Adult strategy

I am aware of the difference between manslaughter and murder, and this was not the point I was making.  In the case of the Asperger's victim anyway, the man intended to punch him, he was intentionally violent and aggressive.  He should have got 15-20 years minimum in my opinion.

In Uk Law if you kill someone without meaning to that is Man Slaughter which does not carry an automatic Life Sentence.  Murder carries an automatic life sentence.  In the old days Murder carriend an automatic Death Sentence but Manslaugher carried imprisonment.  I do not think the killer of the Autistic man in the days of hanging would have been hanged nore should he have been in my oppinion.

David.

One bullet can easily hit any number of areas on the body and be non-fatal and be as minor as a graze.  But the fact remains that a gun can kill someone.

A punch can leave a minor swelling, or it can kill someone, as a Google search will show this has not been uncommon either: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=killed+by+a+single+punch

Even if you go by the fact that it was not likely the punch that killed the man with AS but the fall to the pavement where he cracked his head, I could argue that if I pointed a gun at someone and made them dash to avoid being shot and in dashing they slipped and cracked their head or they ran into the path of an oncoming vehicle, it would still be my fault for pointing the gun and making them respond or fall into the path of immediate danger.

One punch does not normally kill someone and there have been cases of the Police killing someone with one blow.   In the case of the Autistic victim.  The Killers defence would have been that he did not intend to kill the victim.   As the killer had a record of crime and the remarks his family made remarks showing that they are unrepentent.

I would have thought a longer sentence than four years but not life.

It remains to be seen whether the sentence will be sent to the Court of Appeal for an increase of sentence.

One bullet is very likely to kill someone so I should not think it would make much difference to the trial if one bullet or five bullets were used but hitting people is different.

David

If someone uses one bullet to kill someone, or five bullets, the crime is the same.

There was a case of a Retired Soldier who got beatten up.

One of the attackers got seven years and the other one four years.

There was cheering from the Public Gallery when the sentences were given out by the Judge.  I am surprised that the people who cheered were not sent down for contempt.

It  remarked at the end of the article that someone who actually killed an Autistic person got treated less harshly.

I wonder if it is because a retired soldier is more important than an Autistic person or the fact that the Autistic man who died only got one punch.

David.

Some of the AUTISTIC people in our Prisons should be in caring places such as an AUTISTIC HOME OR MENTAL HOSPITAL.

PRISONS have just got worse by the ban on BOOKS in PRISONS.

MAY be it could be that they do not want things smuggled into prisons.

In prison if another inmate has a book it could make them jeallors.

David

I'm not saying any of the things you infer I'm saying.

In a just world a lot of your argument would be noble. In a world where the police cannot be bothered to enforce the law and the courts wont uphold the law either, it is great to make brave speeches.

The fact remains that it is not easy for people on the spectrum, I'm not trying to justify that disadvantage, but I am trying to caution realism.

...if we all deserve a vicious punch for having the wrong expression on our face, society would be decimated within months or less.  There are many people out there with unfortunate faces, just because that's how they were born, so are we to summise that if you are ugly or unintentionally sour looking that means you automatically deserve a punch when you question someone's actions?

I have personally suffered a physical attack, without any provokation or knowing who the person was.  They falsely accused me of something I didn't do, clearly because they didn't like the look of me for some reason and I tried to walk away but was attacked from behind.  I suppose I deserved it because I have Asperger's and was different to everyone else.

Why legally, should he have backed off?  Is there a law that says you are not allowed to question someone not following the law?  How do you account for citizen's arrests then - which are most likely to involve physical contact and worse?

It just seems like you are saying that autism automatically made him in the wrong.  Why isn't the volatile and violent NT in the wrong?  He used words, words don't kill someone, his assailant could have used words to express his annoyance.

If more people stood up to law-breaking society would be a lot more orderly and self-controlled, because the significant minority that think they can do what they want and sod the consequences would see that culturally they wouldn't get away with it.

The video shows that this took place in a busy street in front of shops, where some shops sat forwards of the rest and narrowed the pavement.

Mr Young blocked the cyclist's progress - stood in his path and had an argument with him. There was a group of people with the cyclist who seemed allied, or if not connected, sympathetic to the cyclist. The cyclist turned to pass him. The assailant was behind the cyclist. Mr Young turned side on to the kerb, presumably continuing to be defiant. The assailant then aimed a punch at him. Mr Young was balancing on the edge of the pavement and easily felled.

I'm not defending the assault. I am cautioning against rigid interpretation.

People shouldn't cycle on the pavement. But they do. The police openly encourage it, because they sympathise with drivers that cyclists are a nuisance to traffic flow, and cyclists feel safer on the pavement. If you try to get the police to enforce cycling byelaws they make every excuse under the sun for not doing so.

In this case the cyclist seems to have been part walking and part riding the bike, as he was evidently with friends walking. There were several individuals, and obviously not the sort to tangle with. Mr Young was socially naive and probably didn't weigh up the issues. NT's would, if necessary, have stepped off the pavement to let the yobs pass by.

Mr Young acted confrontationally. The courts have to take that into account. OK his autism is a factor, but evidently his stance barring the cyclist's progress led to anger building up.

As I say I'm not defending the punch. I'm not defending pavement cycling (which I hate, it causes me much distress).

But I am saying that it wasn't unprovoked. Legally Mr Young should have backed off. Was he really just standing there calmly with his hands down. There's more to provocation than just body posture. Being on the spectrum, facial response can be just as provocative even if not so intended

And I'm afraid the reality is that the police and the courts are very leniant with punchy yobs. To be honest the police are afraid of provoking further aggression down the line.

We are at a disadvantage here. But in the NT world, Mr Young may be perceived as having contributed to the situation.

longman said:

Ah....so this whole thing about people with autism flailing out at people and punching people is a myth?

(as I have had to support people during stress or meltdowns, I was never within millimetres of a punch in the face........?)

I know it is made a stereotype, but yes it does happen.

And people on the spectrum may provoke unpleasant treatment or assault purely because their facial expression, or proximity, is interpreted by others as aggressive or challenging.

A person on the spectrum intending to advise someone they shouldn't be cycling on the pavement, may come over as challenging and threatening. And that might provoke an aggressive reaction from someone who misunderstands their real intentions.

Fact is the condition affects communication by giving rise to inappropriate non-verbal responses (it isn't just about not being able to read non-verbal cues)

We're talking about two different things Longman.  An unprovoked assault on someone standing calmly with their hands down is very different from an autistic person having a meltdown causing collateral damage without intent.  Even if an autistic person (and this discussion is about higher-functioning people) had intent, it would more likely be out of desperation to stop a situation that was causing them distress than a thuggish and unprovoked assault.

If you look at the pictures in the article, the victim does not appear in any way threatening in his demeanour.

I don't believe there is any excuse for this type of assault, people don't need to resort to physical violence because someone says something they don't like, they can answer with words if they choose to react.  Why should it be punch first and ask questions later?  We are not animals.

I'm surprised at you having this outlook Longman.

Ah....so this whole thing about people with autism flailing out at people and punching people is a myth?

(as I have had to support people during stress or meltdowns, I was never within millimetres of a punch in the face........?)

I know it is made a stereotype, but yes it does happen.

And people on the spectrum may provoke unpleasant treatment or assault purely because their facial expression, or proximity, is interpreted by others as aggressive or challenging.

A person on the spectrum intending to advise someone they shouldn't be cycling on the pavement, may come over as challenging and threatening. And that might provoke an aggressive reaction from someone who misunderstands their real intentions.

Fact is the condition affects communication by giving rise to inappropriate non-verbal responses (it isn't just about not being able to read non-verbal cues)

David said:

Intenseworld:

Are you saying that Autistic people are gentile and not   violent?

Many people in our prisons have some disability or other.

Some Robbers have no disability and just cannot make ends meet.

David

No.  I am saying that autism does not predispose people to violent attacks on others.

No doubt there are many autistic people in prison, some may deserve to be there, but I would guess that many are in there through being misunderstood, unsupported, and misused in things like mate crime or simply because of not understanding the implications of what they were doing.

Intenseworld:

Are you saying that Autistic people are gentile and not   violent?

Many people in our prisons have some disability or other.

Some Robbers have no disability and just cannot make ends meet.

David

We do not really know what Medical Conditions the Offender had accept it shows being a Psychopath on the part of the Parents not caring that their son killed someone.

You are right many AUTISTIC people have CO- EXISTING conditions so therefore can be violent.

Have you or anyone else seen the You Tube of the attack?

If  you had then you might come to your conclusions about the attacker.

David.

David said:

Intense World:

What do you mean that Autistic people do not make unprovoked attacks on people because of their condition?

This sounds like a GENERALISTION to me.

Do Autistic people never attack each other on the streets?

A Mentally Ill person might attack another mentally ill person.

There is a rumour that all Autistic people are united  that is not true as people are not united by their disability..David.

What I am saying, is that autism does not lead people to make unprovoked attacks on innocent people.  An autistic person may have a co-morbid condition that could make them behave like that, yes.  I just don't get why you seem hell-bent on insinuating that he could have been autistic (although the victim was) or are accusing me of generalisation.  It's not generalisation.  Show me the research that states autistic people are prone to this behaviour and I will consider revising my belief.  It has nothing to do with all autistics being united.

The thing that struck me about the story was the judge. He is young in comparison with his fellows, a mere 63, but I always wonder, in an age when many people are being pushed out of work earlier even when the pensionable age has been pushed later - judges are considered to improve with age.....

But this judge courts controversy. He has on a number of occasions meted out lenient sentences and made controversial comments seeming to favour the criminals.

And he lives in a house in the country worth over a million pounds.

So out of touch with the real world, eccentric, likes to draw attention to himself....

Are we looking at the real issue here.......

As regards the assault, subsequent fall injury is a tricky one. The punch was hard and malicious, but the victim falling didn't necessarily lead to an injury from which he died.

We live in a society where there are a lot of young people walking about with stored up resentment and anger. A lot of crimes result from this.

The big problem we have at the moment is we are governed mostly by people whose backgrounds and daily life experiences are quite atypical of the vast majority of people in this country - like a cabinet full of Eton chummies.

What we need to try to do is to ensure those that make decisions live in the same world as ourselves.

I have googled it again and the Mother said the killing is NO BIG DEAL.

It is probably not possible to increase the sentence on those grounds  as the Mother of the killer made the remarks not the Killer Himself.

The Atorney General has asked to refer this to the Appeal Court as an over leinient sentence.

Lets hope that the Appeal Court will increaese this over lenient sentence of  four years plus six months because of a suspended sentence to at least ten years six months.

David

Intense World:

What do you mean that Autistic people do not make unprovoked attacks on people because of their condition?

This sounds like a GENERALISTION to me.

Do Autistic people never attack each other on the streets?

A Mentally Ill person might attack another mentally ill person.

There is a rumour that all Autistic people are united  that is not true as people are not united by their disability.

.

David.

Some Autistic people find themselves accused of serious crimes.

The KILLER whether he was AUTISTIC or not probably did not think of Autism when he did the killing especially as he would be undiagnosed.  The killer was annoyed that his mate was asked to cycle in a dangerous place the road. I was told when I was eleven that by cycling on the pavement I endainger her husband with one leg.  I cycled away from her on the pavement but shortly after that I gave cycling a rest.  My Mother told me to cycle on the pavemnet but when she saw that pedestrians were annoyed by my cycling on the pavement she told me to stop cycling. In other words only children should cycle on pavements.

The other point you get a lighter sentence if you plead guilty as you save Court Time.

A Not Guilty plea means a Jury and a long court  case.

A guilty plea can usually be dealt with in minutes.  The other reason is that Pleading Not Guilty is taking a gamble as you might be found NOT GUILTY..  It is good that people who Plead Guilty and do not take the gamble  should get a shorter sentence. 

It serves the interest of justice if Guilty people plead Guilty.

He should  have been rewarded for pleading guilty.

If he did not plead guilty the killer should have got a life sentence with a minimum of say FIFTEEN YEARS.  As he pleaded guilty if he got a ten year sentence he would still have been out in Five years.

David.