less than 42 months for killing autistic teenager

seven_eleven

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/03/u-k-man-gets-42-months-for-killing-autistic-gay-teen-by-setting-him-on-fire/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-21887535

Steven Simpson, 18, suffered burns to 60 percent of his body when 20-year-old Jordan Sheard set him on fire at a party Simpson threw for himself at his home on June 22,

The court heard that as Simpson became increasingly drunk at his party, he was dared to strip to his boxer shorts. Sheard, who had crashed the house party, was seen taunting Simpson, and then scrawling obscene and homophobic insults on his bare stomach, face and forearm.
In the early morning hours of June 23, Sheard took a bottle of Calypso tanning oil from Simpson’s bedroom and, as it was poured over him, others chanted: “Light it, light it.”

The court heard that Sheard then held a cigarette lighter to Simpson’s groin, and the highly flammable liquid instantly caught fire, and flames engulfed Simpson’s body.
When paramedics arrived, they also found the homophobic messages scrawled on Simpson’s body, including the words “gay boy” written on his forehead, and “I love dick” scrawled across his chest.

Judge Roger Keen, in accepting that Simpson’s death was accidental, told Sheard that the evening had involved “good-natured horseplay” but that putting a flame to a man doused in flammable fluid was “a highly dangerous act.”

What an absolute dickhead. He wasnt even invited to the party, and clearly took advantage of the vulnerable autistic teen. Its clear that he wasnt the only person involved in the killing of him, at least 5 others were involved in the blatant bullying.

Also, "good-natured horseplay"? what a moronic statement from the judge, just throwing a blind eye to the fact the poor chap was being terrorized. Sickening to be honest.

Seachmall

He pours flammable liquid over a guy he had been bullying all night and then set it alight.


And this is "good-natured horseplay"?


Is that judge high? Because he's clearly a moron.

The judge who presided over this case has serious questions to ask himself about homophobic bias. And the bystanders who egged on the attack should have serious charges to face.

That poor guy, what a horrible way to die. Very sad story indeed.:(

Mr. Manager

Day after day it's the same threads in AH about poor judges decisions.

Sickening stuff.

People need to wake up and start dishing out harsher sentences.

Bipolar Joe

Out of interest, who presides over the judges in Ireland? Is there some sort of council that they have to report to? It doesn't make sense for them to be unaccountable.

Gatling

Hate crime is considered horse play, the world is really losing the plot,
The scum bag deserve's dragged behind a car or truck then the same for then others and the judge

spankysue

I shouldn't have read that, I feel sick to my stomach now.

SunKing

Absolutely disgusting behavior...

orestes

Sorry, but to me that really does sound like an arshole being a bully that just went horribly and tragically wrong. The victim was sprayed with tanning oil, I seriously doubt that anybody realised that tanning oil was so flammable. I'm not saying it wasn't a horrible and cruel thing to do, but it doesn't seem to me like anybody meant to cause the victim serious harm, they were just being bastards. Yes, the homophobic aspect of what happened is disgusting, but it doesn't seem to me after reading the articles that anybody meant the victim any physical harm (I know bullying is disgusting and horrible and does damage far beyond physical harm, but the guy on trial wasn't on trial for being a bully). I've said before on here hundreds of times that I find bullying and homophobia disgusting, and I do, but I don't think that they should be used as mitigating factors in what seems to me to have been a tragic accidental death that was caused by ignorance rather than intention.

I'm not saying the guy shouldn't have been convicted for causing the death, he was and I believe he should have been, but I honestly think that in this case the judge got it right. It wasn't a hate crime, it was an accidental crime committed by a hateful person.

Grayson

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Day after day it's the same threads in AH about poor judges decisions.

Sickening stuff.

People need to wake up and start dishing out harsher sentences.

No they don't. There are thousands of court cases in the UK and ireland every day. This is one bad case. In this case, it's not like the judge was constrained or anything. It sounds like he was probably the kind of guy who bullied when he was younger and therefore thinks this is innocent fun. He's a moron and shouldn't be a judge, but it's hardly a crushing indictment of the whole legal system.

For what it's worth although I don't think the accused intended to kill or seriously physically harm the victim, I think he was cruel, vicious, nasty and stupid. It might be "accidental", but it was definitely avoidable. Personally I hope the case is appealed by the CPS and the guy sees his sentence tripled at least.

orestes

orestes wrote: »

Sorry, but to me that really does sound like an arshole being a bully that just went horribly and tragically wrong. The victim was sprayed with tanning oil, I seriously doubt that anybody realised that tanning oil was so flammable. I'm not saying it wasn't a horrible and cruel thing to do, but it doesn't seem to me like anybody meant to cause the victim serious harm, they were just being bastards. Yes, the homophobic aspect of what happened is disgusting, but it doesn't seem to me after reading the articles that anybody meant the victim any physical harm (I know bullying is disgusting and horrible and does damage far beyond physical harm, but the guy on trial wasn't on trial for being a bully). I've said before on here hundreds of times that I find bullying and homophobia disgusting, and I do, but I don't think that they should be used as mitigating factors in what seems to me to have been a tragic accidental death that was caused by ignorance rather than intention.

I'm not saying the guy shouldn't have been convicted for causing the death, he was and I believe he should have been, but I honestly think that in this case the judge got it right. It wasn't a hate crime, it was an accidental crime committed by a hateful person.

He was taunted about being gay, had homophobic insults scrawled all over his body and ultimately set on fire and left to burn (with people shouting 'light it, light it') and you think this isn't a hate crime?

So what do you think a hate crime IS, then?

Mr. Manager

Grayson wrote: »

No they don't. There are thousands of court cases in the UK and ireland every day. This is one bad case. In this case, it's not like the judge was constrained or anything. It sounds like he was probably the kind of guy who bullied when he was younger and therefore thinks this is innocent fun. He's a moron and shouldn't be a judge, but it's hardly a crushing indictment of the whole legal system.

So you're saying you agree with some of the sentences we've read about in here over recent weeks?

Bipolar Joe

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

So you're saying you agree with some of the sentences we've read about in here over recent weeks?

Don't put words into people's mouths, that isn't what was said at all. I'd hope that as a Mod you'd have more cop on than that.

orestes

Pablo Pitiful Backgammon wrote: »

He was taunted about being gay, had homophobic insults scrawled all over his body and ultimately set on fire and left to burn (with people shouting 'light it, light it') and you think this isn't a hate crime?

So what do you think a hate crime IS, then?

I think it was a bunch of drunk teenagers being bullying arseholes that went tragically wrong. I'd consider a hate crime to be premeditating and intending to hurt/kill someone who is gay just because they are gay (or based on any other prejudice). Accidentally killing someone who is gay because you didn't realise tanning oil is highly flammable is bullying that ended up as a terrible crime.

Again, I am not trying to say that bullying or homophobia isn't terrible and harmful, but there is a big difference between bullying somebody and intentionally killing them.

Mr. Manager

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Day after day it's the same threads in AH about poor judges decisions.

Sickening stuff.

People need to wake up and start dishing out harsher sentences.

Grayson wrote: »

No they don't.

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

So you're saying you agree with some of the sentences we've read about in here over recent weeks?

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Don't put words into people's mouths, that isn't what was said at all. I'd hope that as a Mod you'd have more cop on than that.

Sorry but what am I missing? Also, me modding a gaming forum has nothing to do with here.

Bipolar Joe

orestes wrote: »

I think it was a bunch of drunk teenagers being bullying arseholes that went tragically wrong. I'd consider a hate crime to be premeditating and intending to hurt/kill someone who is gay just because they are gay (or based on any other prejudice). Accidentally killing someone who is gay because you didn't realise tanning oil is highly flammable is bullying that ended up as a terrible crime.

Again, I am not trying to say that bullying or homophobia isn't terrible and harmful, but there is a big difference between bullying somebody and intentionally killing them.

I think putting a flame near anyone's penis means you intend to hurt them. If I dropped a bowling ball on your head on purpose, it's clear that I want you to be in pain.

Bipolar Joe

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Sorry but what am I missing? Also, me modding a gaming forum has nothing to do with here.

You're missing that entire post where Grayson explained what he meant and you're doing it on purpose to skew what was said and it's not going to work.

Gatling

Its a shame to see people using justifiable excuses for this horrific crime against a vulnerable teen ,

Face it he torched a human being to death

orestes

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I think putting a flame near anyone's penis means you intend to hurt them. If I dropped a bowling ball on your head on purpose, it's clear that I want you to be in pain.

I disagree, I think it was teenagers being idiots that went wrong. I've had people hold lit lighters to my ponytail on nights out thousands of times, a lot of them people I didn't know, but I seriously doubt any of them were trying to actually set my head on fire.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

he torched a human being to death

While being cheered on, no less.

Disgusting story. Can only imagine the pain he must've went through. Stomache turning stuff.

Mr. Manager

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

You're missing that entire post where Grayson explained what he meant and you're doing it on purpose to skew what was said and it's not going to work.

What won't work?

He explained how he didn't think sentences needed to be harsher. So I questioned it.

Not entirely sure what you think I'm trying to get at...

Remmy

How he didn't even get Manslaughter for this is beyond me

orestes

orestes wrote: »

I've had people hold lit lighters to my ponytail on nights out thousands of times, a lot of them people I didn't know, but I seriously doubt any of them were trying to actually set my head on fire.

That's the same thing as writing 'obscene' comments on them, dousing someone in a flammable oil and holding a lighter under their balls, alright, yeah.

starlings

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I think putting a flame near anyone's penis means you intend to hurt them. If I dropped a bowling ball on your head on purpose, it's clear that I want you to be in pain.

true, but up to that point the writing on the poor kid's body and getting him to strip are commonplace 'horseplay' when drink is involved. It could have just ended up with him waking to a splitting hangover and shaved eyebrows, if this dickhead hadn't used the opportunity of a room of hyper/drunk eejits to actually hurt the kid.

I think we should be careful about using terms like 'bullying' and 'hate crime' when it might just have been a prank gone wrong on a victim who happened to be both gay and Aspie.

catallus

Sheffield Crown Court was told that Jordan Sheard, 20, flicked a lighter to Steven’s crotch as a practical joke and ran as he went up in flames. Steven, of Pleasant View, Cudworth, near Barnsley, died from 60% burns in hospital the next day.

Sheard, who initially suggested Steven had set himself on fire, admitted to manslaughter yesterday and was jailed for three and a half years.

Judge Roger Keen QC told him: “What it [the practical joke] did was engulf him in a fire. You tried to briefly assist and then you ran away. That in my judgment is a serious aggravating factor.”

http://forgetoday.com/news/man-jailed-for-manslaughter-after-setting-teenager-on-fire/

It seems to be a horrible bunch of drunken idiots picking on the weakest of the bunch, real Lord of the Flies stuff.


At about 2am partygoer Reece Thompson covered Steven in tanning oil. Then Jordan Sheard took our a cigarette lighter and flicked it at Steven’s crotch – encouraged by revellers who chanted “light it, light it, see what happens!”
Sheard, of Darfield Road, Cudworth, told police he was egged on by others and would not have pulled out the lighter if he had been sober.

Andrew Smith, defending Sheard, said: “It was the result of a criminally stupid prank that went wrong in a bad way. He is a pleasant young man with no edge to his character, hard-working and has a degree of intelligence. He has been deeply and significantly affected by what he has done and the tragic consequences that ensued.”

Madam_X

IMO it does seem like the guy and his pals were out to harm him, but doubtfully to kill him. If the guy didn't know the tanning stuff was flammable, why would he put a lighter to it? He was targeted because he was autistic/gay too - a hate crime for sure IMO.

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Sorry but what am I missing?

You're pretending Grayson said he agrees with the lenient sentences sometimes handed out for crimes that seem deserving of much more severe punishments.

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

He explained how he didn't think sentences needed to be harsher. So I questioned it.

He said absolutely no such thing.

Gatling wrote: »

Its a shame to see people using justifiable excuses for this horrific crime against a vulnerable teen

Nah, nobody made any excuses - whatsoever.

Gatling

starlings wrote: »

I think we should be careful about using terms like 'bullying' and 'hate crime' when it might just have been a prank gone wrong on a victim who happened to be both gay and Aspie.

Are you actually serious

This piece of scum wasn't a mate or actually a invited to the victims party or flat

A prank - would you say the same if it was your brother/son

Grayson

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

What won't work?

He explained how he didn't think sentences needed to be harsher. So I questioned it.

Not entirely sure what you think I'm trying to get at...

So because I disagree with you and think you're wrong, does that make all mods wrong? Or all call of duty players are wrong?

It doesn't.

And I disagree with the sentance and the judge in this case. But that doesn't mean I think that all sentances are two low or that all judges are morons.

Go back to CoD where cheap shots are worth something.

kowloon

Seachmall wrote: »

He pours flammable liquid over a guy he had been bullying all night and then set it alight.


And this is "good-natured horseplay"?


Is that judge high? Because he's clearly a moron.

Probably considered normal when the judge was up to it in his Eton days...

starlings

Madam_X wrote: »

IMO it does seem like the guy and his pals were out to harm him, but doubtfully to kill him. If the guy didn't know the tanning stuff was flammable, why would he put a lighter to it? He was targeted because he was autistic/gay too - a hate crime for sure IMO.

You're pretending Grayson said he agrees with the lenient sentences sometimes handed out for crimes that seem deserving of much more severe punishments.

Nah, nobody made any excuses - whatsoever.

I think bullies go for an easy target, so people are targeted for any perceived difference or weakness, e.g. poor social skills, a stammer. That the young man in this case was gay and had Asbergers and wasn't able to defend himself must have seemed like a jackpot to the people who bullied him. But I don't think they'd have the premeditation to torch the local LGBT youth club, which would be a hate crime.

starlings

Gatling wrote: »

Are you actually serious

This piece of scum wasn't a mate or actually a invited to the victims party or flat

A prank - would you say the same if it was your brother/son

it really comes down to definitions here. See my last post.

Riddle101

Stupid Judge. Hopefully someone in prison sets the guy who did it on fire.

pickarooney

Did it say anywhere that he was gay?

Solair

The leniency of that sentence should be appealed.

Also, most of those products will have a warning like
HIGHLY FLAMMABLE - KEEP AWAY FROM NAKED FLAMES printed clearly on the bottle.
Particularly any product that might be used on someone's person as it is possible that someone could use it while smoking.

I sincerely hope the DPP/Crown appeals it, or it would be setting a very low standard for protection of life.

RIP & condolences to his family and friends. That's just an awful, awful way to go.

Absolutely sickened even reading it.

donegal_road

he got the same length of sentence as the guy over on the other AH thread who hacked into and AT & T database and stole customer details.. I thought it was a thread on the same story at first glance

Solair

donegal_road wrote: »

he got the same length of sentence as the guy over on the other AH thread who hacked into and AT & T database and stole customer details.. I thought it was a thread on the same story at first glance

That's the other extreme. In the USA in particular, 'computer crimes' / copyright crimes tend to carry totally disproportionately harsh sentences in many cases.

Grayson

Solair wrote: »

The leniency of that sentence should be appealed.

Also, most of those products will have a warning like
HIGHLY FLAMMABLE - KEEP AWAY FROM NAKED FLAMES printed clearly on the bottle.
Particularly any product that might be used on someone's person as it is possible that someone could use it while smoking.

I sincerely hope the DPP/Crown appeals it, or it would be setting a very low standard for protection of life.

RIP & condolences to his family and friends. That's just an awful, awful way to go.

Absolutely sickened even reading it.

To be fair, I think you're expecting a lot if you expect any drunkard to read the instructions.

Not that common fcuking sense wouldn't have dictated the possible outcome of applying a flame to oil.

Mr. Manager

Grayson wrote: »

So because I disagree with you and think you're wrong, does that make all mods wrong? Or all call of duty players are wrong?

It doesn't.

And I disagree with the sentance and the judge in this case. But that doesn't mean I think that all sentances are two low or that all judges are morons.

Go back to CoD where cheap shots are worth something.

What are you on about...? Seriously? What cheap shot.

I just questioned something. Lose the attitude.

Grayson

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

What are you on about...? Seriously? What cheap shot.

I just questioned something. Lose the attitude.

That was one of those occasions where I tried to be smart arsed and failed.

But when it works, I'm fcuking hilarious.

Riddle101

The people who were egging the guy on to light it, should be punished too.

Solair

The other aspect of this is that the guy was a 20-year-old man when he did this, not some kind of teenager pranking someone.

I honestly think if you replaced '18 year old gay man' with '18 year old blond girl' the guy would have been put away for life.

suicide_circus

Off topic but when did we stop using "years" as a unit to denote a 12 month period?

Grand Moff Tarkin

Life is so cheap now.

Terry1985

Solair wrote: »

I honestly think if you replaced '18 year old gay man' with '18 year old blond girl' the guy would have been put away for life.

I honestly think if you replaced '18 year old gay man' with '18 year old straight man' then nobody would've started a thread about it in AH.

VinLieger

starlings wrote: »

it really comes down to definitions here. See my last post.

Definitions nothing the piece of scum lit him on fire end of conversation, dont remember any of my friends dousing me in a flammable substance and then putting a flame to it but hey maybe my friends arent as good as yours.
Also why is it ok if its only a prank gone wrong on a gay or "aspie" person?

Shreddy Krueger

Well both Jordan Sheard and the Judge seem like right C.unts.

the_syco

First off, where the f**k does it say the dead kid is gay? Nowhere.

The scumbag gatecrashes the party, and victimizes the host (Steven), covers him with highly flammable liquid and lights Steven on fire.

But it doesn't end there. Sadly, Steven Simpson takes two more days to die. Jordan Sheard should get tried for manslaughter.

pickarooney

the_syco wrote: »

Jordan Sheard should get tried for manslaughter.

He was tried for manslaughter and pleaded guilty.

It's a horrible story, but it's also hard to call. The fact is that nobody meant to kill the guy, so in this case the sentence seems adequate. Sure, what he did was vile and disgusting and horrible and he's going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. But he didn't mean to do it - it's safe to assume that nobody knew that the lotion was as flammable as it turned out to be.

It does seem that the deceased was gay though, as quoted in the article -
"Mr Simpson, who had Asperger's Syndrome and learning difficulties, was bullied during the party at his flat in Cudworth due to his disability and sexuality, prosecutors had said."

Some posters were asking where it says he was gay.

EazyD

What I can't understand is the judges reasoning to label it simply as "horseplay". What did that monkey(for lack of a better word) expect when he put the flame to the kid? If it was the judges son who died in such a horrific manner would it have been viewed merely as a case of manslaughter?

Grand Moff Tarkin

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a horrible story, but it's also hard to call. The fact is that nobody meant to kill the guy, so in this case the sentence seems adequate. Sure, what he did was vile and disgusting and horrible and he's going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. But he didn't mean to do it - it's safe to assume that nobody knew that the lotion was as flammable as it turned out to be.

It does seem that the deceased was gay though, as quoted in the article -
"Mr Simpson, who had Asperger's Syndrome and learning difficulties, was bullied during the party at his flat in Cudworth due to his disability and sexuality, prosecutors had said."

Some posters were asking where it says he was gay.

If he was willing to do it at all i can't see it effecting him as an emotional issue when he is out of prison. How sure are you that he did not mean to do it?