less than 42 months for killing autistic teenager

Meirleach

Well this is horrifying. If you cover anything, in almost any sort of oil and hold a naked flame to it you are obviously trying to set it alight.

They covered an autistic young man, on his 18th birthday in oil, and then lit him. There should be multiple people up on charges there. Think about that for a moment, they poured oil on him, and held a flame to his groin. They obviously intended to burn him, at the very least they wanted to burn his genitals.

"Oh they'll have to live with the thoughts of what they've done!" **** that, they should have thought of that before deciding that lighting another human being on fire was a fun idea. He and the others involved in that should have gotten the maximum sentance for manslaughter. 4years for burning an autistic 18year old to death(which in the end took 2days), is a farce.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

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?

People do idiotic things like that without thinking. Last Halloween there was a party in Galway, where seemingly someone put a lighter to someone's costume, which that of a sheep, and it caught fire. Now, I could be wrong on that and he could have stood too close to an open flame, but the lighter story was the one floating around the most then. The point is that people often don't take things into account, especially when alcohol is involved.

Now, I'm in no way justifying what he did or making excuses - he got what he deserved and I don't know if he'll learn from it, but regardless of if he doesn't, he'll have that stuck to his life for as long as he lives.

Regardless of what he did, you have to wonder about the other people that were there. They attended his birthday party at his flat, yet then started egging this guy along, even pushing him to light it.

starlings

VinLieger wrote: »

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?

lot of ridiculous torsion there, VL.

I referred to the events before the dousing and ignition as 'horseplay'.

Then I 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."

Clarifying terms does not make it 'ok'; it's merely stating my view that the victim's sexuality and social skills might not necessarily have been the object of the prank that turned violent.

starlings

starlings wrote: »

lot of ridiculous torsion there, VL.

I referred to the events before the dousing and ignition as 'horseplay'.

Then I 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."

Clarifying terms does not make it 'ok'; it's merely stating my view that the victim's sexuality and social skills might not necessarily have been the object of the prank that turned violent.

It's a hard one to call. The question you have to ask is would this have happened if the guy didn't have a disability (I dislike the term 'aspie') or happened to be gay? If it was because of those things, then you could argue that it was a hate crime of sorts.

starlings

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a hard one to call. The question you have to ask is would this have happened if the guy didn't have a disability (I dislike the term 'aspie') or happened to be gay? If it was because of those things, then you could argue that it was a hate crime of sorts.

I used 'aspie' because I've read it as written by people with Asbergers who prefer it. This isn't really an accepted term yet though, so I'll drop it. As it happens, I don't like the word 'disability'.

My problem with a term like 'hate crime' being arguable is that it could become a trump card. Like say, the term 'sexism'. In a case where a man has been dismissive of a woman, it might be because of a disagreement between them and not that he dismisses the other several billion of her sex.

It's better to define terms carefully than get into a situation where deep-seated hatred for an entire class can be assumed in every awful instance of people being inconsiderate or even unthinkingly violent toward each other.

the_syco

pickarooney wrote: »

He was tried for manslaughter and pleaded guilty.

Cool. Didn't spot that in the article.

I hope the image of this poor lad writhing around in pain stays with all those at the party for the rest of their lives.

omahaid

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

What? Why is it safe to assume that? I would assume the opposite which means he did mean to do it.

VinLieger

starlings wrote: »

Clarifying terms does not make it 'ok'; it's merely stating my view that the victim's sexuality and social skills might not necessarily have been the object of the prank that turned violent.

Fair enough but the fact that all the "horseplay" leading up to the dousing revolved around him being gay is it not safe to assume it was because he was openly gay?

starlings

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough but the fact that all the "horseplay" leading up to the dousing revolved around him being gay is it not safe to assume it was because he was openly gay?

It sounds like his sexuality was the subject of the 'horseplay', but it might not have been the object. People who behave like this, in packs, will use anything to slag or even torment the person in the group who is seen as the weakest.

What I find really sad about this case is that the victim had thrown the party in an effort to make friends, and - pure speculation here - he went along with the 'horseplay' without the social skills to see that the gatecrashers were not his friends and that the messing around would escalate into violence at their instigation.

VinLieger

starlings wrote: »

It sounds like his sexuality was the subject of the 'horseplay', but it might not have been the object. People who behave like this, in packs, will use anything to slag or even torment the person in the group who is seen as the weakest.

What I find really sad about this case is that the victim had thrown the party in an effort to make friends, and - pure speculation here - he went along with the 'horseplay' without the social skills to see that the gatecrashers were not his friends and that the messing around would escalate into violence at their instigation.

I dont think its speculation at all considering his aspergers which is why i think the whole the was so evil and vindictive, everyone involved took advantage of him in my opinion

Kinski

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of what he did, you have to wonder about the other people that were there. They attended his birthday party at his flat, yet then started egging this guy along, even pushing him to light it.

And the only person who went to his aid was a neighbour who hadn't been at the party, and who suffered burns too in the process.

Probably just a bunch of assholes who were taking advantage of this guy (we've all encountered groups of "friends" where one poor, often oblivious, sod is only on-board to serve as the butt of jokes.)

Kinski

starlings wrote: »

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.

How about scrawling homophobic slogans on a gay person? Or taking advantage of someone's vulnerability to do things that most people wouldn't tolerate?

Dravokivich

Kinski wrote: »

How about scrawling homophobic slogans on a gay person?

It provided a topic for abuse.

Kinski wrote: »

Or taking advantage of someone's vulnerability to do things that most people wouldn't tolerate?

He sounded weak and easily led from what I've read of the article. He was nothing more than an easy target.

It wasn't a hate crime, because he'd need to be an object of hate. He wasn't. All they did to him as unfortunate as the results may be, was just entertainment to the scumbags involved.

starlings

Kinski wrote: »

How about scrawling homophobic slogans on a gay person? Or taking advantage of someone's vulnerability to do things that most people wouldn't tolerate?

em, I don't think it's good. Did you think I applauded it?

Kinski

starlings wrote: »

em, I don't think it's good. Did you think I applauded it?

Of course not! But when talking about "hate crimes" you mention a man being "dismissive" of a woman, and ask is that necessarily sexist. Not necessarily, but it's not an appropriate comparison.

If a man were to attend a vulnerable (in whatever form) young woman's party, scrawl "stupid bitch" and the like on her half-naked body, then hold a lighter to her after she's been doused in flammable liquid, would you say there was no element of sexism involved in that? I think you'd have to have a deep-seated hatred of women do something like that, even if you ordinarily kept it well-hidden.

And I don't think this man's actions prior to the lighter incident should be dismissed as horseplay, especially considering that they culminated in the lighter incident.

Lollipops23

Dravokivich wrote: »

It provided a topic for abuse.



He sounded weak and easily led from what I've read of the article. He was nothing more than an easy target.

He had learning difficulties and it sounds like he was very vulnerable indeed.

It makes it all the more horrific that he was tortured in such a manner.

Dravokivich

Lollipops23 wrote: »

He had learning difficulties and it sounds like he was very vulnerable indeed.

It makes it all the more horrific that he was tortured in such a manner.

All the more reason for me to suspect he was easily lead. Quite tragic indeed, but I don't see anything to suggest a hate crime as such, which is how a few people here seem to be perceiving it.

Kinski

Dravokivich wrote: »

He sounded weak and easily led from what I've read of the article. He was nothing more than an easy target.

It wasn't a hate crime, because he'd need to be an object of hate. He wasn't. All they did to him as unfortunate as the results may be, was just entertainment to the scumbags involved.

But isn't that precisely what marginalised people (those victimised in hate crimes) are - perceived as weak, as easy targets? That's in large part where the hatred stems from, the sense that their "weakness," their "difference," is an affront to a macho culture which valorises strength and power.

Dravokivich

Kinski wrote: »

But isn't that precisely what marginalised people (those victimised in hate crimes) are - perceived as weak, as easy targets? That's in large part where the hatred stems from, the sense that their "weakness," their "difference," is an affront to a macho culture which valorises strength and power.

A weakness in an individual does not make them a symbol of hate, which I'd of thought was a requirement for a hate crime. This is not done with the mind set of, "lets attack a gay," or "Lets attack a 'tard." It was, "hey, we know this guy we can mess about with and he'd be none the wiser to it." It was abuse out and out, but not on a basis of discrimination or to the level of hate crime.

starlings

Kinski wrote: »

Of course not! But when talking about "hate crimes" you mention a man being "dismissive" of a woman, and ask is that necessarily sexist. Not necessarily, but it's not an appropriate comparison.

If a man were to attend a vulnerable (in whatever form) young woman's party, scrawl "stupid bitch" and the like on her half-naked body, then hold a lighter to her after she's been doused in flammable liquid, would you say there was no element of sexism involved in that? I think you'd have to have a deep-seated hatred of women do something like that, even if you ordinarily kept it well-hidden.

And I don't think this man's actions prior to the lighter incident should be dismissed as horseplay, especially considering that they culminated in the lighter incident.

hmmm

I think the sort of person who would do a thing like that is, as orestes said earlier 'hateful' and would scrawl whatever characteristic applied on the body of a vulnerable person, in a hateful way, be that a derogatory term based on gender, sexuality, mental/social ability.

IMO sexism is automatic prejudice against any woman, and a hate crime is a directed attack on a person or organisation who are seen as representative of a particular class. Neither apply directly here, though there are overlaps.

This one is a horrible mess of thuggish behaviour and opportunism. Those who egged it on are also culpable.

Kinski

Dravokivich wrote: »

A weakness in an individual does not make them a symbol of hate, which I'd of thought was a requirement for a hate crime.

But hate crimes are almost always about perceived weakness: for example, racists think of blacks as weaker than whites, in all sorts of ways - intellectually, morally, culturally - and that supposition of inherent weakness is compounded where black people are marginalised, i.e. where social norms render them weak, through formal and informal types of discrimination.

This is not done with the mind set of, "lets attack a gay," or "Lets attack a 'tard." It was, "hey, we know this guy we can mess about with and he'd be none the wiser to it." It was abuse out and out, but not on a basis of discrimination or to the level of hate crime.

How can you say with confidence it wasn't done with "the mindset of 'let's attack a gay,' or '...a 'tard"?

Look at the man's actions: when presented with the opportunity (and encouraged by onlookers), he wrote ant-gay messages on the boy, then held a flame to his genitals. Even leaving aside the ensuing conflagration, which the court accepted he hadn't foreseen, that's more than a little f***ed-up, and surely provides compelling evidence that this man hates homosexuals, and deliberately victimised one.

Dravokivich

Kinski wrote: »

How can you say with confidence it wasn't done with "the mindset of 'let's attack a gay,' or '...a 'tard"?

Because it wouldn't have been an isolated incident.

Kinski

Dravokivich wrote: »

Because it wouldn't have been an isolated incident.

Well, without poring over the details of this guy's biography, we don't know if it was entirely isolated; it may be that he displayed homophobic tendencies in other situations.

Anyhow, there's a first time for everything...

Kinski

starlings wrote: »

Those who egged it on are also culpable.

That we can agree on.

the_syco

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough but the fact that all the "horseplay" leading up to the dousing revolved around him being gay is it not safe to assume it was because he was openly gay?

So if I called you gay enough times, you are suddenly gay?

Kinski

He was openly gay according to the report I saw.

Lollipops23

I'm not sure where bullying stops and hate crimes begin...? They're one and same IMHO. You're picking on someone because of a perceived difference between you: they're black, you're white, they're gay, you're straight, they support Chelsea, you support Man U. Seriously, who cares?

The kid (and he was a kid) was taunted and tortured and met a horrifically violent death, all because some yob wanted to look the big man.

I know it's clichéd, but where were his parents? I read he lived alone..at 17/18 and when he's a vulnerable person? Doesn't tally...

Grand Moff Tarkin

Deleted User wrote: »

People do idiotic things like that without thinking. Last Halloween there was a party in Galway, where seemingly someone put a lighter to someone's costume, which that of a sheep, and it caught fire. Now, I could be wrong on that and he could have stood too close to an open flame, but the lighter story was the one floating around the most then. The point is that people often don't take things into account, especially when alcohol is involved.

Now, I'm in no way justifying what he did or making excuses - he got what he deserved and I don't know if he'll learn from it, but regardless of if he doesn't, he'll have that stuck to his life for as long as he lives.

Regardless of what he did, you have to wonder about the other people that were there. They attended his birthday party at his flat, yet then started egging this guy along, even pushing him to light it.

I would still class it as a murder.

Guy:Incognito

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?

TBH it sounds like what comes up on my facebook wall every time someone on my friends list leaves themselves logged in somewhere. Very few people seem to be able to get any more creative when fraping someone than "I'm gay" or "I'm a bender". Even when its done to the same person multiple times , that's all that's put up. Sure look how many pictures are floating around online of people that fell asleep at parties. IS there 1 that doesn't have a cock drawn on the guy?

Was the guy actually gay? If he was and they knew it , it does add a different side to it.

Riddle101

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm not sure where bullying stops and hate crimes begin...? They're one and same IMHO. You're picking on someone because of a perceived difference between you: they're black, you're white, they're gay, you're straight, they support Chelsea, you support Man U. Seriously, who cares?

The kid (and he was a kid) was taunted and tortured and met a horrifically violent death, all because some yob wanted to look the big man.

I know it's clichéd, but where were his parents? I read he lived alone..at 17/18 and when he's a vulnerable person? Doesn't tally...

Did he live alone? Didn't know that. Kid would need good looking after if he was autistic.

VinLieger

the_syco wrote: »

So if I called you gay enough times, you are suddenly gay?

No of course it doesnt but several articles have said he was openly gay. Maybe get your facts straight before taking issue with what i wrote

Scruffles

Riddle101 wrote: »

Did he live alone? Didn't know that. Kid would need good looking after if he was autistic.

he was an aspie,aspies by definition are high functioning and just as able to be independant as any neurotypical.
those of us who are at the opposite end of the autism spectrum to him dont need 'looking after' either,we arent kids that need mollycoddling,we need support to live our lives.