Disabled Gay teen burned alive at a BDAY party, perp gets 3years?

[Mystical]

I would think that by the age of 20, one would know anything catches on fire.
Plus he lit the kids' crotch on fire. They weren't just sittin on the beach lighting a cigarette. He LIT THE GUY"S CROTCH ON FIRE.
That shows intent to set someone on fire. If you set someone on fire, you
aren't expecting them to start singing the national anthem, you expect them to burn.

[Waratah]

Of course everything burns. But by any age I would accept that someone could believe that a product that you apply by hand to your body would NOT be flammable enough to ignite by a naked flame. Especially a product that could reasonable be expected to come into contact with a naked flame.(eg BBQ, cigarette lighter)

In a different report

But the court heard that Sheard then held a cigarette lighter to Simpson’s groin, and instantly the highly flammable liquid caught alight and flames engulfed his body.

Going by the above statement intent is certainly not clear. I DO NOT SEE INTENT.

[Mystical]

What other intention is there, other than malicious, in lighting a fire to someone's dick?
I've taken other factors into account: reports of gay slurs written on the boy's torso and forehead,
the fact that someone actually went into the house and found the oil, then brought it out for use,
to conclude that this wasn't anything but intent to hurt. If you intend to hurt and you end up killing: that shit's on you.

[Waratah]

What other intention is there, other than malicious, in lighting a fire to someone's dick?

There is no clear cut intention of physical harm. Very simply a reasonable doubt of intention due to the tanning oil instantly catching fire.

I've taken other factors into account: reports of gay slurs written on the boy's torso and forehead,

According to the report there was no objection by Simpson. If Simpson was objecting and not enjoying himself then the above factors may lend some weight to intent, but since this was not the case then the above factors are irrelevant.

the fact that someone actually went into the house and found the oil, then brought it out for use,
to conclude that this wasn't anything but intent to hurt. If you intend to hurt and you end up killing: that shit's on you.

Since the report did not state who brought out the oil your above statement is not incorrect. Unless your intent was to say that the person who got the oil should be charged also for murder then the above statement would be misleading with the insinuation that the person who got the oil is Sheard. I totally agree that if you intend to harm and someone dies then you should be held to account.


I think it is a awful crime but unless someone here has the court transcripts, it is really hard to comment on the judgement.

[Autumnlicious]

Excellent work Waratah.

For all we know, the news articles cited demonstrate deliberate omission of facts to induce a bias, like Captains "judges screw up" rant advocating mandatory sentencing.

I hate the media.

---

I guess we need to to know why the defense scored as well as it did.

It ocurred to me that it may have been argued as homosexual foreplay gone wrong with a bdsm twist.

We've seen in the States that homophobia doesn't stop an anti-gay (gay) man from indulging homosexual sexual relations (Haggard, Craig et al)