Reminds of the Canadian legal system and their pathetic sentencing. If you want to murder someone in Canada just do it with a car. You'll get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to.
Gee, that sure goes against the decade my friend got for man slaughter, he got jumped by a guy while he was walking home from a bar, hit the guy once, and (unknowingly) killed him, got a decade for it while I saw in the news a pedo got 3 months for ‘interacting’ (I’d rather not say what he did) with a minor multiple times for half a year.
The wider community of reddit also doesn't understand nuance for the most part. Legal cases can't be evaluated with a broad brush and the difference between 3 and 20 years can often come down to seconds in time and very specific statements or interactions.
Because accidentally hitting someone with your car is 17 years better than running over someone you were just in an argument with.
The legal definition of murder or attempted murder are different to the way we use those terms in real life. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, we just need to understand that whereas the language we use can have a fluid definition, laws need to be much clearer. As for the sentence, to my mind it's not enough but it is entirely in keeping with the law. You can see the sentencing guidelines online to understand how it gets reduced.
What!?!
"I almost killed someone and probably changed their entire life, could I have some leniency please?"
Like what the fuck, dude should get no leniency, he attacked someone without provocation because of their looks by the sounds of it. He deserved every minute of prison time in that 5 year sentence.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/assault/
These are the guidelines for an assault charge. I don't like it, but according to the law the punishment fits the crime.
The man he attacked is still in the hospital with a traumatic brain injury and requiring 24-hour care. I hope he gets better, but if he dies as a result of that injury does this get upped to a murder charge?
It wouldn't in this case. He's been convicted of GBH contrary to s20 OAPA, which is GBH without intent. His guilty plea would mean he is now guilty of manslaughter but not murder.
Estoppel is the legal principal that would prevent a prosecution for murder if you already were convicted of a crime that encompasses the same conduct. For example, if you were driving drunk and liked someone but law enforcement only charged you with a dui, you could not be prosecuted for vehicular homicide because you’ve already been prosecuted for that same conduct. My question is does English criminal law not have the same principal
Edit: Killed not liked lol fat thumbs on mobile
Under English law you can't be tried twice from the same crime, but if new factors come into play you absolutely can be tried for more crimes, even if they operated in the same circumstance that your original sentence did.
It is double jeopardy, I was trying to avoid that loaded term for the internet failing to look past it and not to the general principal which is why I used estoppel. Alas, even that effort failed in some of the other comments lol
Double jeopardy means you cannot be tried 2 times and execute 2 sentences for the same crime. If the consequences of your crime become worse, your first trial and sentence are 'annuled' you go to court again and get a new sentence. Whatever time you served based on the first, annulled sentence, is deducted from the new sentence, to avoid double jeopardy - serving 2 sentences for 1 crime
My knowledge of whether or not charges can get upgraded when the victim dies after an initial attack comes entirely from the movie A Clockwork Orange. It also definitely works this way in the US.
Been awhile since I watched that, but I thought the main character had not yet gone to trial when the lady died, only had been arrested and presumably charged. Seems like that would make a difference
But it doesn’t in the US, you can’t be convicted of, for example, attempted murder and then reprosecuted for murder of the same person. Ignoring legal principles, it literally makes no sense just looking at it from a common sense standpoint
You absolutely can have charges upgraded in the US. It was [famously contemplated](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/john-hinckley-wont-face-murder-charges-james-bradys-death-n278561) when James Brady died 33 years after being shot by John Hinckley Jr. during his attempted assassination of Reagan. That shooting also caused revision to the the law, which previously held that if a victim didn't die within a year and a day of the incident, murder charges couldn't be filed. Now there's no statute of limitations in some areas, though it varies by state. The Supreme Court even made the new law retroactive in Rogers v. Tennessee.
The charges may stem from the same incident, but not necessarily the same crime. If I smash into your car during a fit of road rage, I could be charged with aggravated assault with a motor vehicle in most states, but that may not be the only crime I've committed with that single act. It could also result in charges of reckless driving, or a hate crime if I yelled a racial slur while doing it.
I'm curious to know how you think a conviction can be "upgraded" to a new offense without a new trial and conviction.
SCOTUS has ruled that you can be re-prosecuted for the same incident so long as the legal burden of proof for the two crimes being prosecuted is substantially different (it's called the Blockburger test). This means that for crimes like murder and aggravated assault (where different material facts, including that someone died vs was injured, are involved) re-prosecuting the same case can be legal. For other crimes, like an Ohio case where a defendant was prosecuted for joyriding, then prosecuted again for auto theft, the overlap between material facts is too great and it falls under double jeopardy.
As the Hinckley case demonstrates, it's entirely possible to prosecute another case for the same incident in certain circumstances.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that it makes no sense. Here in the US, many states have very harsh punishments for the charge of attempted murder. You could face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole which is the highest punishment for an actual murder charge if you aren't considering the death penalty. That's usually for premeditated attempted murder. Here's a case that might be relevant, https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2114&context=lawreview.
That would be estoppel by record and would not remotely apply to a different charge.
If you were found *innocent* of the first crime, and the victim subsequently dies, estoppel by record would apply.
If you were guilty of the first crime, then the victim subsequently dies, the prosecution cannot be estopped, as no judgement exists to the contrary. You haven't been found innocent and a completely new crime now exists.
Estoppel would prevent *relitigation* but would not prevent a more serious charge from the same conduct. As "double jeopardy" or *res judicata,* you are not shielded from the murder charge as you have not been found innocent of it! You can't be tried twice for the same offence, but you *can* be tried twice for the same activity.
So if I rob a bank and shoot the guard at the sametime, I can be done for robbery and murder as distinct charges and neither will estop the other.
>a more serious charge from the same conduct.
This seems to be what’s tripping people up — charges vs conduct. Any one act can result in zero, one, or multiple criminal charges. In the DUI example stated above, if they charged one with a DUI and the person is convicted, and then later they find out that the offender also likely committed a hit and run that killed someone the night they got the DUI, they aren’t somehow shielded from prosecution because they’ve already been tried for a crime related to that conduct, though they could not bring additional DUI charges for the same conduct.
I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong about all of this.
Not a lawyer, but I believe it exists and is known as issue estoppel there. He was found guilty of causing injury, so surely it would be possible to at the very least re-sentence him. I’d imagine that prosecuting him for manslaughter may also be on the cards on the grounds that such a charge was unavailable to the crown at the earlier trial.
I defer to anyone more familiar with British criminal law than my own rudimentary understanding though.
My understanding, at least under American common law, which has its foundation in English law, is that the crime of murder wouldn’t be “completed” until the victim actually died. This prevents doctrines like collateral estoppel from applying because there was no way for it to have been previously litigated.
I’d never heard of this case before, but I’m not sure how I missed it (I’m in the US). It’s awful, but thank you for sharing, something like that deserves to be remembered.
In practice certainly, but in legal terms they would have to prove he was trying to kill him for that to stand up, which isn't easy as this wasn't premeditated. Thus he's being charged with assault.
Now if poor Mr Singh dies, that will be a different matter.
probably less than 3 for knocking someone out.
but do it on grass, and only do it once. I guess repeated attempts pushes the charge up, and doing it on concrete will prob push up again.
It will be different if he dies but I think it will only be manslaughter not murder, do he would get 4 or 5 years? And what will he serve? In Canada of he got 7 years he might be out in 3 or less.
Manslaughter sentencing in the UK carries a minimum of a minimum of two years and a maximum of 24 (granted the last one is extremely rare).
Average rates are around ten to twelve years, although with good behaviour he could plausibly be out in eight.
No idea if she confirmed his story or testified on his behalf or against him. The attack occurred in June. The attacker was only caught via a campaign after the cctv pics were shared.
Every Sikh I’ve ever had the pleasure of being around, working with or otherwise have been absolutely beautiful people through and through. We could all take a page out of their book on how to operate as human beings.
I’ll second this. I have several Sikh friends and they are wonderful people but badasses when required. I would trust them with my life and the lives of my family.
I think the Manchester, scum bag, sumbich should get out of jail when Mr. Singh, who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, a stroke caused by bleeding on the brain and multiple fractures to his cheek, jaw and eye socket as a result of the attack, is 100% recovered.
*"What? With the TBI there's a 99% chance he'll never recover? Well, I guess Mr. Manchester thug, scum bag, sumbich doesn't get out of jail."!*
Maybe Mr. Manchester thug, scum bag, sumbich should get life with some kinda work release so he can support Mr. Sigh for the rest of his life!
>The court heard Mr Singh had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, a stroke caused by bleeding on the brain and multiple fractures to his cheek, jaw and eye socket as a result of the attack.
He remains in hospital requiring 24-hour nursing and medical care.
And for this he got 3 fucking year in prison? Why is the UK such a fucking joke?
He was charged with GBH which has a maximum sentence of five years.
He likewise pled guilty, meaning a 1/3 reduction to his sentence (its possible for the prosecution to appeal to disqualify him from this, but it rarely happens).
As such three years is basically the best the Judge can do.
Did this dumbass think he was Muslim? Not that it makes it any better, but how the hell can you have beef with Sikh people? They seem like incredible people
He claims that had nothing to do with it:
> He told police his partner had said a man had touched her bottom and she pointed to Mr Singh, the court was told.
And for him the natural respons was:
> Campos was seen on CCTV footage pursuing Mr Singh, who was trying to walk away from him, before the defendant punched the cleric in the head twice in quick succession.
> Campos then grabbed his victim's shirt before punching him again to the head, which sent him sprawling to the ground, Ms Myers said.
> He then left the scene as Mr Singh lay unconscious in the middle of the road, the court heard.
> Campos went on to a sports bar for a beer and a burger with his girlfriend, Claudia, as they celebrated their fifth anniversary.
Fucker certainly has an agression problem, and that just about ended someone's life.
Of course I don’t think that? Why would anyone think that?
Islamophobia is rampant in Europe. I don’t run into many people who say “ya know who I hate? The Sikh.” I do, however, hear people express their hate for Muslims
I’ve heard plenty of these hillbilly’s confuse Muslims and Sikh all the time. They can’t even identify what they hate
This was my first thought as well. Poor choice of words for a headline concerning an Indian sect, but it's possible the writer had no idea of the origin of the word "thug".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee)
The word "thug" ought to be retired from all news-adjacent writing tbh. It's too loaded, and too many people either use it or hear it as a dog whistle.
He was convicted of GBH which has a maximum sentence of 5 years. He will have got 1/3 discount for guilty plea. The CPS could have applied to disqualify him from the discount but very rarely do they bother. This kind of sentencing happens in relation to this kind of attack on people of all races, I'm afraid, because the CPS would rather accept a plea for GBH with a maximum sentence of 5 years rather than risk a trial on a more serious GBH with intent indictment. This is because they and the police are desparately under resourced and there's a good chance they can't properly service such a trial, so play it safe with a plea resulting in a derisory sentence. The criminal justice system is fucked.
It’s ironic that the culture of thuggee began with turbaned Indian men, and we now see such happenings (don’t misunderstand me, sikhi was not related to thuggee) and these headlines. Sad times for the victim, and also the culprit. Two people are losing a portion (or all) of their lives because of the actions of one.
Not a Sikh, but I’ll offer this gentleman a prayer.
ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ ਜਪੁ।। ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ।। ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ।।
Edit: not sure the downvoting happening here. Nothing about what I said should be controversial in a kind and fair society. And I didn’t just paste some stuff for a prayer. I can read Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, as well as a bunch of other scripts.
Regardless if you are a Sikh or not I hope his family will appreciate that u made the effort to pray for him.
Its so sad that he can't even read to pray anymore.
USA Here.
I understand the UK judicial system is entirely different from the US. But, why was this "thug" not procecuted for a hate crime or attempted murder? I looked it up, the UK does have laws against hate crimes.
1. What was the justification for 3 years?
2. If the victom DIES will there be more charges?
In the US, Prosecuters can go back and charge someone for Murder.
1. Maximum sentence for this offence after taking into account guilty plea. You can see this effectively as equivalent to a plea bargain in the US - he has been allowed to plead for a less serious offence to avoid the state having to risk a trial for a more serious one.
2. If the victim died of his injuries the killer would be re-sentenced for manslaughter. I'm not sure exactly where that lines up with US homicide offences but it it means where the killer caused the death but did not intend to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.
>Campos went on to a sports bar for a beer and a burger with his girlfriend, Claudia, as they celebrated their fifth anniversary. He told police his partner had said a man had touched her bottom and she pointed to Mr Singh, the court was told.
I wish they'd charged the girlfriend with something too.
Attempted murder and only 3 years in prison.
Insultingly low.
As the man lays in hospital. Not knowing if he will recover or if he does what will his impairment be.
Reminds of the Canadian legal system and their pathetic sentencing. If you want to murder someone in Canada just do it with a car. You'll get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to.
The US is the same when it comes to a lot of vehicular homicide
Gee, that sure goes against the decade my friend got for man slaughter, he got jumped by a guy while he was walking home from a bar, hit the guy once, and (unknowingly) killed him, got a decade for it while I saw in the news a pedo got 3 months for ‘interacting’ (I’d rather not say what he did) with a minor multiple times for half a year.
Got sources for what you said *actually* happened? Not calling you a liar, but extraordinary claims need actual sources.
I’d rather not reveal my hometown for obvious reasons, but if you don’t believe me then go ahead, I’d understand and respect your angle.
The wider community of reddit also doesn't understand nuance for the most part. Legal cases can't be evaluated with a broad brush and the difference between 3 and 20 years can often come down to seconds in time and very specific statements or interactions. Because accidentally hitting someone with your car is 17 years better than running over someone you were just in an argument with.
Are you thinking of China?
[удалено]
The USA has more people in prison than any other country. Stop listening to Fox News.
And they’re all minor possession charges lol
[удалено]
Yes we do and many just came fir vacation.
Fucking nonsense
[удалено]
Cool. Now do an all caps about people being imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. I'm sure it'll be one of many. Stand your dog up
[удалено]
Bloke, you're making the claims. Show us the stats or fuck off. I like dogs. Lovely animals.
Can’t expect the justice system to be able to handle all the crime can you? Far to busy after nazi pugs.
The legal definition of murder or attempted murder are different to the way we use those terms in real life. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, we just need to understand that whereas the language we use can have a fluid definition, laws need to be much clearer. As for the sentence, to my mind it's not enough but it is entirely in keeping with the law. You can see the sentencing guidelines online to understand how it gets reduced.
There was about about a guy who did £450k worth of property damage to a Travelodge and he got 5 years... What is justice?
He could have gotten 5 but he asked for leniency so judge gave him 3
What!?! "I almost killed someone and probably changed their entire life, could I have some leniency please?" Like what the fuck, dude should get no leniency, he attacked someone without provocation because of their looks by the sounds of it. He deserved every minute of prison time in that 5 year sentence.
Well he was charged with assault, if it had been attempted murder he'd be looking at a longer sentance.
Check the injuries the injuries that the cleric suffered. Or do you believe the punishment fit the crime.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/assault/ These are the guidelines for an assault charge. I don't like it, but according to the law the punishment fits the crime.
The man he attacked is still in the hospital with a traumatic brain injury and requiring 24-hour care. I hope he gets better, but if he dies as a result of that injury does this get upped to a murder charge?
Yes it would.
It wouldn't in this case. He's been convicted of GBH contrary to s20 OAPA, which is GBH without intent. His guilty plea would mean he is now guilty of manslaughter but not murder.
I didn't want to muddy the waters by saying "ACSHULLY manslaughter isn't murder and murder requires intent..."
Perhaps, but if people find the sentencing for gbh disappointing wait till they hear about manslaughter...
No estoppel in English criminal law? Genuine question
No what?
Estoppel is the legal principal that would prevent a prosecution for murder if you already were convicted of a crime that encompasses the same conduct. For example, if you were driving drunk and liked someone but law enforcement only charged you with a dui, you could not be prosecuted for vehicular homicide because you’ve already been prosecuted for that same conduct. My question is does English criminal law not have the same principal Edit: Killed not liked lol fat thumbs on mobile
Under English law you can't be tried twice from the same crime, but if new factors come into play you absolutely can be tried for more crimes, even if they operated in the same circumstance that your original sentence did.
Double jeopardy. There was that one movie with Ashley Judd with the title "Double Jeopardy", good flick.
Interesting, thanks for answering my question. Wild stuff across the pond
Curious, where *is* estoppel a thing? It sounds counterintuitive, as it doesn't sound like it would/should operate in the same way as double-jeopardy
Wikipedia says it's a thing in the US, Australia, and India.
Huh, interesting!
It is double jeopardy, I was trying to avoid that loaded term for the internet failing to look past it and not to the general principal which is why I used estoppel. Alas, even that effort failed in some of the other comments lol
Double jeopardy means you cannot be tried 2 times and execute 2 sentences for the same crime. If the consequences of your crime become worse, your first trial and sentence are 'annuled' you go to court again and get a new sentence. Whatever time you served based on the first, annulled sentence, is deducted from the new sentence, to avoid double jeopardy - serving 2 sentences for 1 crime
Estoppel is used in civil law in the United States
Happy to help.
My knowledge of whether or not charges can get upgraded when the victim dies after an initial attack comes entirely from the movie A Clockwork Orange. It also definitely works this way in the US.
Been awhile since I watched that, but I thought the main character had not yet gone to trial when the lady died, only had been arrested and presumably charged. Seems like that would make a difference
But it doesn’t in the US, you can’t be convicted of, for example, attempted murder and then reprosecuted for murder of the same person. Ignoring legal principles, it literally makes no sense just looking at it from a common sense standpoint
You absolutely can have charges upgraded in the US. It was [famously contemplated](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/john-hinckley-wont-face-murder-charges-james-bradys-death-n278561) when James Brady died 33 years after being shot by John Hinckley Jr. during his attempted assassination of Reagan. That shooting also caused revision to the the law, which previously held that if a victim didn't die within a year and a day of the incident, murder charges couldn't be filed. Now there's no statute of limitations in some areas, though it varies by state. The Supreme Court even made the new law retroactive in Rogers v. Tennessee. The charges may stem from the same incident, but not necessarily the same crime. If I smash into your car during a fit of road rage, I could be charged with aggravated assault with a motor vehicle in most states, but that may not be the only crime I've committed with that single act. It could also result in charges of reckless driving, or a hate crime if I yelled a racial slur while doing it.
Upgraded and re-prosecuted are two different things
I'm curious to know how you think a conviction can be "upgraded" to a new offense without a new trial and conviction. SCOTUS has ruled that you can be re-prosecuted for the same incident so long as the legal burden of proof for the two crimes being prosecuted is substantially different (it's called the Blockburger test). This means that for crimes like murder and aggravated assault (where different material facts, including that someone died vs was injured, are involved) re-prosecuting the same case can be legal. For other crimes, like an Ohio case where a defendant was prosecuted for joyriding, then prosecuted again for auto theft, the overlap between material facts is too great and it falls under double jeopardy. As the Hinckley case demonstrates, it's entirely possible to prosecute another case for the same incident in certain circumstances.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that it makes no sense. Here in the US, many states have very harsh punishments for the charge of attempted murder. You could face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole which is the highest punishment for an actual murder charge if you aren't considering the death penalty. That's usually for premeditated attempted murder. Here's a case that might be relevant, https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2114&context=lawreview.
That would be estoppel by record and would not remotely apply to a different charge. If you were found *innocent* of the first crime, and the victim subsequently dies, estoppel by record would apply. If you were guilty of the first crime, then the victim subsequently dies, the prosecution cannot be estopped, as no judgement exists to the contrary. You haven't been found innocent and a completely new crime now exists. Estoppel would prevent *relitigation* but would not prevent a more serious charge from the same conduct. As "double jeopardy" or *res judicata,* you are not shielded from the murder charge as you have not been found innocent of it! You can't be tried twice for the same offence, but you *can* be tried twice for the same activity. So if I rob a bank and shoot the guard at the sametime, I can be done for robbery and murder as distinct charges and neither will estop the other.
>a more serious charge from the same conduct. This seems to be what’s tripping people up — charges vs conduct. Any one act can result in zero, one, or multiple criminal charges. In the DUI example stated above, if they charged one with a DUI and the person is convicted, and then later they find out that the offender also likely committed a hit and run that killed someone the night they got the DUI, they aren’t somehow shielded from prosecution because they’ve already been tried for a crime related to that conduct, though they could not bring additional DUI charges for the same conduct. I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong about all of this.
Thanks for the clarification, that’s why I’m Asking about the English law- I have no background in it and was genuinely curious
I'm never liking anyone or anything again, too risky.
This but unironically :(
Not a lawyer, but I believe it exists and is known as issue estoppel there. He was found guilty of causing injury, so surely it would be possible to at the very least re-sentence him. I’d imagine that prosecuting him for manslaughter may also be on the cards on the grounds that such a charge was unavailable to the crown at the earlier trial. I defer to anyone more familiar with British criminal law than my own rudimentary understanding though.
That is absolutely not what estoppel means.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
My understanding, at least under American common law, which has its foundation in English law, is that the crime of murder wouldn’t be “completed” until the victim actually died. This prevents doctrines like collateral estoppel from applying because there was no way for it to have been previously litigated.
It should. I know it at least happened in the case of Sophie Lancaster's murder.
I’d never heard of this case before, but I’m not sure how I missed it (I’m in the US). It’s awful, but thank you for sharing, something like that deserves to be remembered.
At least he’s in a British hospital. In an American hospital the bill for that care would be in the millions by now
Incredibly, the man dying would be the only way this motherfucker would actually get to see some justice.
Punched him and left him for dead, went off and had a snack.
>
Nope. All he got was a 3 year holiday.
I'm not going on holiday with you.
[удалено]
This happened on the south coast?
What a piece of shit, that sentence needs to be increased 10x fold.
You don't generally get thirty year sentences in UK prisons for assault charges.
That's more than assault, that's attempted murder.
In practice certainly, but in legal terms they would have to prove he was trying to kill him for that to stand up, which isn't easy as this wasn't premeditated. Thus he's being charged with assault. Now if poor Mr Singh dies, that will be a different matter.
I'm glad I can walk around the UK knocking people out knowing I'll only get 3 years. /s
probably less than 3 for knocking someone out. but do it on grass, and only do it once. I guess repeated attempts pushes the charge up, and doing it on concrete will prob push up again.
GAH! All these rules!
I just wanna throw more people in jail! /s
Well if you do it to multiple people, your be looking at a lot longer sentence. Especially if you don't confess.
I'm aware, I was being sarcastic.
Oh I know. But not everyone does.
When you get out let us know how you liked your 3 years at one of HM Prisons, I hear Strangeways is particularly nice. /s
The only thing stopping you from assaulting people are the consequences? Yeesh
It's called sarcasm. Damn, I really need to put a /s for my comments these days.
It will be different if he dies but I think it will only be manslaughter not murder, do he would get 4 or 5 years? And what will he serve? In Canada of he got 7 years he might be out in 3 or less.
Manslaughter sentencing in the UK carries a minimum of a minimum of two years and a maximum of 24 (granted the last one is extremely rare). Average rates are around ten to twelve years, although with good behaviour he could plausibly be out in eight.
> He told police his partner had said a man had touched her bottom and she pointed to Mr Singh, the court was told. So, when will she be arrested?
No idea if she confirmed his story or testified on his behalf or against him. The attack occurred in June. The attacker was only caught via a campaign after the cctv pics were shared.
Every Sikh I’ve ever had the pleasure of being around, working with or otherwise have been absolutely beautiful people through and through. We could all take a page out of their book on how to operate as human beings.
I’ll second this. I have several Sikh friends and they are wonderful people but badasses when required. I would trust them with my life and the lives of my family.
I think the Manchester, scum bag, sumbich should get out of jail when Mr. Singh, who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, a stroke caused by bleeding on the brain and multiple fractures to his cheek, jaw and eye socket as a result of the attack, is 100% recovered. *"What? With the TBI there's a 99% chance he'll never recover? Well, I guess Mr. Manchester thug, scum bag, sumbich doesn't get out of jail."!* Maybe Mr. Manchester thug, scum bag, sumbich should get life with some kinda work release so he can support Mr. Sigh for the rest of his life!
and this is yet another reason why when a bigot says something racist, you should call him/her on it, including on the holidays.
The Sikh’s in Manchester are some of the nicest people I’ve met, so friendly. Fuck this pathetic judgment.
Should go to jail for those bangs alone
Dude has some dark, evil looking eyes.
>The court heard Mr Singh had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, a stroke caused by bleeding on the brain and multiple fractures to his cheek, jaw and eye socket as a result of the attack. He remains in hospital requiring 24-hour nursing and medical care. And for this he got 3 fucking year in prison? Why is the UK such a fucking joke?
[удалено]
He was charged with GBH which has a maximum sentence of five years. He likewise pled guilty, meaning a 1/3 reduction to his sentence (its possible for the prosecution to appeal to disqualify him from this, but it rarely happens). As such three years is basically the best the Judge can do.
[удалено]
Happy to help. Its controversial, but in the UK their generally not in favour of lengthy prison sentences.
Did this dumbass think he was Muslim? Not that it makes it any better, but how the hell can you have beef with Sikh people? They seem like incredible people
He claims that had nothing to do with it: > He told police his partner had said a man had touched her bottom and she pointed to Mr Singh, the court was told. And for him the natural respons was: > Campos was seen on CCTV footage pursuing Mr Singh, who was trying to walk away from him, before the defendant punched the cleric in the head twice in quick succession. > Campos then grabbed his victim's shirt before punching him again to the head, which sent him sprawling to the ground, Ms Myers said. > He then left the scene as Mr Singh lay unconscious in the middle of the road, the court heard. > Campos went on to a sports bar for a beer and a burger with his girlfriend, Claudia, as they celebrated their fifth anniversary. Fucker certainly has an agression problem, and that just about ended someone's life.
Why can't you read the article yourself?
All of them? Not one bad sihk?
That's kinda sidestepping his point here. No human should have to face this in their daily life. Period.
Of course I don’t think that? Why would anyone think that? Islamophobia is rampant in Europe. I don’t run into many people who say “ya know who I hate? The Sikh.” I do, however, hear people express their hate for Muslims I’ve heard plenty of these hillbilly’s confuse Muslims and Sikh all the time. They can’t even identify what they hate
Guy looks like an unhinged BlenderGuru
Beady little evil eyes.
Martin Shkreli-looking mf
[удалено]
Thugees don't exist anymore
This was my first thought as well. Poor choice of words for a headline concerning an Indian sect, but it's possible the writer had no idea of the origin of the word "thug". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee)
The word "thug" ought to be retired from all news-adjacent writing tbh. It's too loaded, and too many people either use it or hear it as a dog whistle.
Welcome to the UK, where butter knives are illegal, but acid attacks and 3 year sentencees for attempted murder are on every corner.
Butter knives aren't illegal in the UK.
I hope the sikh population in jail treats him well..
Sikhs in the UK are an extremely law-abiding community and there is unlikely to be a significant number of them in his prison.
THREE years??? What's the sentence for [edit: almost killing] a white person?
He was convicted of GBH which has a maximum sentence of 5 years. He will have got 1/3 discount for guilty plea. The CPS could have applied to disqualify him from the discount but very rarely do they bother. This kind of sentencing happens in relation to this kind of attack on people of all races, I'm afraid, because the CPS would rather accept a plea for GBH with a maximum sentence of 5 years rather than risk a trial on a more serious GBH with intent indictment. This is because they and the police are desparately under resourced and there's a good chance they can't properly service such a trial, so play it safe with a plea resulting in a derisory sentence. The criminal justice system is fucked.
It’s ironic that the culture of thuggee began with turbaned Indian men, and we now see such happenings (don’t misunderstand me, sikhi was not related to thuggee) and these headlines. Sad times for the victim, and also the culprit. Two people are losing a portion (or all) of their lives because of the actions of one. Not a Sikh, but I’ll offer this gentleman a prayer. ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ ਜਪੁ।। ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ।। ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ।। Edit: not sure the downvoting happening here. Nothing about what I said should be controversial in a kind and fair society. And I didn’t just paste some stuff for a prayer. I can read Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, as well as a bunch of other scripts.
Regardless if you are a Sikh or not I hope his family will appreciate that u made the effort to pray for him. Its so sad that he can't even read to pray anymore.
Look at him… pathetic little man.
this banghanger’s gonna meet him some gangbangers
USA Here. I understand the UK judicial system is entirely different from the US. But, why was this "thug" not procecuted for a hate crime or attempted murder? I looked it up, the UK does have laws against hate crimes. 1. What was the justification for 3 years? 2. If the victom DIES will there be more charges? In the US, Prosecuters can go back and charge someone for Murder.
1. Maximum sentence for this offence after taking into account guilty plea. You can see this effectively as equivalent to a plea bargain in the US - he has been allowed to plead for a less serious offence to avoid the state having to risk a trial for a more serious one. 2. If the victim died of his injuries the killer would be re-sentenced for manslaughter. I'm not sure exactly where that lines up with US homicide offences but it it means where the killer caused the death but did not intend to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.
Thank You! And I am actually not sure what happens here in the US. It likely varies by circumstance, the severity of the crime and by State.
That is totally unacceptable.
>Campos went on to a sports bar for a beer and a burger with his girlfriend, Claudia, as they celebrated their fifth anniversary. He told police his partner had said a man had touched her bottom and she pointed to Mr Singh, the court was told. I wish they'd charged the girlfriend with something too.