Yet again....

[bazwillrun]

the scum win

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143 248.stm

[bazwillrun]

youre making yourself look even more foolish now, if you had half a brain would just keep your mouth shut.

obviously these lowlifes were all arrested and prosecuted purely for fun they had nothing to do with this mans death whatsoever !

the jury thought lets all have a laugh lets find them guilty !
after all throwing half brick sized stones at a person is just a schoolboy prank !

[meredith101]

""" half brick sized stones"""?????? I bet they probably found that near the body of the deceased. In fact, that may have been the stone that hit the deceased on the head, leading to the heart attack that killed him. It may have been the stone, or in fact the stress of feeling hemmed in (he did have a previous heart condition, and was elderly). But let's assume for sake of argument that we know it was an injury to the head that precipitated the heart attack that killed him.
So we have: one rock thrown, causes head injury, leads to heart attack. Wait: we have 2 (two) known cases of thrown rocks hitting victim's head, one of which (maybe led to heart attack).
So baz, my friend tell me:
-which of the 5 convicted boys threw the two rocks which hit him on the head?
-which of the thrown rocks that hit him on the head led to the heart attack?
-presumably if there were 2 head injuries from 2 separate rocks, this means that at most 2 of the boys threw the rocks that led to his death? But there are 5 (five) manslaughter convictions.
So to be convicted of manslaughter, I just have to throw a rock near someone, miss, and have my mate beside me strike him on the head with his rock? Guilt by....proximity? Is that what you're saying, baz? I throw a rock at someone, miss, but someone else hits him, and I get done as well? Is that what you're trying to tell me, baz?