egafd.com

This case is quite heartrending when you hear the poor parents of the victim relating how that piece of excrement, murderer, Kiaran Stapleton, said, "Do I look bovvered?" when referring to their poor, slain son.

Don't you long for the day, when maybe a lone armed vigilante, hiding in the court room, got up and simply went up to a scumbag like Stapleton and put a bullet in his head? They'd be dancing in the streets all over the country! Instead he got a minimum of 30 years. I expect withing ten there'll be a huge group of do-gooders all lobbying for his release.

"Don't you long for the day, when maybe a lone armed vigilante, hiding in the court room, got up and simply went up to a scumbag like Stapleton and put a bullet in his head? They'd be dancing in the streets all over the country!"

Unless of course, they kill the wrong man like in the case of Charles de Menezes. In that situation, the dancing in the streets will be somewhat less pronounced. That's the problem with assassinations.

"I expect withing ten there'll be a huge group of do-gooders all lobbying for his release."

Unlikely I would have thought.

The scumbag has hardly given the impression of a guilt ridden, remorseful murderer, coming to terms with the enormity of the crime committed, has he?

Secondly, the sentencing is totally in line with the specific guidelines provided in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 - minimum of 30 years, offenders over the age of 18 guilty of murder, involving the use of a firearm or explosive.

So unless there was something dodgy about the case handling, any do-gooding would be totally misplaced, without basis and to use a legal term "pissing in the wind".

Yes he is scum but a bullet to his head would be too easy for him.

I find it slightly tasteless how you can pick up on such a tragic event as this and twist it into an attack on 'do-gooders'.

Fair enough if the story was about some lobby group trying to get him released but it isn't. Fuck me, Jim, sort yourself out.

"I find it slightly tasteless how you can pick up on such a tragic event as this and twist it into an attack on 'do-gooders'."

I don't see your point, I think Jim is simply pointing out that a lot of people would not be too bothered should the perp in this case get a bullet in the head, and also that there will be a very few people who will be convinced this guy should be released back into society asap, and that he's not really evil. That's life...

"also that there will be a very few people who will be convinced this guy should be released back into society asap, and that he's not really evil."

"Very few people......"

Jim refers to a "a huge group of do-gooders".

"who will be convinced this guy should be released back into society asap",

The guy has got a minimum of 30 years before release is even discussed. ASAP doesn't arise unless there is judged to be a mistrial.

I don't know why you don't get my point.

Jim used a tragic event like this to take a swipe at do-gooders. I found that a little tasteless given the immediacy of the case and a complete lack of any 'do-gooding' going on.

It's no big deal, I just found it uncalled for.