Sunny Weather Report Ashburn, United States Of America +13°C, Sunny

Thug Gets Just 4 Years for Killing Vulnerable Man

Thug Gets Just 4 Years for Killing Vulnerable Man

THUG GETS JUST 4 YEARS FOR KILLING VULNERABLE MAN – Andrew Young, 40, a man with Asperger’s syndrome paid the ultimate price for simply trying to be a good citizen by challenging a cyclist riding on the pavement.

All Andrew really attempted to do was to remind the cyclist just how dangerous it was for him to ride on the pavement; it was a remark that the cyclists friend, Lewis Gill, 20, a convicted robber, took offense to and in what is tantamount to an unprovoked vicious attack, Lewis Gill delivered a single punch that resulted in Andrew Young dying the next day in hospital.

The CCTV footage above clearly shows Andrew falling backwards and hitting his head on the road which ultimately caused his death.

Yesterday Lewis Gill stood before a judge and pleaded guilty of manslaughter and was subsequently handed a four and a half year sentence that is likely to consist of no more than 2 years imprisonment.

Pamela Young, Andrew’s mother, described the sentences as offensive and a complete and utter joke; here was a man that attacked an innocent person just because he was trying to do the right thing.

Within the CCTV footage it can be plainly seen that Andrew Young wasn’t expecting a violent confrontation; Lewis Gill simply lashed out in a surprise attack and then calmly walked away leaving Andrew lying in the road with but a glance back at his victim.

Murder… no the law does not define such an act as being murder but rather one of manslaughter and that’s because there was no evidence to suggest ‘intent’; that is Lewis Gill didn’t plan or intend for his victim to die.

For more information see – Crown Prosecution Service: Murder and Manslaughter.  Note that once you reach the page you’ll need to scroll down to find the relevant section.

Once again it is interesting to see the public’s perception of justice for with the number of comments surrounding this case it is clear that many feel this should be treated as ‘murder’ and yet the fact remains that such an act is not defined in law as such.

As for Pamela Young, a committed Christian, she feels that if someone takes a life then they should be prepared to forfeit their own.

It remains a fact that in 1965 when the Government suspended the death penalty the public were outraged.  In 1969 despite overwhelming public support for the death penalty the Government moved forward and abolished it.

The Government at the time didn’t listen to public sentiment and some 40 years later they are still not listening, for it is widely known than some 65% of the population are in favour to reinstate the death penalty; unfortunately that decision does not lie with a democratic public vote but from an abundance of liberals in the House of Commons and the House of Lords who feel the death penalty is inhumane.

Regardless of whether the death penalty did actually exist in modern times, it is an unequivocal fact that Lewis Gill would never have been sentenced to death for the crime of manslaughter, even prior to 1965 this did not exist; it was and remains a punishment by imprisonment.

I think we can all identify with Pamela Young’s frustration at the justice system for it is undeniable that it has eroded with our liberal indoctrination that criminals are but mere victims of a cruel and uncaring society and who are rarely afforded any opportunity.

Yes, that is the liberal indoctrination we have been subjected to since 1965 and much earlier and to which has led us to a society whereby the criminal is almost untouchable.

So what would have been a fitting sentence for Lewis Gill?  Certainly the death penalty even if it were in effect wouldn’t be used but to sentence him to just four and a half years with the very real prospect he’ll be out on the streets in two years certainly doesn’t provide the public with any justice.

25 years should be the minimum for manslaughter; especially for the likes of Lewis Gill for we already know he’s a criminal and now we know that he’s violent with it and therefore is a grave risk to the general public.

Human Rights advocates will tell you that it’s inhumane to incarcerate a person for that length of time for such a crime but these typical brands of liberals are more interested in satisfying their own conscience rather than adequately protecting the public.

We desperately need a change in the law so that the death penalty can be reinstated along with public flogging for crimes such as theft, burglary, robbery, drug dealing and a whole plethora of other crimes.

Cast your eyes towards Singapore who do sentence criminals to caning and see how many of these people reoffend.  The answer you will find is very few and whilst Singapore has its fair share of crime the Government as least has the spine to uphold punishment that the public deem fitting.

There is no bringing back Andrew Young, a decent citizen, but we are able to bring back justice but until the people refuse to vote for any political party until they provide an assurance such will be implemented then society will continue to allow criminals to effectively get away with crime without any fear of being suitably punished.

I honestly feel that whilst the public continues to do nothing then Andrew’s death can be attributed to us all for it is ultimately we the people who should dictate to our Government and not the Government dictating to us.

I for one refuse to remain silent and will continue to publish articles calling for a change in the law so that criminals once again fear the reprisals to the consequences of their actions.

RIP Andrew Young.

Bookmark and Share

Tags assigned to this article:
Thug Gets Just 4 Years for Killing