Wolf Hall..s2....King Henry Referred To...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Did He Get Off Light Or What?
39 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No.
He is lucky to have been given a suspended sentence, given that he could not have known that the victim of his assault was a paedophile.
And he has to live with the fact that he has killed someone, for the rest of his life.
It's all very well for us sofa-sitters to say that the paedophile got what he deserved, but it would be a cold individual who did not feel some guilt for what he did to cause the death.
He is lucky to have been given a suspended sentence, given that he could not have known that the victim of his assault was a paedophile.
And he has to live with the fact that he has killed someone, for the rest of his life.
It's all very well for us sofa-sitters to say that the paedophile got what he deserved, but it would be a cold individual who did not feel some guilt for what he did to cause the death.
andy-hughes
/// No. ///
/// He is lucky to have been given a suspended
sentence, ///
Not sure what you are saying there, you said 'NO' was that in answer to my question "Did He Get Off Light Or What?"
Because you seem to agree that he did get off lightly, and I also agree with that.
As already said, he had no idea of his victims past, and yes he might be a tad upset at someone taking photos of his children, but do we know that they just happened to be in the photos he was taking, or were they solely of his children? He may have been a press photographer taking random photos of the outrageously rich out enjoying themselves for example.
/// No. ///
/// He is lucky to have been given a suspended
sentence, ///
Not sure what you are saying there, you said 'NO' was that in answer to my question "Did He Get Off Light Or What?"
Because you seem to agree that he did get off lightly, and I also agree with that.
As already said, he had no idea of his victims past, and yes he might be a tad upset at someone taking photos of his children, but do we know that they just happened to be in the photos he was taking, or were they solely of his children? He may have been a press photographer taking random photos of the outrageously rich out enjoying themselves for example.
AOG - ///// No. ///
/// He is lucky to have been given a suspended
sentence, ///
Not sure what you are saying there, you said 'NO' was that in answer to my question "Did He Get Off Light Or What?"
Because you seem to agree that he did get off lightly, and I also agree with that. //
I didn't express myself very clearly - my thoughts are that he has got off lightly in terms of his sentence, but not in terms of the trauma of taking someone's life. As I said, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the victim was a nasty piece of work, and the world is better without him, but to my mind, that does not balance the inevitable guilt of having killed someone.
//As already said, he had no idea of his victims past, and yes he might be a tad upset at someone taking photos of his children, but do we know that they just happened to be in the photos he was taking, or were they solely of his children? He may have been a press photographer taking random photos of the outrageously rich out enjoying themselves for example. //
A valid point. It was extreme over-reaction, but as a father of three daughters, I do understand his protective instincts, but there has to be a limit to reactionary behaviour - and beating someone to death is well beyond it.
/// He is lucky to have been given a suspended
sentence, ///
Not sure what you are saying there, you said 'NO' was that in answer to my question "Did He Get Off Light Or What?"
Because you seem to agree that he did get off lightly, and I also agree with that. //
I didn't express myself very clearly - my thoughts are that he has got off lightly in terms of his sentence, but not in terms of the trauma of taking someone's life. As I said, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the victim was a nasty piece of work, and the world is better without him, but to my mind, that does not balance the inevitable guilt of having killed someone.
//As already said, he had no idea of his victims past, and yes he might be a tad upset at someone taking photos of his children, but do we know that they just happened to be in the photos he was taking, or were they solely of his children? He may have been a press photographer taking random photos of the outrageously rich out enjoying themselves for example. //
A valid point. It was extreme over-reaction, but as a father of three daughters, I do understand his protective instincts, but there has to be a limit to reactionary behaviour - and beating someone to death is well beyond it.
RandyMarsh
/// Seems appropriate to me, you cannot take pictures of peoples kids and not expect a reaction, the reaction was a few punches to the head. He would be alive if he was not a heavy drinker, he would be alive if he had not taken the photos. 6 months sounds right to me. ///
Yes but it is likely under Spanish rule he will not haver to go to jail.
But apart from that, being punched, which in turn caused him to die, you don't seem particular concerned about.
What about that drunken chap, during those riots, who was pushed to the ground by the police, and later died also because of an ongoing medical condition, I bet you have an entirely different opinion on that case, don't you?
/// Seems appropriate to me, you cannot take pictures of peoples kids and not expect a reaction, the reaction was a few punches to the head. He would be alive if he was not a heavy drinker, he would be alive if he had not taken the photos. 6 months sounds right to me. ///
Yes but it is likely under Spanish rule he will not haver to go to jail.
But apart from that, being punched, which in turn caused him to die, you don't seem particular concerned about.
What about that drunken chap, during those riots, who was pushed to the ground by the police, and later died also because of an ongoing medical condition, I bet you have an entirely different opinion on that case, don't you?
'jump to the conclusion that the victim was a nasty piece of work'
I don't think there's much of a 'jump' to be made.
//He would be alive if he was not a heavy drinker ... //
'That is an unproven assumption.'
No it's not, the report said:These punches would not normally have caused a person's death, Gomez Sancho continued, but Sandro had severe liver cirrhosis which meant he died minutes later.
I don't think there's much of a 'jump' to be made.
//He would be alive if he was not a heavy drinker ... //
'That is an unproven assumption.'
No it's not, the report said:These punches would not normally have caused a person's death, Gomez Sancho continued, but Sandro had severe liver cirrhosis which meant he died minutes later.
What about that drunken chap, during those riots, who was pushed to the ground by the police, and later died also because of an ongoing medical condition, I bet you have an entirely different opinion on that case, don't you?
You mean the chap that was not drunk and was choked to death by police for selling cigarettes? - Yep, completely different, he was murdered for selling cigarettes, this chap was punched for taking pictures.
You mean the chap that was not drunk and was choked to death by police for selling cigarettes? - Yep, completely different, he was murdered for selling cigarettes, this chap was punched for taking pictures.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
