h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This poor man was kicked to death by ,it appears, three pieces of scum that we call teenagers.

Can anyone explain what goes on in the minds of such trash?

Will any 'liberalist' come forward to blame their backgrounds?

Finally, what would you have done in his position. Called the police, probably a possible course, or let the rabble damage your property?

Meanwhile, my heartfelt sympathies to his wife, daughters, and family.

Novo

"Will any 'liberalist' come forward to blame their backgrounds?"

That'd be a stupid thing to do. Obviously they were just born evil, nobody's affected by their environment at all!


Saw the letter his daughter wrote to him in the paper. How upsetting's that??

"what would you have done in his position"

Depends what his position was. By the sounds of it he confronted a large group of late-teenagers, alone, unarmed, who were OUTSIDE his house and showing no signs of coming in. Not bright. In that situation, dial 999, and take photographs if you can do so without being seen.

If you're of a slightly more proactive bent, you might try opening a window slightly and having at them with an air rifle. It's astonishingly difficult in an urban environment to tell where a shot has come from even from a firearm, much less a quiet weapon like an air rifle. You could seriously wound two or three of them badly enough to put the rest off without them being able to tell where their attacker is, if you're patient and know what you're doing. Of course, if you've a neighbour or two with similar equipment and skills you could get the little sods in a crossfire...

Dial 999. Take pictures. Never confront unless cornered. If cornered, be sure you're armed, and kill.

SoRB

<>

This question is difficult as it assumes they have 'minds' as we understand the term.

<>

What Psycorp said...

<>

I'd've called the police.

One additional point: if you can, get a woman to dial 999 and tell the police she's alone and frightened. The response will be a good deal quicker than if one of the expendable population calls it in.

"Will any 'liberalist' come forward to blame their backgrounds?"

Hey, why did'nt you just turn on that big light that projects a badger silhouette on to the sky?

I will blame a country where people who regularly post here will advocate viloence for some of the flimsiest reasons. I'll suggest that in a society where there is a general glamorization of gang violence and where we leave restless youths twisting in the wind then try to blame it ALL on them when things go wrong.

Previous genration have not personally set them a good example and we, because I dont know any teenagers who make feature films or own games companies, have given them a surfeit of celluoid and digital violence to emulate. We need to take a lok at the inputs into their lives that we can can control and think about the influence it has on them.

On a not too distant tread people are dicussing the abuduction of a little girl due to neglegent parenting, we seldom consider the victims are corrupted youths just because they are bigger and not as cute it has to be all their own fault is the lazy way lots of people adress the problems of yout violence.

Notice this thread is one where we are discussing an adult who was the victim of a gang of youths. lets not forget that most victims of youth crime are youths too. When I was last discussing that subject the opinion of one well respected and well educated researcher here was "Its not my problem".

Actually its everyones and pretending otherwise is what leads us to the situation in this thread.

As a bit of advice Id say treat your property as just that property stuff you can fix or by more of your life is irreplaceable and not to be put in harms way for stuff they sell in Argos. Likewise attention for the direction of future generations can not be replaced by stuff they sell on the high streets.

Of course no 'liberalist' will come forward and defend these brutal killers, least of all me.

However - to a large extent any condemnation is shutting the door after the horse has bolted. The question is "How do we stop things like this from happening?" If you are at all serious about preventing future horrors - and I am - you need to take a good, hard look at what works. Somewhat inconveniently it has been found, time and time again, that it is precisely the namby-pamby liberal lefty measures to do with amelioring societal and environmental conditions that reduce crime. Welfare simply works better than punishment. Fact.

For myself, as a vehement and unswerving (small L) liberal, I'm sick to the back teeth of those whose only response is to jump on the bandwagon of knee-jerk condemnation - hell, isn't it *obvious* that this murder was disgusting and inexcusable? - but who don't have the guts or the imagination to put in place the measures that will prevent future obscenities.

(SoRB)
>>Not bright...etc.

Rather unfair, guy. The victim bears no responsibility for his murder.

<>

Usual pishy viewpoint then Novo? Of course, only a complete fool would take the view that a person's behaviour is not *in the slightest way* determined by their upbringing. Likewise, only a would say that someone's personality is totally subsumed by their environment.

The question is not 'nature v. nurture', but always a combination of the two. Somthing you seem to be having trouble with these days, eh?

PS, at least you don't have tombstone blues..

"The victim bears no responsibility for his murder."

In an ideal world, a middle aged man would be able to approach a group of youths engaged in criminal damage and remonstrate with them, and their respect for his age and position in society, combined with their inherent sense of guilt about what they're doing, would combine to make them stop what they're doing, listen to him, and then leave quietly.

However, I don't live in a world like that. I live in a world where a middle aged man deliberately attempting to interfere with a large group of youths engaging in criminal damage could reasonably expect to be badly beaten up AT LEAST, if not stabbed or shot.

If you stick your hand in a fire, it WILL get burned, and it WILL be your own fault for being so stupid.

I'm not saying, per se, that the victim bears responsibility for his *murder*. But... how do you put this?

It's not his fault they killed him. It's not even his fault they attacked him. But...

What did he *think* would happen? Seriously, in the really real world, what did he think he was going to do? What did he think THEY were going to do? Did he even consider the consequences? Did he have a *responsibility* to consider the consequences? If not for his own sake, then for his wife and daughter? He was in his house, in no immediate danger. He went out to them. Was physical violence really such an unpredictable outcome? It's unpalatable, but it's a question that has to be asked.

SoRB

<> (SoRB)

Well no, since it seems he reacted quite emotionally, not rationally.

<

I think it's unpalatable to even ask that question about someone who clearly behaved in a less than rational manner while feeling threatened. We can all say what *we* might have done or what would have been the *better* thing to do. But how many of us have ever been in that sort of situation? And even if anyone has been ... we don't know this man, who he was, how he felt about his home and family. I think a bit of empathy would go a long way here for anyone who chooses to judge how he behaved.

<>

Well, he obviously felt there was a real and immediate danger. Why else would he have done what he did? Was this the first time this sort of thing had happened to him? In any case, the situation made him react the way he did. I don't think there can be any judgement about this.

As for the killers ... in my opinion, by their vile actions they have forfeited the right to have many rights anymore. Unless some show remorse after they are caught - was it peer pressure? - who knows?

It's a very sad thing. And none of us know anything about it really. Yet we are all full of opinions. I'm sure the poor man's family doesn't give a flying about what any of us think, and rightly so.


az

Call the police? Why not call the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You'll get the same response.

Afternoon Pedro

What does 'pishy' mean please, and no I don't think I've got tombstone blues ( whatever they are ). I just see things, ,maybe start a thread , and sit back to see what comes out, and as importantly where I need to modify my views.

So far IMHO the best replies were from Blicky and Edward...
I hope to continue to live and learn

Novo

"<> (SoRB)

Well no, since it seems he reacted quite emotionally, not rationally. "

That's the kind of response I'd expect from a woman - that because the reaction was an emotional one, it absolves the one doing the reacting of any responsibility. I don't think I need to flatter that worthless argument with anything like a considered answer.

"I think it's unpalatable to even ask that question about someone who clearly behaved in a less than rational manner while feeling threatened."

It has been repeatedly and quite carefully spelled out that the victim deliberately went out to confront a group of people who were engaged in vandalising property. Anyone who claims to "feel threatened" because mere property is being damaged is someone looking for a fight. There has been precisely NO suggestion WHATSOEVER that the victim felt threatened.

"But how many of us have ever been in that sort of situation?"

How many of us have seen youths damaging property? I'd guess easily over 50%. I know I have.

"<>

Well, he obviously felt there was a real and immediate danger."

Worthless speculation. There is nothing obvious whatever.

"Why else would he have done what he did?"

What, you want a list?

1. He was an aggressive person who fancied a fight.
2. He was a martial artist who made an incorrect assessment of his chances in a fight.
3. He was armed and confident but failed to employ his weapon.
4. He believed he would be backed up by neighbours.
5. He believed he would be able to talk his way out of the situation.
6. He believed the police were nearby or on their way.
7. He believed he knew one or more of the youths.
8. He was a victim of serial vandalism and wanted a closer look at the perpetrators.
9. He was angry at damage to his property.

The list goes on and on and on for POSSIBLE reasons to do what he did.

"...the situation made him react the way he did. I don't think there can be any judgement about this."

I disagree. This is an extremely valuable learning experience, if only we can get past the worthless hand-wringing moralising. The lesson is - DON'T confront unless cornered. If cornered, assume you're in mortal danger and KILL.

In this instance, the victim was not cornered. This is not speculation, this is drawn from the widely reported facts of the incident.

"As for the killers ... in my opinion, by their vile actions they have forfeited the right to have many rights anymore."

They're still human. They have the rights of any other accused criminal.

"Unless some show remorse after they are caught - was it peer pressure? - who knows?"

Who cares?

"It's a very sad thing. And none of us know anything about it really."

How much do we need to know?

"Yet we are all full of opinions. I'm sure the poor man's family doesn't give a flying about what any of us think, and rightly so."

Can't imagine what relevance that has.

SoRB

<> (SoRB)

I'm sure you can't. Too bad for you.

az

I believe the 'Tombstone Blues' was a reference to my current nickname. , pedro - ya bas!

I still want to belabour the point with SoRB. I think you're in danger of advocating a world in which humans are judged poorly for being fallible. What would I have done if confronted with youths attacking a car? Well...frankly I may have made the 'mistake' of telling them off. If I were thinking straight, I might have recognised the danger - although I don't think I should be marked down for forgetting that the world has become dangerous, or for believing that it shouldn't be so. Certainly I don't think my mistake would deserve a kicking.

I'm not really sure why you mentioned what he 'should' have done. The fact is he acted humanly, normally and honourably. And was murdered. Discussing his alternative causes of actions is surely as relevant as saying that he woyuldn't have been murdered if he was somewhere else?

But clawing it back to my previous point...

What we should be doing is setting up circumstances in which human mistakes don't lead to horrific consequences. Mistakes like telling youths not to smash up someone's car. Or mistakes like being born into poor environments, to incompetent parents, falling into increasingly inappropriate patterns of behaviour...and so on. This is not to say "Ooh - poor babies - let's let them off." This is to stop things like this happening in the first place.

Incidentally, can we get away from the idea that this is any kind of new problem. I'm sure the Mail was running stories like this about Teddy Boys in the 50s, mods & rockers in the 60s etc. It's debateable as to whether it is any worse now than then, although it's certainly more extensively reported now.

The problem is delinquent teenagers which appears to be a problem affecting most Western societies from the latter half of the 20th century on.

All kinds of approaches have been tried to combat the problem, from "short, sharp shock" to sending them on adventure courses to Torremelinos. Demonstrably, none of them work. It doesn't matter what society does, there always seems to be feral kids pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

Has anyone got a new approach that hasn't been tried?

<>

Hi Novo.

Pishy means useless or wasteful. Your above comments from your first post sum up your attitude nicely. 'Scum', 'trash' etc. Combined with your 'born bad' thread from a while ago, I'd say the viewpoint that you obviously hold is invalid and ignorant.

You seem to believe that a person's upbringing has no influence on their actions, which is frankly, in the light of all the social knowledge we've gained in the last century or two, pathetic and inexcusable. Ed (too easy, mate) has pointed out that we know that a shitty environment often leads to shitty behaviour, and that isn't condoning the behaviour in the *slightest* to point out *some* of the causes of the behaviour. Failing to see this is, IMO, wilful ignorance, and you should modify (expand? go read a book?) your views.

Forgetting sociology for a minute, let's turn to biology. A 'normal' mammal our size would take approximately 2-3 years to grow to maturity. Yet it takes us 15-20 years to become fully adult. Wonder why? It's because we have *so* much to learn, that's why. It simply takes that long for us to learn to use our brains properly, to learn all that we need to know to function in any human society. Yet you ignore this time after time.

If you had to bet on it, would you say these teenagers were
a) some of the brightest boys at the nearest Public School, in the top half of their class, whose parents' income is comfortably in 6 figures

b) brought up in council estates, with parents who, if working at all, had low incomes and little education?

I think we'd all make the same guess, which tells you all we need to know. We instinctively *know* that poor environments occasionally lead to shocking behaviour. Your dismissal of this is pathetic, and to be honest your constant dismissal of it shows that modifying your views isn't really what it's all about, is it? It's about displaying your prejudices.

To take the question at face value, though..."What was going through their minds?"

It is an interesting one. A trite answer would be "nothing". What I really mean is that they possibly had little awareness or understanding of the consequences of their actions, either for their victim, their victims families, or themselves

One of the most successful interventions for children who are - let's call it - 'going astray' is to teach them about consequences, and about seeing things from others' point of view. After a lifetime of poor parenting, disengagement from education and plain old anomie (those unfamiliar with Durkheim should look this useful word up), they quite possibly won't have developed some fundamental thinking skills. Just imagine: If nobody has ever shown you any love, care or consideration, are you likely to project these onto others?

So - what to do about it? Just banging them up doesn't work: they feel victimised, plus they never have to confront the issues. 'Adventure holidays in Toremolinos' - they're a tabloid myth. (We knew that, right?). No good blaming the parents - how are you going to make them change? The liberalist approach is to make offenders think - which is not as soft an option as you might suppose; it's often the first time they feel anything approaching guilt.

Now, we know full well that this kind of thing works. So why don't we do it more? Well - what government is going to stick its neck out when the tabloids are baying for blood? Always baying too late, though. Catch kids when they're TWOCing and you've a chance of guiding them in the right direction. Better for them, better for society.

It behoves the likes of us to keep a cool head and not get carried after unspeakable events such as Mr Newlove's murder.

Having re-read SoRB's last bizarre post, there's one more thing I must bang the table about:

>>That's the kind of response I'd expect from a woman -

So how does it square that I share the opinion? And anyway...is a male viewpoint superior to a female one, like?

The mind boggles, it really does. He's not even meeting his *own* standard of objectivity.