Im terribly angry today..

Well, im angry most days. Ok, all days.

But i read this story...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12011868

------------------------------------
Asylum seeker who ran over girl is allowed to stay

16 December 2010 Last updated at 20:45 Help A failed asylum seeker who ran over and killed a 12 year old girl while banned from driving has been allowed to stay in the UK.

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who's from Iraq, ran away after hitting Amy Houston in 2003. He was allowed to stay in the UK and now has a family here.

Two senior immigration judges rejected a final appeal by the UK Border Agency to have him deported, saying it would infringe his human rights.

Amy's father, Paul Houston, told the BBC he was bitterly disappointed.

--------------------------------

Now, im pretty sure the Iraqi didnt actually purposely murder the girl. But he certainly doesnt seem arsed about it anyway.

But anyway, he killed a 12 year old girl, driving without a valid liscence, whilst banned, and fled the scene leaving her to "die like a dog" under his wheels.

He served 4 months in prison.

And i just thought.. well, im glad that nothing like this has ever happened to me, because i am pretty sure I would find that bloke and I would actually kill him. I really do not think i would be able to swallow such a bitter pill, If something like that occured in my life and not have an extremely violent outburst. I read these stories and i get genuinelly enraged about it. And I don't even know any of the parties involved. If this was to befall my immediate family members, i genuinelly would want to kill somebody.

So, all in, what do YOU think is a fair term?

I doubt he purposely killed the girl, but fleeing the scene is a really big no-no. So i say.. 6 years, followed by deportation.

What say you?

Oh and as a curious side note, If the father and you went and killed the man in question. Then pleaded guilty on the ground of temporary insanity or whatnot, do you think he would get a lesser sentance due to the circumstances?

Fair term? Mandatory surrender of your right to respiration.
Next question.

Ok, what about the second one?

If some fether killed your daughter and you went and cut him from his neck to his knackers, do you think it would be life in jail or a good lawyer could get you a greatly reduced sentence with all of the mitigating circumstances involved?

I would like to know this....

If some fether killed your daughter and you went and cut him from his neck to his knackers, do you think it would be life in jail or a good lawyer could get you a greatly reduced sentence with all of the mitigating circumstances involved?
***I wouldn't give a one way or the other at that point. My reason for existence would be over.

Now what should the guy's sentence be that ran over the girl? As noted, mandatory removal of respiratory pirvileges.

I had a friend killed on his motorbike in London. The driver was leaned over to the passenger side of the car looking for a box of tissues in the glove box.

The car crossed the line into oncoming traffic. Hit him head on. She didn't even see what she had hit.

She was fined and banned for driving for 3 months for dangerous driving! Now where is the fairness in that?

Not to sound like a hippy, but how does killing someone bring the other person back? Do you think most people wouldn't learn to drive better after that?

My vote is circumstantial. If someone has a big sneeze (an involuntary action) and turns and kills someone, do they deserve some massive, mandatory penalty that would otherwise be valid for someone who purposely got wasted then drove around yelling "I wanna get the high score! WOO!"? It really depends. If the dude has a family, does their opinion matter?

If someone kills another while under the influence of any substance, they should be executed.

Not because it brings the other person back, but as a deterrent to others, and to prevent a repeat offense.

Eye for an eye is a pretty basic emotional responce, some would say life is unfair, but do you really think it's an equal trade?

Maybe it'll make you feel better, but nothing is going to really change.
IMO, the removal of 'respiratory pirvileges', can be a worse off situation.

But if it were me, then yea I'd prob. do what Frazzled suggested...only slowly.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Not to sound like a hippy, but how does killing someone bring the other person back?

Its not meant to.

I am not in favor of capital punishment, but real prison time (5-10 years, maybe?) and a permanent ban on driving (zero tolerance you go back in prison for life if you violate it) would probably fit. Double the sentence for fleeing the scene of the accident.

The offender in the cited situation should have been ejected. He has demonstrated clear disregard for the laws of his hosting country, to the point of accidentally killing someone. After his prison sentence he should have been removed from the country and never allowed to return.

An eye for an eye makes the world go round?

I can't believe the argument that deporting him would affect his human rights and deny him a normal family life.

This guy has flouted the law repeatedly before and after this incident. He has shown no remorse. Throw him in jail , send him back or hang him*.

*A one off pay-per-view special.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Not to sound like a hippy, but how does killing someone bring the other person back? Do you think most people wouldn't learn to drive better after that?

My vote is circumstantial. If someone has a big sneeze (an involuntary action) and turns and kills someone, do they deserve some massive, mandatory penalty that would otherwise be valid for someone who purposely got wasted then drove around yelling "I wanna get the high score! WOO!"? It really depends. If the dude has a family, does their opinion matter?

This case is not one where the driver very unfortunately had a seizure. He was a multiple failed dangerous driver, without insurance, and based on the rest of his record, a career criminal.

Interesting, why hanging?
I'd think it would have something invovling an auto-'accident'...

Sanctjud wrote:Interesting, why hanging?
I'd think it would have something invovling an auto-'accident'...

Hang him from a motorway overpass during rush hour?

It's being so level-headed that keeps me going.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Not to sound like a hippy, but how does killing someone bring the other person back? Do you think most people wouldn't learn to drive better after that?

that is an excellent point. They should be killed, and their body donated to science, specifically anyone working on reanimation.

So... all im getting out of this is that if I wanted to murder people in the UK, all I have to do is rent a car and run them over.

4 months in jail is nothing compared to removing some people that I really hate.

Mannahnin wrote:I am not in favor of capital punishment, but real prison time (5-10 years, maybe?) and a permanent ban on driving (zero tolerance you go back in prison for life if you violate it) would probably fit. Double the sentence for fleeing the scene of the accident.

The problem with throwing people in jail is that it's expensive. Logically, if you're going to sentence someone to life in prison, you're doing to safeguard the community. You're removing that individual from society for the rest of their life. But, in doing so, you take on the responsibility of caring for that person, feeding them, clothing them, and so on.

There are seven billion people on this planet. We have trouble feeding them all as is. That number is expected to grow to 10 billion, or more, by 2050. Do we really need to expend resources on people who are unwilling to abide by the rules of our society to the extent that they kill innocent people? In 2006, 68 billion dollars were spent on imprisoning people. This money could be far better spent on feeding our hungry, educating our children, rebuilding our infrastructure, or simply paying off our national debt.

The only way to do that is by getting rid of the prisoners.

The father of the dead girl made the point, what about his fething right to a fething family life? He had one child, who is dead, and that's that.

The Iraqi guy has only been allowed to stay in the UK because he made it a point to have two children while staying here, so now he has family ties.

I had to switch off the radio listening to it, because I have an only daughter, with the same name and almost the same age as the dead girl. As a father it makes you sick with fear and anger.

On balance I would deport the Iraqi. (He ought to have been prosecuted for manslaughter.) His wife/partner would have the choice of going with him or staying in the UK. It will be difficult for the children, but I don't see a better way.

I'm with Frazzled on this one.

Death, immediately.

Yes I'm serious.

This thread is awesome, I am glad to know there are so many people as filled with rage as I am.

Why.. it warms the cockles of my black malevolant heart!

Oh and shut up Cannerus you big hippy!

mattyrm wrote:Oh and as a curious side note, If the father and you went and killed the man in question. Then pleaded guilty on the ground of temporary insanity or whatnot, do you think he would get a lesser sentance due to the circumstances?

Again, agreeing with Frazzled, I don't think I'd care what the outcome would be. There would just be a sort of "Death Wish" type of rage going on if someone did that to my child.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:This thread is awesome, I am glad to know there are so many people as filled with rage as I am.

If you aren't enraged, you aren't paying attention.

I think our incompetent immigration service are partly to blame. He wasn't even supossed to be here when the event took place. More dawn raids please

Also does anyone want to punch the judges? Get off your fething pedestals you arrogant gakkers.

Brilliant!

Now, if the guy wasn't an asylum seeker what do you think the sentence should be?

There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Mr. Burning wrote:Brilliant!

Now, if the guy wasn't an asylum seeker what do you think the sentence should be?

The exact same, this is not an attack on asylum seekers.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

I doubt you've been involved in the legal system to make such a statement.

Frazzled wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

I doubt you've been involved in the legal system to make such a statement.

My wife is.

And I have had the dubious delight of being on the receiving end of our justice and courts system.

I'm glad I live in England and not armchair lawyer land, not that I oppose any moves to get rid of blood sucking asylum seekers.

Yeah Sorry Mr B, but i would happily hang a white British bloke as well.

I am an equal opportunities hater.

Frazzled wrote:I wouldn't give a one way or the other at that point. My reason for existence would be over.

Considering how often you threaten to kill people over trivial nonsense it doesn't really see mas though your reason for existence is your daughter.

Strap him to the front of a tank in Iraq and use him as extra armour.

That way you send him home and keep him safe all at the same time (who is going to shoot at a tank with one of your countrymen strapped to it?).

Redbeard wrote:
There are seven billion people on this planet. We have trouble feeding them all as is. That number is expected to grow to 10 billion, or more, by 2050. Do we really need to expend resources on people who are unwilling to abide by the rules of our society to the extent that they kill innocent people? In 2006, 68 billion dollars were spent on imprisoning people. This money could be far better spent on feeding our hungry, educating our children, rebuilding our infrastructure, or simply paying off our national debt.

The only way to do that is by getting rid of the prisoners.

I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I am not in favor of capital punishment, but real prison time (5-10 years, maybe?) and a permanent ban on driving (zero tolerance you go back in prison for life if you violate it) would probably fit. Double the sentence for fleeing the scene of the accident.

There are seven billion people on this planet. We have trouble feeding them all as is. That number is expected to grow to 10 billion, or more, by 2050. Do we really need to expend resources on people who are unwilling to abide by the rules of our society to the extent that they kill innocent people? In 2006, 68 billion dollars were spent on imprisoning people. This money could be far better spent on feeding our hungry, educating our children, rebuilding our infrastructure, or simply paying off our national debt.

The only way to do that is by getting rid of the prisoners.

While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I wouldn't give a one way or the other at that point. My reason for existence would be over.

Considering how often you threaten to kill people over trivial nonsense it doesn't really see mas though your reason for existence is your daughter.

I'd love to discuss that in person with you sometime...

mattyrm wrote: I am an equal opportunities hater.

You know an old manager of mine said this all the time, he hated me as well. I learnt a lot from that chap.

Hang em all!

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

What I mean is that the man should already have been deported on expiry of his visa. Deporting him on completion of his imprisonment would have have saved the trouble of trying to find him, as he would have been already in custody.

Prior convictions are usually not disclosed to the jury, in case it causes them to become biased, but the judge takes them into account when deciding the sentence.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd love to discuss that in person with you sometime...

See, that's an example of what I'm talking about.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

What I mean is that the man should already have been deported on expiry of his visa. Deporting him on completion of his imprisonment would have have saved the trouble of trying to find him, as he would have been already in custody.

Prior convictions are usually not disclosed to the jury, in case it causes them to become biased, but the judge takes them into account when deciding the sentence.

Of course, Like a lot of these cases the events need not have happened.

dogma wrote:
I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Mannahnin wrote:
While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

I guess that's where we differ. I view the handful of innocents executed under such a system to be well worth the innocent lives preserved by not having to worry about repeat offences, and having a higher barrier to commit a crime as a result of the greater deterrent. I don't doubt that it will happen, but it's just that the number of innocents executed erroneously will be lower than the number of innocents not killed by criminals. (And, as an aside, the innocents who are accidentally imprisoned tend to be guilty of -something- a lot of the time. The cops don't pick you up near a crime scene in the middle of the night unless you were hanging around crime scenes in the middle of the night...

Redbeard wrote:
Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Yeah, that's what I figured (hoped?) your answer would be.

I agree. Not necessarily on the idea that DUI equals death, but given the circumstances noted, for sure.

Redbeard wrote:

dogma wrote:
I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Mannahnin wrote:
While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

I guess that's where we differ. I view the handful of innocents executed under such a system to be well worth the innocent lives preserved by not having to worry about repeat offences, and having a higher barrier to commit a crime as a result of the greater deterrent. I don't doubt that it will happen, but it's just that the number of innocents executed erroneously will be lower than the number of innocents not killed by criminals. (And, as an aside, the innocents who are accidentally imprisoned tend to be guilty of -something- a lot of the time. The cops don't pick you up near a crime scene in the middle of the night unless you were hanging around crime scenes in the middle of the night...

If you yourself were subject to execution because of a crime you did not commit or would have warranted a lesser sentence?

Them's the breaks, ain't they. You cannot discount a philosophy because of the off-chance that it might negatively affect you.

Furthermore, from what I've heard of the inside of jails, yeah, I'd probably rather be wrongly executed than wrongly imprisoned.

See, the inside of an (American, at least) jail, is not a nice place. There are gangs, drugs, rapes, violence. And, there's no real effort to change that. The majority of the public don't want to think about jails, and many think that it's a better punishment if the jail is a nasty place too. There's a saying, "no one ever won an election running on a prison reform platform". It's true. So, if I was to be wrongly convicted of something and sent to such a place, I think death would be a faster release than hoping that someone took up my case after the fact and tried to exonerate me.

Being wrongly convicted is pretty terrible either way. I just don't believe death is worse in that situation.

It's great to be enraged and all but at the end of the day I'll be chilling and mellow and nothing will have changed while of you yuppies will have spent energy being mad.

I agree with Gitz though. If we're going to kill people there is absolutely no logical reason not to use any suitable parts. Maybe they could end up causing more good than harm. Some people think this is morbid, but in a thread full of killing advocacy (and I'm going to assume opposition to assisted suicide ) I don't think it should cause too many rifts.

SilverMK2 wrote:Strap him to the front of a tank in Iraq and use him as extra armour.

That way you send him home and keep him safe all at the same time (who is going to shoot at a tank with one of your countrymen strapped to it?).

Dude, they have Friendly Fire as a special rule. It's a racial bonus.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'd love to discuss that in person with you sometime...

See, that's an example of what I'm talking about.

You assume much, and all of it incorrectly.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Maybe they could end up causing more good than harm. Some people think this is morbid, but in a thread full of killing advocacy (and I'm going to assume opposition to assisted suicide )

You assume incorrectly in my case.

There's far too many people around. Try driving up the 15 in rush hour traffic and see if you don't agree with me.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:(and I'm going to assume opposition to assisted suicide )

Nope, I'm in favour of assisted suicides too. Pretty much, anything that lowers the population rate, I'm in favour of. I think the number one threat to the planet is the ever increasing number of humans on it.

Anyone who wants to kill themselves likely isn't helping the planet along at that moment either. If we could drop the religious bias of some of our laws we could be so practical. Like a machine. With slaves and women, though that's a little redundant.

Redbeard wrote:

dogma wrote:
I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Mannahnin wrote:
While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

I guess that's where we differ. I view the handful of innocents executed under such a system to be well worth the innocent lives preserved by not having to worry about repeat offences, and having a higher barrier to commit a crime as a result of the greater deterrent. I don't doubt that it will happen, but it's just that the number of innocents executed erroneously will be lower than the number of innocents not killed by criminals. (And, as an aside, the innocents who are accidentally imprisoned tend to be guilty of -something- a lot of the time. The cops don't pick you up near a crime scene in the middle of the night unless you were hanging around crime scenes in the middle of the night...

That is at core a Benthamite argument, and is not without merit as a proposition.

It is therefore necessary to find out the number of murders committed by murderers who finish their sentence and commit more murders after release, and the number of actually innocent people in prison who would be executed.

Without this information, we cannot be sure we would be following the best course in condemning innocent people to death in order to prevent repeat murders.

Assisted suicide is just fine, with proper protections.

Frazzled wrote:
You assume much, and all of it incorrectly.

No, I haven't assumed anything.

I'm merely saying that someone who really considered their daughter as the center of their existence wouldn't threaten other over trivial things. After all, being sentenced to prison tends to deny daughters their fathers.

Unless you don't actually mean anything that you write here, and you're really just massaging your own...masculinity.

Now you're just trying to cover for yourself. Sad really.

I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

dogma wrote:Unless you don't actually mean anything that you write here, and you're really just massaging your own...masculinity.

The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You assume much, and all of it incorrectly.

No, I haven't assumed anything.

I'm merely saying that someone who really considered their daughter as the center of their existence wouldn't threaten other over trivial things. After all, being sentenced to prison tends to deny daughters their fathers.

Unless you don't actually mean anything that you write here, and you're really just massaging your own...masculinity.

That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Any kids you have are safe Fitzz, as long as you keep that makeup on.

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Any kids you have are safe Fitzz, as long as you keep that makeup on.

It not only keeps my kids safe..it keeps the neighbors off my lawn as well.

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Any kids you have are safe Fitzz, as long as you keep that makeup on.

It not only keeps my kids safe..it keeps the neighbors off my lawn as well.

YES!

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Ditto.

Frazzled wrote:Now you're just trying to cover for yourself. Sad really.

No, covering for myself would involve saying something other than what I initially said. I'm saying the exact same thing I said in my first post regarding this line of inquiry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

That's not what I said.

I said that if one centers their life on their daughter, then risking one's ability to care for said daughter is reckless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how, other than not making it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now you're just trying to cover for yourself. Sad really.

No, covering for myself would involve saying something other than what I initially said. I'm saying the exact same thing I said in my first post regarding this line of inquiry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

That's not what I said.

I said that if one centers their life on their daughter, then risking one's ability to care for said daughter is reckless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how, other than not making it.

Yep covering. You can't admit when you're wrong can you.

Back to the topic..

So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, you think they should be given the death penalty?!

Even i think thats a tad harsh!

As i said, 6-8 years would seem about right to me, i do not agree with the DP if they did it by accident, but fleeing the scene definately warrants at least 6-10 or something.

Unless you take DP to mean Double penetration, and not Death Penalty, because then i think that should be given to every petty criminal upwards from shop lifting.

dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

That's not what I said.

I said that if one centers their life on their daughter, then risking one's ability to care for said daughter is reckless..

passion rarely takes logic into account.

corpsesarefun wrote:passion rarely takes logic into account.

I think that may be exactly what dogma is getting at . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how, other than not making it.

Probably so -- and probably wise. Your argument is strong enough to speak for itself.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep covering. You can't admit when you're wrong can you.

Wrong about what?

Its a nice rhetorical trick to claim that someone is wrong, but it isn't very illustrative of what they might be wrong about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
passion rarely takes logic into account.

As Manchu said, that's the point.

I'm just saddened you can't admit it. Its such a a minor thing.

Yes just another case of out justice (and I use the word justice quite wrongly) system being trodden on my damn do-gooders. Oh it will infringe on his human rights will it? What about the girl's right to life? What about the girl's family's right to watch their daughter grow up? In my view if you commit a crime you have no rights, why should you? If you cant live by the laws of the country you are in, like everybody else has to then you dont have the right to be protected by that country's law either. Killing him may not bring the girl back but it would certainly rid the world of one more scumbag we could do without. Prisons are overcrowded and expensive and dont prevent repeat offences. I think a much better use could be found for the land and buildings which currently are used to house people who lets face it the human race (such as it is) could well do without. Perhaps we could then turn the prisons into shelters for the homeless. So I have to admit I'm firmly in the kill em all camp.

Take it outside ladies.

Frazzled wrote:I'm just saddened you can't admit it. Its such a a minor thing.

That's a very poor attempt at deflection.

What am I wrong about?

Excommunicate Traitoris wrote: Perhaps we could then turn the prisons into shelters for the homeless.

I know people who have been arrested for being homeless, so yeah.

Well some of this is devil`s advocate and some is my own opinion.

In the grand scheme you have to look at all the factors. I am not aware of all the details but:

Was it an accident or was it negligence. From that you can come up with an aproriate sentence. The car accident may hve been just that. fine. But running from the scene, with a death involved is far worse in my mind.

Also the sentence has to accomplish several things. 1. is it punishement for the crime? 2. is it mor of a deterence (statistics will show you that the Death Penalty is not an effective deterrent) and 3. is the sentence in the public interest.

In my country we had a case of a serial killer that went to trial for several murders, they were were pretty sure he killed more but going to trial for thosewould not have served the public interest. He received the max sentence and would not get more time in jail as a result. We also had a case of a somalian born refugee who led a life of crime (no murder but drugs and gang related crap). as a result he was deported (boo hoo).

In the case of the serial killer the public interest was served in my mind, for the somalian good riddance. You were given the equivalent of a lottery win coming to Canada and instead of making something of yourself you effed up. Too bad so sad.

I am not an advocate of the death penalty by any means but in some clear cut cases I can see the validity and it is isn't a revenge/eye for eye thing nor is it a deterrent. When you have cockroaches in your house you get rid of them. It's that simple. Some creeps like Bernardo, Williams and Picton should just be exterminated because like bugs they need to be. Not revenge, not deterrent just get rid of the virus.

In cases of accidents it is different. accidents happen. how they happen is another thing. Would deporting a guy for an accident make sense? maybe not. killing him certainly wouldn't (unless you live in Iran or China). Someone killing my boy by accident is one thing on purpose is another (Like a previous poster said, my measning for life would end so any repercussions for my actions thereafter would nor be an issue.)

When we face these things emotions run high, the key is to keep it in check.

mattyrm wrote:Take it outside ladies.

I will bow to Matty's wisdom. He has pulled the battling babe fight card. Auto win for Matty.

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, you think they should be given the death penalty?!

Even i think thats a tad harsh!

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. Did you hit a patch of black ice and skid into someone, or were you so slobbering drunk that you couldn't keep your car on the road?

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone,...

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. ...

No. It depends on what you CHOOSE to do. If your car skid on some ice and you hit someone; it's an accident.

But if you have chosen to drink and drive. Or if you've had a accident and then you decide to leave the victim alone in the middle of the street...

The rope.

I always like to think that if Frazz and Dogma were to ever meet, they'd wind up in a jovial tequila-off.

Mannahnin wrote:I always like to think that if Frazz and Dogma were to ever meet, they'd wind up in a jovial tequila-off.

Thats kind of the idea, except substitute rum for tequila. Which reminds me, I need to get some more. Hurray!

M_Stress wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone,...

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. ...

No. It depends on what you CHOOSE to do. If your car skid on some ice and you hit someone; it's an accident.

But if you have chosen to drink and drive. Or if you've had a accident and then you decide to leave the victim alone in the middle of the street...

The rope.

Really?

There are many reason why innocent people would leave the scene of the accident. Shock, fear, being told to go.

Who knows how any of us would react in such a situation.

I have been involved in a situation where a bus was driven into. The driver responsible left his car and was found in a corner shop buying a sandwich and a can of pop. Okay, he was coming back but that guy was messed up due to the crash.

He admitted it was his fault. Thank goodness no one was seriously hurt or had to be hanged. I bet in armchair lawyer land his leaving the scene of an accident and buying of a sandwich, but coming back, would help commute this guys sentence to life.

Wilfully fleeing the scene of an accident is a crime, and causes a lot of deaths of people who could have been saved if the person fleeing had called 911. And if someone is genuinely in shock/out of their wits, they can use that as a defense.

I agree with Mannahnin here, and I also don't see why there's such a call for this guy to be deported? If he broke the law then the answer would be a fitting punishment, not to kick him out of the country. I'd suggest that the people who are arguing along that line want this guy, and people like him, out of their country regardless of whether they break the law.

Mr. Burning wrote:

There are many reason why innocent people would leave the scene of the accident. Shock, fear, being told to go.

Who knows how any of us would react in such a situation.

I completely agree with that. It is surprising how many people run away from an incident due to sheer blind panic and whilst it looks bad, inferring guilt, it is purely a fight or flight reaction and once things have calmed down a lot of these people turn themselves in. Not all, but some.

Then again, I have seen them drive off before now if the Ambulance arrives before the Police, thinking they can get away.

With this story he was convicted and was sentenced to four months prison. 6 years ago! This story is being spun with a slight angle which isn't fair, the father is grieved, I understand that, but it was a long time ago and he has done his sentence but the father is talking on the interview as is this guy is on the run.

The deportation is a different matter entirely. He is fearful of his life if he is dumped back in Iraq. I know what he means, been there twice, don't wanna go there again.

Considering that he has served his allotted time as duly issued by the court, his conviction is now spent, should he be bunged on a plane back to Iraq?

I can't stand people who drive without insurance. It's not an accident, everyone knows if they have taken out an insurance policy or not. And anyone who has no insurance or driving licence knows they are driving illegally every time they get in the car, it's as premeditated as they come, not some accident or a crime committed by someone in the heat of the moment. They know they aren't allowed behind the wheel.

It takes a fair bit to be convicted of "dangerous driving", unless you are driving like a total knob you usually get "without due care an attention".

Frankly if you are doing any combination of these things, dangerous driving, no insurance or like him you failed to stop after an accident and cleared off letting you victim die, it's manslaughter in the very least. There's something wrong with our laws in the UK covering motor vehicle deaths, people seem to be able to kill people through sheer stupidity and reckless driving and get away with almost no punishment even though they were breaking the law before the death even occurred. If you killed someone in most walks of life by showing a similar disregard for fellow humans it would be considered manslaughter, but "death by dangerous driving" is a different kettle of fish it seems and carried an inappropriately low sentence.

I don't care about his immigrant status, all illegal drivers disgust me. He was disqualified, uninsured and fled the accident leaving her wounded under his car and she died. That's near murder IMO, he should be looking at 10 years minimum, deportation should frankly be a luxury.

@various people:

1. The accident was an accident in the sense that he didn't set out to run over someone. The driver was driving while banned from driving, though, thanks to his previous record of car accidents, caused by the fact he was a fething terrible driver who didn't have a proper licence. He didn't have insurance, either.

This IMO is like waving a loaded gun with no safety catch around in a bar. If it goes off and hits someone, technically it's an accident in the sense you didn't mean to shoot them, but, well... Draw your own conclusions.

2. Having caused the accident, the driver fled the scene instead of calling for help. His decision to flee may have been based on his fear of the vicious British police -- though really, if so, why seek asylum in the UK? -- or it may have been based on the knowledge that he was driving without a licence and insurance, and had run over a young girl, and was wanted for deportation. Draw your own conclusions.

The driver gave himself up to police a bit later. This could have been due to remorse, OTOH, they had his wallet and mobile phone, which he had left at the scene, so they would have caught him anyway. Draw your own conclusions about his motive.

3. The crime was years ago. He did a short sentence for dangerous driving. Since then he has had two children with an English woman and it is on the basis of this family connection that his appeal against deportation has been granted on the basis of his right to a family life.

One might surmise that, knowing he was on the list to be deported, he deliberately fathered children in order to create a family connection to save himself from that fate. Or perhaps the condom split, and the morning after pill failed. Twice. Draw your own conclusions.


The core issue here is that clearly the authorities fethed up by not deporting him six years ago, which should have been done after he served his sentence. The judges have done their job now as required by the law, and you can't blame them.

I don't agree with not sending him back now, though. I don't care about his human rights anymore. He's had enough of my country's tax and protection, which he repaid with a series of crimes. Send him back to Iraq and let his wife and children go with him if they like to.

Kilkrazy wrote:@various people:

1. The accident was an accident in the sense that he didn't set out to run over someone. The driver was driving while banned from driving, though, thanks to his previous record of car accidents, caused by the fact he was a fething terrible driver who didn't have a proper licence. He didn't have insurance, either.

This IMO is like waving a loaded gun with no safety catch around in a bar. If it goes off and hits someone, technically it's an accident in the sense you didn't mean to shoot them, but, well... Draw your own conclusions.

Your 'loaded gun' comparison isn't perfect, but I get the gist of what you're trying to say.

2. Having caused the accident, the driver fled the scene instead of calling for help. His decision to flee may have been based on his fear of the vicious British police -- though really, if so, why seek asylum in the UK? -- or it may have been based on the knowledge that he was driving without a licence and insurance, and had run over a young girl, and was wanted for deportation. Draw your own conclusions.

The driver gave himself up to police a bit later. This could have been due to remorse, OTOH, they had his wallet and mobile phone, which he had left at the scene, so they would have caught him anyway. Draw your own conclusions about his motive.

The fact that he ran while leaving his wallet and phone at the scene suggests that he may not have been in the right state of mind when he fled.

3. The crime was years ago. He did a short sentence for dangerous driving. Since then he has had two children with an English woman and it is on the basis of this family connection that his appeal against deportation has been granted on the basis of his right to a family life.

One might surmise that, knowing he was on the list to be deported, he deliberately fathered children in order to create a family connection to save himself from that fate. Or perhaps the condom split, and the morning after pill failed. Twice. Draw your own conclusions.

Why would you have two children just to get out of deportation?

The core issue here is that clearly the authorities fethed up by not deporting him six years ago, which should have been done after he served his sentence. The judges have done their job now as required by the law, and you can't blame them.

I don't agree with not sending him back now, though. I don't care about his human rights anymore. He's had enough of my country's tax and protection, which he repaid with a series of crimes. Send him back to Iraq and let his wife and children go with him if they like to.

I don't see why deportation should be the answer here. Surely there should be a call for more appropriate punishments for driving offences? In such a case 6 months is a pathetic amount of time (although I'm not sure if this was the time he was sentenced to or he actually served).

Emperors Faithful wrote:I agree with Mannahnin here, and I also don't see why there's such a call for this guy to be deported? If he broke the law then the answer would be a fitting punishment, not to kick him out of the country. I'd suggest that the people who are arguing along that line want this guy, and people like him, out of their country regardless of whether they break the law.

That's because your a hippie.

We have enough trouble with British born scum, to want to import more. We have taken in some of the worst elements of Iraqi society. This man is a career criminal, who arrived a criminal, and still is a criminal, and when he reoffends, and he will, That victim will be a victim simply because he remained here.

I hope he kills a baby next, pissed behind the wheel of another car, I like being proved right to dellusional nicey nicey type hippie chislers.

A spiraling crime fest might actually wake some of these guardian reading arseholes up. It's all well and good to say "oh everything is alright really! It's just the media and the daily mail scare mongering!" Until something grotesque happens to your own fething kids.

Watch this space. That fether will be in the news again.

Excuse the rage, I'm ten pints in.

Sentence: Death by honey badger, they go for the nads.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats kind of the idea, except substitute rum for tequila. Which reminds me, I need to get some more. Hurray!

We will drink the liquor of my grandparents.

All this talking about drinking with dogma makes me remember a PM that I forgot to respond to...

I'm quite enjoying my lager... though I think I'll switch to Ouzo after this one...


Anyway, realistic sentence... at least 15 years or deportation.

I'm drinking whiskey.

I'm about to start cooking dinner, so I'll be popping some wine for my frakking incredible spaghetti sauce so I'll be dipping into that as well. Here's to not having any more classes until January 10th!

My whiskey and coke is also quite delicious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm drinking whiskey.

I'm about to start cooking dinner, so I'll be popping some wine for my frakking incredible spaghetti sauce so I'll be dipping into that as well. Here's to not having any more classes until January 10th!

Uh, you read my mind.

I'm not cooking dinner, as missionaries have departed for the temple of Saint Taco, but everything else is dead on.

Ok.. damn you... Ouzo or Whiskey.... And I still have a 1.5 Liter bottle of Palm... best beer on the planet...Belgians know their stuff...

Dogma is a man of taste.

I knew it right from the get-go. I like beer, but I prefer something that burns.

I drink beer with food, otherwise liquor is king.

Especially vodka, its a Polish blood transfusion you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:Ok.. damn you... Ouzo or Whiskey.... And I still have a 1.5 Liter bottle of Palm... best beer on the planet...Belgians know their stuff...

Why not all 3?

Holy crap, I found a bottle of Stroh rum, I thought my mates had drank it...

80% death, here I come!

Drink whiskey like real men.

Soladrin wrote:Holy crap, I found a bottle of Stroh rum, I thought my mates had drank it...

80% death, here I come!

God, that stuff is death.

Not in terms of proof, but the flavor...it sticks to your teeth.

All I have is a liter of jameson.... and I'm more into scotch...

I like me some famous grouse.

I'm drinking Jameson as we speak.

I prefer scotch usually myself, but it's winter so I was looking for some grass notes to brighten my day.

What kind of scotch do you drink, soladrin?

Scotch is my love, but being a poor grad student I am limited to the...dregs.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm drinking Jameson as we speak.

I prefer scotch usually myself, but it's winter so I was looking for some grass notes to brighten my day.

What kind of scotch do you drink, soladrin?

Famous Grouse is my favourite so far. Though I'm still trying new stuff whenever I get the chance.

If you don't mind blended scotch(I do, as I'm a gentleman and look down my nose at it ) Scoresby's and Dewar's is pretty cheap and isn't all that bad.

I actually don't mind blended scotch so much. I mean, I can taste the difference but its still scotch, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm drinking Jameson as we speak.

I prefer scotch usually myself, but it's winter so I was looking for some grass notes to brighten my day.

What kind of scotch do you drink, soladrin?

Famous Grouse is my favourite so far. Though I'm still trying new stuff whenever I get the chance.

If you like peaty flavor try Laphroiag. It's my favorite.

If you don't, try Glenlivet!

I never touch blended, I always have better options at hands.


Ah the luxuries of having a schizophrenic drunk for neighbour.

Alcohol is the devil's saliva, out to corrupt you all!

That being said, it is delicious.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, you think they should be given the death penalty?!

Even i think thats a tad harsh!

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. Did you hit a patch of black ice and skid into someone, or were you so slobbering drunk that you couldn't keep your car on the road?

Well I don't exactly think that punishing someone that truly had an accident by imprisonment is good for society, nor is putting a bullet in them. However in the case of drunk drivers, yes I support the death penalty.

Anyone who has driven drunk knows that you make a choice every time you do it, and you must be willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise, don't do it dummy!!!!



If I had to chose a booze it would be a snifter of WL Weller 12 year wheated bourbon, but I generally prefer the chiba.

Impromptu booze threadjack accomplished!

Scotch is king.

These are what you really want:









I like my Whisky neat, and not too peaty, bear in mind.

At the moment I am enjoying this, however:



I generally really like English-style ESBs, though I'm not a fan of American-style IPAs. Just a bit too bitter for me.

Mannahnin has good taste.

Well, aside from that ESB.

4/5 isn't bad.

Well I guess I'll comment in the whiskey thread....Oh wait it's a about a guy that ran over a 12 year old girl? Ok I'll comment on that.

I'm generally against the death penalty, however 4 months is an insane sentence. Throwing him out of the country is to good for him IMO. Based on the circumstances I would give him 15 years at least.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Well I guess I'll comment in the whiskey thread....Oh wait it's a about a guy that ran over a 12 year old girl?

No no no.. It was about a car accident that occurred six years ago, but we have evolved from that to something else. Something...wonderful....

Mannahnin I have those brands written down and will be sampling one a week for the foreseeable future.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats kind of the idea, except substitute rum for tequila. Which reminds me, I need to get some more. Hurray!

We will drink the liquor of my grandparents.

White lightning? Respect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:Ok.. damn you... Ouzo or Whiskey.... And I still have a 1.5 Liter bottle of Palm... best beer on the planet...Belgians know their stuff...

How does that compare to Chemay?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Impromptu booze threadjack accomplished!

Scotch is king.

These are what you really want:









I like my Whisky neat, and not too peaty, bear in mind.

At the moment I am enjoying this, however:



I generally really like English-style ESBs, though I'm not a fan of American-style IPAs. Just a bit too bitter for me.

Here's a really bad question. Is Scotch whiskey? If not, whats the difference?

Scotch is Whisky, and it's spelled differently to differentiate it from irish whiskey, which used to be considered of much higher quality. These days, whisky is the better drink according to most people, and I do like it, but I also like the rougher taste of whiskey a lot.
I'm drinking Poachers Ale at the moment, and it tastes a bit of liquorice. You'd think that'd be a bad thing, but I fething love it. Makes my cheeks take on a rosy glow.

As to the topic, I'm with Killkrazy. Deport the guy.

mattyrm wrote:We have taken in some of the worst elements of Iraqi society. This man is a career criminal, who arrived a criminal, and still is a criminal, and when he reoffends, and he will...

Verbatim this is what one of my mates said. He was talking about Dr. Patel.

Da Boss wrote:Scotch is Whisky, and it's spelled differently to differentiate it from irish whiskey, which used to be considered of much higher quality. These days, whisky is the better drink according to most people, and I do like it, but I also like the rougher taste of whiskey a lot.

Ditto, although I mainly enjoy a nice pint of bitter or failing that, a nice cheap red.

MR- You won't regret it!

dogma wrote:Mannahnin has good taste.

Well, aside from that ESB.

4/5 isn't bad.

I don't think it's amazing or anything; and maybe the brewery being ~40min away helps. I dislike Heineken here, for example, but get it in Amsterdam itself or a neighboring town and it's a whole different animal. But it's a tasty ESB.

The first place I had an ESB was at the Wharf Rat in Baltimore, across from the arena where GW had the GTs. They had imported English stuff in casks, with the full English-style cellar and old fashioned pump drafts and all. Good place to hoist a few; I understand it's closed now, though. The last time I was there Edgar's had closed too; the Poe-themed bar where I got to drink with Dave Taylor. Good times.

Fraz- As the others said, "whiskey" is the Irish, and "whisky" is the Scotch. Much as it pains this scion of the O'Brien clan to have to say, Scotch is (IMO) the better stuff, overall.

Change the sentence from months to years, and add on maybe 3, and I'd be slightly more accepting of it.

On an alcoholic note, Fursty Ferret is my beer of choice, though I will generally not turn down a pint of the following:
Hobgoblin (ruby beer)
Old Empire (an IPA)
Dragon's Blood (not sure, but it's nice)
or Humdinger. (golden ale)

Well, if someone killed my little girl (I don't have one yet, but, you know...) I'd hunt them down to the ends of the earth.

If they weren't deported, it'd make my job a lot easier.

But seriously, the guy should be deported. "Infringing on human rights" is a shed load of horsegak if he's killed someone and hit another person before WHEN HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE BANNED ANYWAY. It's ridiculous to even argue.

Maybe we should ask, "Don't the killer's children have a right to have their father in this country?" After all, I bet he is an excellent Daddy.

On the subject of whiskey, I normally prefer Irish - specifically Jameson's and Bushmills. I did have some scotch on Friday - Oban. It was quite nice. I don't like the peatiness of Laphroaig and the like.

And whiskey should always be drunk either neat or with a small amount of water.

Death is too good and clean for this. If it was me it would be some time with a baseball bat. In that time he would get to feel the fear and the pain that little girl did and I'd leave him in crippled, permanent pain intense state. He'd then get to live the rest of his life as a useless lump of meat wjo was always in pain.

... the problem with that now is that he has kids and they would be too young to understand. All they would see is their daddy messed up and that would be just as bad as the original crime.

Wolfstan wrote:Death is too good and clean for this. If it was me it would be some time with a baseball bat. In that time he would get to feel the fear and the pain that little girl did and I'd leave him in crippled, permanent pain intense state. He'd then get to live the rest of his life as a useless lump of meat wjo was always in pain.

Wow. Do we have a Frazzled protege here?

... the problem with that now is that he has kids and they would be too young to understand. All they would see is their daddy messed up and that would be just as bad as the original crime.

Actually no. It would be worse. A lot worse. I don't think killing anyone (even a child) in a reckless driving incident can ever be compared to beating a father to death in front of his children. The former is a reckless idiot who should have damned well known better, the latter is the act of a sadistic bastard.

Yeah, that post went over the line, I think. I reckon it's harmless carthartic ranting though.

Da Boss wrote:Yeah, that post went over the line, I think. I reckon it's harmless carthartic ranting though.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow. Do we have a Frazzled protege here?

Exactly.

I would have used a Nerf bat on the guy. Beat him with my right arm until I can't swing, change arms and go at it again.

That foam is rough. By the time he died he'd be nearly skinless and in lots of pain.

Sorry but if anyone hurt my kids (when I do eventually have them) they wouldn't get lead poisoning; that'd be too quick (and a waste of perfectly good Federal Premium .45 ammo).

Oh goody, another one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we please just get back to talking about alcohol?

Mannahnin wrote:Impromptu booze threadjack accomplished!

Scotch is king.

These are what you really want:









I like my Whisky neat, and not too peaty, bear in mind.

Yeah, scotch that is too peaty is really an aquired taste. I prefer a nice single malt with a bit of club soda. Now if you want to talk about REAL whiskey,


Here is a fine fine wheated bourbon. Goes down smooth and then burns your chest with manly firestorm!




And of course, the absolute best of the best. Cause bros that know whats up drink their bourbon room temp from a snifter.

I rarely drink whisky any other way than neat, room temperature.

I've only recently tried adding a tiny bit of water to certain whiskeys, and the effect can be enjoyable, but I still prefer it unadulturated.

... the problem with that now is that he has kids and they would be too young to understand. All they would see is their daddy messed up and that would be just as bad as the original crime.

Actually no. It would be worse. A lot worse. I don't think killing anyone (even a child) in a reckless driving incident can ever be compared to beating a father to death in front of his children. The former is a reckless idiot who should have damned well known better, the latter is the act of a sadistic bastard.

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Not to sound like a hippy, but how does killing someone bring the other person back?

Its not meant to.

I'm sure we could eventually find a way to do this.

Any who, kick him out of the country. He was given the chance to get the rights of a person in the UK and he fethed up big time, screw his human rights he wasn't even a decent enough person to stop to at least attempt to help the girl.

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Not to sound like a hippy, but how does killing someone bring the other person back?

Its not meant to.

I'm sure we could eventually find a way to do this.

Revenge Resurrection
Conjuration [Healing]
Level: Clr 6
Casting Time: 10 Minutes
Material Component: A person who murdered the intended target of the spell.

Yeah, that can be worked with.

I agree with you guys on the room temp, straight whiskey thing. It's a tasty drink, so you should taste it!

I'm the same with rum, I like it straight. If I want coke I'll drink coke

I don't drink spirits much anymore though. It makes me all hyperactive and irresponsible and has lead to MANY BAD THINGS HAPPENING.
(My thumb still hurts from the last time)

Da Boss wrote:I agree with you guys on the room temp, straight whiskey thing. It's a tasty drink, so you should taste it!

I'm the same with rum, I like it straight. If I want coke I'll drink coke

I don't drink spirits much anymore though. It makes me all hyperactive and irresponsible and has lead to MANY BAD THINGS HAPPENING.
(My thumb still hurts from the last time)

Dark rum, wihtout water is quite interesting in that regard.

Wolfstan wrote:

... the problem with that now is that he has kids and they would be too young to understand. All they would see is their daddy messed up and that would be just as bad as the original crime.

Actually no. It would be worse. A lot worse. I don't think killing anyone (even a child) in a reckless driving incident can ever be compared to beating a father to death in front of his children. The former is a reckless idiot who should have damned well known better, the latter is the act of a sadistic bastard.

I actually didn't say that. My point was about seeing the result of the beating not watch it. For crying out loud I wouldn't ever come close to thinking of doing something like that.

Let me get this straight, you're horrified that the children might actually watch him be beaten to death, but you are only slightly disturbed when it comes to them seeing their father's dead corpse? And you don't seem to have even considered depriving the children of their father figure. I think you've posted without fully realising the consequences of your rhetoric, calls for 'Off with his Head' and the vigilante equivalent do nothing to resolve this situation.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Revenge Resurrection
Conjuration [Healing]
Level: Clr 6
Casting Time: 10 Minutes
Material Component: A person who murdered the intended target of the spell.

Yeah, that can be worked with.

I like.