I've been following the trial of these young murderers for a while. It's a sadly all too believeable story of two young people being brutally attacked for no apparent reason.
The judges closing words on the original trial moved me greatly, so harsh were they. I have to admit they were more reserved than I would have been. I do not believe in the death penalty but in this case I really do think life should mean life. No one who could possibly do that sort of thing, even though they are so young, should ever been allowed into the public sphere again.
I can at least get a narrative understanding of "planned" or "opportunist" murders. There's a sick and twisted reason behind those. But random, I mean truly random, attacks such as this baffle me. Were these boys really so filled with hatred of "others" that they were willing to go that extra leap from abuse to murder? Or were they just so mentally warped that there was no reason at all? I just can not begin to comprehend their actions.
And now there is this murder in a supermarket. So someone abuses you in a car park. Do you:
1) Call the police as you felt it was so terrible that it warranted further action
2) Walk away, it wasn't so bad as to need the police and you'll survive.
3) Get your husband to go up to this man in a supermarket and "pay him back"?
Personally I'd always do number 2, unless the situation was very severe. But the lady involved stupidly did 3. And her husband got the wrong man. Just went up to a stranger, didn't even question the man as to why he abused his wife (or obviously confirm with his wife that he'd got the right bloke) and punched him so hard in the face that he died.
I hope they go down for a long, long time. Stupid x 2 plus violence = deserve a nice long spell at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Honestly if Jim was abused, I'd be angry, but if Jim wanted retribution I'd be smart enough to counsel that he contact the police immediately. Hot headed violence leads no where but jail.