Jury have returned a "guilty of manslaughter" charge. I reckon that's the only reasonable thing they could have done. Whether or not he meant to kill the kid doesn't alter the fact that he was responsible for his death.
For the family to be disappointed it wasn't a murder charge is a bit tough. Manslaughter is there for those "caused death but not in a premeditated way, or by accident".
I'd hate to think what anarchy would rule if people were too scared to protect themselves (or property) for fear that they may inadvertently cause the death of the perpetrator! You may as well give crims an open cheque book for their activities since no one would be prepared to stand up to them.
You could also look at it from the perspective that if the boy had been home he wouldn't have crossed paths with an irate citizen; or that if he'd been out but not tagging then he would most likely still be alive. Yes, i accept that a life is more important than property but does that really mean that when trying to stop someone from defacing things you mustn't do anything other than ask them very politely to stop? You're more likely to end up getting the bash yourself.
But I am pleased that Emery didn't get off without any charge. That would have been terrible.
Bookmarks