Single Punch Killer To Have Sentence Reviewed

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

http://news.sky.com/story/1229161/single-punch-killer-to-have-sentence-reviewed
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-gill-says-crime-was-no-big-deal-9156497.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26291571

Andrew Young, 40 was killed during a sucker punch attack from Lewis Gill, 20 last November. The attack stemmed from Gill's friend Victor Ibitoye, 21 cycling on the pavement before being stopped by Mr Young. After Victor tried to reason with Young, Young informed him he was going to call the police. As Victor rode away, Young was reported to have said ‘Why don’t you go back to the jungle?’. It was at this point that Gill struck Young with a sucker punch, sending him to the concrete floor in front of numerous civilians. Gill was reported to have walked away afterwards, surveying the carnage he had created. Young suffered a severe head injury and died in hospital the next day, his mother at his side.

In Feburary, Lewis Gill was sentenced to four and a half years in prison for the manslaughter of Andrew Young, a sentence that outraged many, including Young's family. It was announced today that the case would be reviewed within five to seven weeks and whether a judgement on whether the sentence should be extended or not is up in the air.

Mr Young was known to have suffered from Aspergers, and was reported to have the social skills of a 14 year old. His mother Pamela said "He was very precise and particular because of his Asperger's, and he wouldn't have liked seeing someone riding a bicycle on the pavement because it was dangerous."

The thing that disgusts me the most about this tragic story is the comments from Lewis Gill's mother Sherron O'Hagan, who is reported to call the situation “I don’t understand what the fuss is about. This is no big deal. It’s tomorrow’s chip paper.”. Ignoring the fact that her son has been jailed for four and a half years, her callous and cretinous remarks are completely unjustified. She could have at least said how her heart goes out to Mr Young's family, the fact that she could acknowledge that her own son did a terrible crime or at least show SOME form of sympathy or caring in this situation. I know this is ad hominem from my behalf, but it's no wonder that her son has a history of crime, including serving a two year suspended sentence for robbery and now having killed a vulnerable man.

What's more, the judge, a Keith Cutler, has been known to give out lenient sentences, including two years to a man with no driving license for killing a motorcyclist. This completely undermines not only the entire case, but the law itself. It shows how little that both Keith and Sherron value a human life, and it certainly won't be enough for Lewis Gill to never consider carrying out such an act again.

I'm hoping the sentence gets a significant increase to bring some justice to this disturbing story. Four and a half years is unduly lenient for this barbaric assault, and it will do little to dispel Lewis Gill's thuggish behaviour. Attacking a vulnerable, autistic man who was trying to do the right thing, something anyone would have done, with Gill's intent to do as much damage as possible is the highest degree of manslaughter, and I hope a far stricter punishment befalls Lewis Gill; and that his unperceptive mother finally opens her eyes that this is a very serious matter.

What are your thoughts on this story?

 

[Mustang Sally]

Some folks say that anyone can be provoked to violence. Maybe that's true, but some people are a lot harder to provoke than others, don't you think? There seems to be an instinct within most people that, in a potentially violent situation, makes them think before they hit......thank heaven.

I'm not sure what this "muting" quality is: maybe the person who doesn't immediately lash out physically is more civilized, or more intelligent, or has a better developed conscience, or a loftier set of values......or perhaps it's a combination of all these factors, plus others I haven't touched on. But it seems to me that a person who possesses a greater degree of these negative qualities automatically strikes out with violence when they feel threatened or look to respond aggressively, without considering the possible consequences of doing so.

Presumably, the Lewis Gills of the world don't consider before they hit: "What happens if I kill or seriously hurt this guy?" or "Will the police be called if I do it?" No, these things don't even occur to them.....even unconsciously .....and they simply lash out. If they happen to be holding a weapon when the impulse strikes, they'll more than likely use it.

Consequences? Apparently, they don't enter a person like Gills' thought process....even instinctively. If they did, he might not act so rashly. When asked afterward why he didn't think before he struck, he'd be able to answer only with that damn: "It is what it is" half-assed answer that he thinks excuses him from acting on his base impulses without considering what might happen to his victim and himself as a result of it.

Whether his victim was a "vulnerable, autistic person" or someone who is fully healthy and presumably able to take care of themselves, it shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. You have to think before you act.

Let Lewis Gill rot in jail for taking the life of another person because of some sick, uncontrolled instinct that exists within himself. Gill's mother obviously fully recognizes that instinct in her son if she "can't see what all the fuss is about." I doubt the fallacy in her thinking could be explained to her in a manner she'd be able to understand.

If Gill is fully capable of taking life when he pleases, keep him separated from the rest of free society; that's the solution.

After all, "it is what it is."

Ugh.

 

[Loveless]

I'm not going to get into a long drawn out argument about this tonight as I'm tired, instead I'll cut right to the point.

4 and a half years for a punch.

Think about that for a moment. He didn't knife him, didn't shoot him, he punched him. There was no attempt to kill and no reasonable expectation that that would be the end result.

4 and half years for a punch, that any other day wouldn't have even ended with a trip to A&E

If anything, he's been given 18 months too long. To suggest he deserves longer isn't a decision being based on any kind of balanced logic.

 

[LSN80]

4 and a half years for a punch.

A punch that killed a man.

Human bodies are weapons itself. Haven't you ever heard of a Marine or a Navy Seal being given much more in prison because they killed someone in a brawl? About 10 years ago, there was a case where a man named Matthew Hunter, a college student who stepped in to a fight where his friend was being beaten down. In doing so, he accidentally killed one of the men who was attacking his friend, doing so with his hands wrapped around the back of the man's neck.

The man fell, hit his head, and Hunter got 9 years in prison. When you willingly engage in violence, for any reason, and someone dies as a result, you should be prepared to face consequences for it. The person who died could be someone's son, brother, husband, or father. What would you want if someone callously did this to a member of your family?

Think about that for a moment. He didn't knife him, didn't shoot him, he punched him. There was no attempt to kill and no reasonable expectation that that would be the end result.

What was the intent, then? To injure, correct? When you're careless and act out of anger, and someone dies as a result, it doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is. If you and I fought, and I carried a concealed gun and it became dislodged, and in the struggle, you were shot, it's a reasonable expectation that I should go to jail for some time. I entered the fight knowing I had a weapon, and even though I had no intention on using it, I inadvertently did so.

Further, this argument opens Pandora's box. It leaves a reasonable opportunity for any killer to say "It was just an accident", or "I just got carried away", using it as an argument for a lesser sentence.

4 and half years for a punch, that any other day wouldn't have even ended with a trip to A&E

Would have, could have, should have. What may have happened on any other day didn't. A man died because another lost his temper and willingly engaged in violence. There's risk there any time someone engages in violence, and just because Lewis Gill didn't consider the possible consequences doesn't mean he should get off lightly.

If anything, he's been given 18 months too long. To suggest he deserves longer isn't a decision being based on any kind of balanced logic.

Sure it is. There's an inherent risk that violence of any kind can lead to death. If you don't consider the consequences before you do so, there should be severe recompense. The ideas expressed by Gill's mother show no regard for human life and its loss, which is likely where Gill got the idea that such violence is acceptable.

Even if it results in the loss of life.

What's even more troublesome is, after seeing the man falling and dying, Gill walked away. He did nothing to try and help the man, he simply observed his damage like a king watching his kingdom, and with satisfaction, strolled away.

But yes, let's give animals such as these light sentences, teaching them that such behavior is ok. It's apparent his mother taught him this, and her response to the sentence he received reinforces it.

Does he deserve a longer sentence? You bet. If it teaches some individuals that violence against another human being- knife, gun or fist- is irresponsible at best and condemnable at worst, perhaps we'll see less violence such as this.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It sickens me that people believe this mans life meant less than those killed via knife or gun crimes. If you're that much of a thug that you willingly attack a man for doing nothing wrong, it doesn't matter how you did it, you deserve a very long sentence. If someone was stabbed in their leg, and later dies, is it acceptable to argue that they don't deserve a long sentence because stabbing in the leg isn't the same as stabbing in the chest? That your intention wasn't to kill, only injure?

The end result is the same, and it's appalling that he only received 4 years for it - I'm hoping for life. You cannot take someone's life because you feel like it, and manslaughter is just as terrible as murder. He clearly has violence and anger issues, and needs to be locked away from other people for their safety. Though if we're lucky, he'll be the victim of some in-prison violence and won't ever walk the streets again. How anyone could watch this video and not feel sick to the stomach, not fight for his sentence to be lengthened shocks me.

 

[ocekit]

People never consider just how much damage one punch can cause. We've had at least two incidents in Minnesota where one punch changed a family's life forever.

A former cop punched a man in a bar, causing him to fall. The man didn't die, but suffers from the results of brain damage. The damage has led to changes in his personality. He struggles mentally with things he had no trouble with before. The cop was convicted of first-degree assault and prosecutors asked for the maximum sentence of 86 months. The judge gave him 43 months. The victim is cursed for the rest of his life while this former cop who should've known better than to throw a punch gets less than 4 years in prison.

In another incident, a guy was walking in an alley when a teenage boy sucker-punched him. He fell and hit the concrete, dying as a result. The teen pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree murder. His sentence was 10 years, but with good behavior he could get out in 5.

It's amazing how so much can change due to an action's results, despite its intent. In both MN cases, had the results been different, both perpetrators probably would've received misdemeanor battery charges and gotten some form of probation.