmmm, I don't have an argument that would hold water so yah booh sucks to you with apricot preserve on! I know which papers to read because someone cool told me- so nerr." For the record I do read some tabloids and a few broadsheets depending on what's in front of me at the time not to mention whatever I can glean from other sources like the internet etc. I prefer not to wear my paper politics like a bagde to the 'groovy gang'. As for sky news, well I tend to be a BBC type of person (whatever that is, I'm sure you've got a handy wallet-sized laminated chart you can refer to for how many kudos points that gets a guy these days.) I only mention this in the hope that any future responses won't contain the words 'tabloid', 'sky' or 'news' and while I'm at it, 'super'.

The police officer in charge of the enquiry stated, upon hearing the verdict, that he couldn't believe the result was anything but murder. I agree (surprise surprise). He felt that e legal system had failed to punish correctly and thet it had let down the family of the victim and the officers on the case. "it would be difficult to prove as murder" I rather think it wuld be difficult to prove as anything else.

Stated today on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme about this very case. Under the new proposals 'the intent to kill OR the intent to do very serious harm' would be classed as murder (first and second degree) and NOT manslaughter. SO even under the proposed legislation this attack would have been considered murder. Jack. that's about the lamest thing I've read for a while. The mitigation of the case you're so obviously referring to is the reason for the calls for leniency. As for 'nice ittle citizens' being upset then I have to say my opinions come from some very real experiences and not what I've read in a newspaper. I won't bore you all with a historical horror show but I have seen someone kicked almost to death, right in front of me (saved only becaused the force of the kicking pushed his broken head under a parked car but still left blind and disabled and broken into peices by total strangers). I've seen someone get sliced from belly to chin for 'fun'. I've seen someone who was stabbed repeatedly by a coach load of twats on 'holiday' who only survived because they just happened to miss his major arteries and organs. I know someone who was dragged down the street by the claw hammer someone else had just lodged in his skull. I've watched people queuing up to jump on the head of a long unconscious victim and do so with as much force and weight as they could muster. (ok I lied about boring you with a horror show) In all of the above instances the only reason that death did not result was pure chance and not in any way the control or restraint of the attackers and in each, as well as several others, I believe that the intent to do very serious harm is as bad as the intent to kill and should have been treated as such. "The former is less understandable"... really? It seems pretty understandable to me Jack. What EXACTLY might we be missing in our understanding of this case that might change things? Are there mitigating circumstances? are these poor maligned children just the misguided results of OUR own violent culture and should be seen as the REAL victims in all this? Maybe it was the victim's fault...'wrong place wrong time- he was in those nail bombs too so he's obviously just unlucky'. Please, by all means, present the case for the defence that shows how they didn't mean to kill him and tried to stop short of doing so. How they weren't medically trained and so were unable to distinguish which was going to be the lethal kick to the head and genuinely thought they had at least three or four more chances to cave his head in before it got really serious and stepped, tragically, out of the realms of 'high jinx'. They set out to attack and seriously harm a total stranger for fun- 'live or die... who f****n cares!' was their attitude and that's as good as murder in my book.

Oh, so THAT'S what understandable means Jack! Well thanks, I thought it meant 'tall enough to be stood under' like a very high table for instance. Spare me your definitiary. I'm fully aware of what understand means: "To comprehend; to grasp with the mind; to be able to follow the working, logic, meaning etc" You however seem to think it means to agree with, to sympathise with and to see as normal and in no way nasty at all so you dfeel the need to ask me the following question: "Are you saying it makes sense to you to beat someone to death for shits and giggles? Are you saying you can kinda see where these guys were coming from? Are you saying it was actually, really, when you think about it, something that any good person could find themselves taking part in?" Yes, of course that's what I'm saying. Anyone reading this thread will instantly see that as my point here. (I'm being sarcastic here JC in case it slipped you by... oh it's under 'S') I understand their crime totally. They're murderous, cold-hearted, evil little bastards and should be treated as such. Bobblehat. "I think Jack's right that the reasons for committing crimes of seemingly random violence are more difficult to understand, in terms of the motivations, than crime committed for some specific reason. It seems that these kids did what they did for kicks but the vast majority of people don't enjoy causing serious harm to others, so their motivation is difficult to understand. " I don't see the sense in your point there. Their motivation is EASY to understand it's just not very pleasant. They were motivated by nothing more than a total lack of respect for human life and an evil need to get some fun out of attacking an innocent man. It's that simple. The fact that most people DON'T enjoy that is what makes us normal people and them killers. If you're looking for reasons and motives beyond "they're just evil little bastards" then please let me know if you find any.

ok, for the last time here goes JC. Your original use of the word 'understanable' ["..the former is less understandable"] implies that there is something in their motvation that we aren't seeing. Some missing element in our UNDERSTANDING of the situation; some level of empathy we need to reach in order to see the truth in this crime. There isn't. that's my point. As for rantings, stupidity (thanks for that one Prof. Hawkins) and launchpads well , strangely you put me in mind of an old snooker programme... can't think of the name just now.

arrrrrhhhhhh!!!! JC you might as well be shouting "You don't get conductors on the roof!!!" (Bottom reference for the confused). I can hardly bring myself to respond and I've already stated my case (put equally well by Missi) but I'm bored so here goes. [apologies to anyone else reading this tedious argument, I'll try and bring it back to the original topic, honest.] Let me take your example, it's fine for my purposes. Your random letters do not make words. It is apparrent to anyone who can read and so they ARE utterly understandable. I understand precicely what they are by seeing what they're not in the same way that I understand precicely what the crime of this threads topic is, namely murder (2nd degree perhaps under the new lines but murder none the less as opposed to manslaughter- that's my point in all of this). Just because I can't read your letters as words doesn't mean I can't understand what they are in the same way that just because I can't relate to or empathise with the attackers doesn't mean I can't understand what they have done. By your argument your response, when presented with your random letters and asked what it means, would be. "I have no idea, I don't understand it" rather than "It doesn't mean anything, it's just some random letters." At the end ofthe day Jack, we're arguing the same point- you're using the word to imply sympathy in the way that if you described the crime to another person and they said, "well it's perfectly understandable" you'd be horrified and you used the comparison with Tony Martin to say that it can be more easily related to because of the circumstances and is therefore more understandable than an attack on a random passer by. I GET THAT!!!!!!!!!!! I picked up on the word because when you put it in the context of being LESS understandable than the Tony Martin case, it carries the implication that if we dig deeper we might eventually find some mitigation, that there IS some level of understanding just less of it and I'm saying that there's not. I suppose I should have said that it's not LESS understandable (YOUR MEANING) than the Tony Martin case, it is completely without any level of understanding (YOUR MEANING) because there is no more to discover as regards motive, therefore it cannot be understood (YOUR MEANING) at all. Which is why I said that I fully understand (MY MEANING) what happened (murder) because it's as clear as day and further digging will be fruitless. DO YOU SEE IT NOW? even if you don't please don't respond because the suicide rate on ABC is going up by the post and I'm starting to makle SD look like a real fighter.

ok let's move from 'understandable' to 'interesting'

"Firstly, you yourself are arguing that 'understandable' means roughly 'logical', or that you can see the logic, allowing for disagreement. Am I right?" NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! SOMETHING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LOGICAL IN ITS MOTIVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD!! That's where you're going wrong. That's where you keep falling down in your point and missing mine entirely. To understand is nothing to do with logic or how people choose to use it, it's to know something completely, to have nothing more to find out about something. To be in posession of all the relevent facts and have a total UNDERSTANDING of the situation. Regardless of empathy, logic, reason, common usage or anything else. "ok soldier, I want you to run over the top and start shooting when I blow this whistle. do you understand?" "Yes sir! (even though it makes no sense whatsoever to me and it's going to cost me my life I understand the instruction completely)" BTW Jack. If you want examples of the word 'understandable' in the way we're using it then just type it into google.You'll find page after page of technical, legal and public notices as well as literary and common references to it.