Dennis Clarke: Man sentenced for one-punch killing of 82-year-old
Omar Moumeche, 18, killed Dennis Clarke after he challenged three teenagers about their behaviour.
www.bbc.co.uk
Too lenient imo.
Is this justice? 18 yr old male gets 2 years in a young offenders institution for punching and killing an 82 yr old army veteran.
- Thread starter Tykey
- Start date
Too lenient imo.
Absolutely too lenient.
I don't think the veteran matters.
These asbo collecting teens think (and tbh rightly) they can get away with anything.
Shop lifting, riding E-scooters with absolutely no care about anyone else, vandalism etc with little or no punishment... It needs sorting
I don't think the veteran matters.
These asbo collecting teens think (and tbh rightly) they can get away with anything.
Shop lifting, riding E-scooters with absolutely no care about anyone else, vandalism etc with little or no punishment... It needs sorting
I'm glad i'm not alone in thinking so. The mind boggles tbh.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 1,536
'The judge said while Moumeche was a "young man prone to outbursts of anger", he did not present a risk to the public'.
Absolute ****.
Absolute ****.
Soldato
Incredibly difficult when dealing with a minor but I agree on the face of it this seems a very lenient sentence. The judge was clear that what ever sentence he returned it was not going to please people.
Manslaughter is the right charge because he clearly didn’t intend to kill him and had he been 18 at the time of the incident the sentence would clearly have been significantly more. A sad story with a crappy ending that leaves nobody satisfied let’s hope the offender has done some growing up and learned from his mistake so at least something good comes of it.
Manslaughter is the right charge because he clearly didn’t intend to kill him and had he been 18 at the time of the incident the sentence would clearly have been significantly more. A sad story with a crappy ending that leaves nobody satisfied let’s hope the offender has done some growing up and learned from his mistake so at least something good comes of it.
Soldato
you take a life, the punishment should be life
and life should mean life
and life should mean life
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 5,939
No danger to public. Is that not a bit ironic after killing a pensioner
Soldato
No, the problem is a lack of control, many people are only human animals.
Humiliation does not solve that problem, only sterilization does, and only on the timescale of multiple generations.
Soldato
That is outrageous! his actions against a vulnerable person ended a persons life.... how can he not pose a risk to public? I have no doubt at all that this wont be the first criminal/violent incident he will be involved in.
Soldato
You're safe, taskmasters keeping him busy in the dog thread.
Soldato
Commissario
Eugenics is largely a load of nonsense in humans when it comes to behaviour as you have recessive genes (that can basically come forward many generations later and actually be useful in some ways*) and things like upbringing has a huge part to play and oddly enough many of the sorts of problems that result in the behavioural issues in later life happen regardless of class (and some could argue that the behaviour at some of the "upper class" schools encourages really problematic issues, just see the current crop in parliament who are batting above average for major lawbreaking and that's just what's come out publicly).
God knows how many of our brightest scientists and artists have come from "poor stock", and how many of the worst have come from "good stock".
Personally I think 2 years is far too lenient, but I can understand some of the legal reasoning behind the sentence including just reading the headline spur of the moment, no intent to cause serious injury, age of the defendant (16 at the time), and a single punch (all of which in UK law act as modifiers).
Almost certainly a specific legal term, probably indicating he's not a career criminal or someone who plans to attack people.
*IIRC a lot of genetic illnesses have turned out be faulty activation/duplication of useful genes (I think sickle cell is thought to be the over expression of a gene that helped survive malaria or something).
Soldato
“The judge said while Moumeche was a "young man prone to outbursts of anger", he did not present a risk to the public.”
Attacks and kills a member of the public, not a risk to the public. The logic is strong with this one.
Attacks and kills a member of the public, not a risk to the public. The logic is strong with this one.
Commissario
Attack with a single punch, that likely for most people would not have been "serious".
That will be a very key factor in the law.
Legal wording, especially in a judges sentencing has very specific meanings.
Again i'm not defending the guy, but trying to point out that the Judge will have seen the evidence and know the law and intent is a big part of it.
If you start saying "you kill someone you should be put away for life" (or killed yourself) with no room for discretion or circumstances you start to hit the point where if you do anything that ends up killing someone you're in jail for life, be it a single punch, premeditated murder, or a silly mistake that leads to a death whilst driving.
Soldato
So he'll be out when he's 20, after killing an old man, and he'll still be a ****. Outrageous.
Well played judge.
Well played judge.
I was watching the channel 4 reality programme Banged Up: Celebrity edition.
Johnny Mercer was one of the guests. They had to stay for 7 days in prison with long term ex criminals.
One of the people he was talking to was saying he was jailed for beating a man to death. That he didn't go out to do that.
Mercer said he as had fights with people but stopped himself at a certain point because he realised his life would be over if he went to far and he values it to much. He asked the guy why he didn't have that self preservation thought? The guy replied because he didn't value his life at that time.
I thought it was an interesting comment, as I've always wondered why many young people today seem to have no self preservation instinct. I guess they don't see the future for themselves.
Commissario
That seems to be a very common thing in a lot of places with high violence or murder rates.
It's one of the reasons the death sentence isn't much of a deterrent for many people, if you don't value your life, or don't expect to live long anyway what's the threat of being killed by the state if you do something illegal (even before you consider the low rate of solving crimes in many places with the death sentence).
Ironically I suspect it's also one of the reasons certain groups/areas have higher enrolment in the armed forces, it can (especially in the likes of the poor US states) be the only viable route out of their existing life/the life their family have lived, and certainly the only legal one. You might die, but at least you're earning money legally (and if you do die your family are somewhat looked after), and getting skills and a background that will hopefully let you get an education and a job away from the slum or the swamp.
Last edited: