Two boys, aged 11 and 12, arrested after attempting to kidnap young girl

[Slowpoke]

Such a horrific story but with a nice (is that even the appropriate word)? ending...


Two schoolboys have been arrested on suspicion of trying to abduct a little girl from a supermarket.

Merseyside Police are appealing for information following the incident at an Asda supermarket in Smithdown Road, Liverpool, on Sunday November 6.

Detectives are appealing for a woman, who was in the store at around 1.30pm, to get in touch.

Police said the woman reported to an in-store security guard that two youths had attempted to coax her child, thought to be aged between three and six, away from her.


Click here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/boys-arrested-abduction-probe-164730918.html) for the full article :)

--

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Bulger_cctv.jpg

It's pretty odd that this comes around the same ITV advertise and air a documentary about James Bulger's killers - (kidnap taking place in picture above). Bulger would've been eighteen today :O
Instead, we lay another rose, in hopes that we will one day meet again. Sleep tight, angel :love:

[HotelUser]

If true, shame the boys cannot be deported.

[dbgtz]

Such a horrific story but with a nice (is that even the appropriate word)? ending...




Click here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/boys-arrested-abduction-probe-164730918.html) for the full article :)

--

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Bulger_cctv.jpg

It's pretty odd that this comes around the same ITV advertise and air a documentary about James Bulger's killers - (kidnap taking place in picture above). Bulger would've been eighteen today :O
Instead, we lay another rose, in hopes that we will one day meet again. Sleep tight, angel :love:

If he's 18 does that mean that he has no more legal protection?

Anyway this is pretty odd, I wonder what prompted them to do this.

[The Don]

If he's 18 does that mean that he has no more legal protection?

Anyway this is pretty odd, I wonder what prompted them to do this.

I'm confused, if who is 18? If you mean James Bulger, he was the 2 year old child that was murdered byJon Venables and Robert Thompson...

--

I hope they get a harsh sentence, and what a coincidence it is with thedocumentaryhaving been recently shown.

[dbgtz]

I'm confused, if who is 18? If you mean James Bulger, he was the 2 year old child that was murdered byJon Venables and Robert Thompson...

--

I hope they get a harsh sentence, and what a coincidence it is with thedocumentaryhaving been recently shown.

Oh I was thinking he was one of the kids who killed him, I'm tired and not thinking properly.

[Slowpoke]

What do you mean? The killers are in their twenties now. Jon Venables new alias was leaked and it was found he was living in Chesire and working at a pizza hut. Insane... He was re-arrested after being caught with cocaine, starting fights and having child porn on his computer... It was later revealed that he has been given another new alias, the cost of which - allegedly £1,000,000 - paid for by the taxpayer :)

[scottish]

What do you mean? The killers are in their twenties now. Jon Venables new alias was leaked and it was found he was living in Chesire and working at a pizza hut. Insane... He was re-arrested after being caught with cocaine, starting fights and having child porn on his computer... It was later revealed that he has been given another new alias, the cost of which - allegedly £1,000,000 - paid for by the taxpayer :)

Should save the money, much cheaper to put a bullet in his head, saving taxpayers, and 1 less scumbag in the world.

[Chippiewill]

Should save the money, much cheaper to put a bullet in his head, saving taxpayers, and 1 less scumbag in the world.
Let's just forget fair right to trial and other factors like psychological and mental problems, let's just kill people, because that fixes EVERYTHING

[scottish]

Let's just forget fair right to trial and other factors like psychological and mental problems, let's just kill people, because that fixes EVERYTHING

I agree.


If they're found guilty and indisputable evidence is shown, then they should be killed.

[RyRy]

Wow, that's young... and it'd have to be in Liverpool too wouldn't it ;/ God sake. It's disturbing what people will do, but for all you know some lads in a gang could've put them up to it as a way of an imitation test, it wouldn't be odd for that to be happening in Liverpool at all.

[Accipiter]

Let's just forget fair right to trial and other factors like psychological and mental problems, let's just kill people, because that fixes EVERYTHING

Lets look at nature, done a pretty fine job killing off the unwanted in my eyes.

They act like animals, they should die like animals would in nature if they where psychologically ****** up, which they are, it's just this world is soft and would rather pay more more to already committed criminals than it would to those ones that could be helped before they turn to a life of crime.

[Chippiewill]

Unfortunately somewhere along the line we gained this un-explainable thing called morality, which means that we're not allowed to think about just survival of the fittest. That's why we have taxes, the NHS, stuff like that, help the poor / save the africans etc.

Many people do things because they have chemical balances which make them psychotic or they had a terrible upbringing that game THEM a terrible sense of morality. We should give things like mercy, because that's what makes us better than them. That's what separates us from the apes.

[Accipiter]

But in that sense...

A disease, a virus infected a human, we kill the virus to protect our race.

A Human, his mind infected, almost a walking virus,threatenspeoplesexistence, just like a virus?

I find that morality would be fairer to kill a person thatthreatenlives, as you're putting lives at risk by not doing so, and by keeping him alive, putting more lives at risk by spending tax payers money harbouring a criminal when that money could go towards NHS and charity funds.

We try our best to stop viruses, if that man attacked your family, I hardly feel you'd think he should live just because of morality, you might argue you'd rather see him suffer, but is that not immoral?

I'm reading a book at the moment that has a good line about morality "Morality applies to your intent and the greater context of a situation". Explaining that you can be immoral while following the law, and moral not following the law. You can steal food for a person who is starving to the near point of death, morally right, or as said above, see a man suffer by following the law (in prison) immoral to think that way, but seen as ethical.

I think unethical would be thepreferredterm of a situation like this, but i'd still see it as right to kill a person who could harm again.

And who is to say what apes are doing is wrong, life is lead on beliefs, we see animals as inferior because they can't think, but I see them getting along fine without all the trouble we humans have, are we not the inferior species?

[Chippiewill]

We try our best to stop viruses, if that man attacked your family, I hardly feel you'd think he should live just because of morality, you might argue you'd rather see him suffer, but is that not immoral?
I would argue that someone in such a traumatic and terrible situation as having a family member murdered would not be able to think rationally, with a clear mind or with any sort of ethic code.


A disease, a virus infected a human, we kill the virus to protect our race.
A virus can't even reproduce by itself, are you telling me it's unethical to 'murder' a virus which isn't even a sentient being, isn't even *really* alive.


I find that morality would be fairer to kill a person thatthreatenlives, as you're putting lives at risk by not doing so, and by keeping him alive, putting more lives at risk by spending tax payers money harbouring a criminal when that money could go towards NHS and charity funds.
If money is a problem then clearly you're focusing on a low-priority issue, we should be spending more time at higher cost areas of bureaucracy such as the big elephant in the room *cough* EU *cough*, state pensions etc.

Lives in danger is a fairly assessed risk, but in general you'd be saving more lives by not mercilessly killing people who are:

a) Mentally ill
b) Brought up without ethics
c) CAN CHANGE

A couple of years ago a man in the US was put to death, he had gone on a killing spree with a high power rifle, it had later been discovered he had a freak chemical imbalance in his brain that caused him to be psychotic, it was later treated and he saw the error in his ways, unfortunately the Americans feel the only way to solve a problem is to shoot it, blow it up or lethal injection it.

Many people in the UK are in similar conditions, people on anti-depressants (A large portion of the population) frequently have a deficiency in a chemical known as Seratonin which causes happiness. These people do not choose to be handicapped in this way, they have no control over this, would you seriously blame them for being depressed? In the same way you cannot blame that man for going crazy and killing people.


but i'd still see it as right to kill a person who could harm again.
You used a word here, and it's an important distinction, it's called "could", this means there's a potential for an occurrence. Did you know that you COULD go off and kill someone because you were out of control? In fact almost anyone could. Granted higher percentages re-offending, but not to an extreme, especially for murder.

[Accipiter]

A man got fired at my work last week... all he had on his record was twok, a person can change, but people won't change their minds.

A man that has murdered can never live again, can never become a successful being.

Create a man who murdered, sane, and it'll only drive him made again.

Almost rhymed.

For the first bit, no but the nation would make the decision to see him suffer, like you are now.

Lets change from a virus, a dog bites a man, it is put down, but it is also proven a dog can change, why should a dog be treat unequally to a human just because we feel superior.

[jackass]

Bulger was born on the 16th March 1990, so that would've made him 21 last March? Unless i'm missing something here!

[Slowpoke]

I meant 18 years since his murder, I think?

[Succubus]

This is very wrong, Wrong to see people like this in the world to do things like this. :/

[Chippiewill]

A man got fired at my work last week... all he had on his record was twok, a person can change, but people won't change their minds.
I think that's the whole point I'm making?


A man that has murdered can never live again, can never become a successful being.
It's a shame, and it happens, but don't blame the person who is not *properly* responsible for their actions.


Create a man who murdered, sane, and it'll only drive him made again.
Sorry, but this is pure speculation and nonsense, this guy who went on a murderous rampage was treated for his mental illness and afterwards felt terrible about it, he didn't go mad again.


Almost rhymed.
It was meant to rhyme?


For the first bit, no but the nation would make the decision to see him suffer, like you are now.
The Nation suffers from a far greater problem, a severe lack of understanding of the situation


Lets change from a virus, a dog bites a man, it is put down, but it is also proven a dog can change, why should a dog be treat unequally to a human just because we feel superior.
I'm against that unless there's no real way a dog can be made to behave, ultimately if a Dog cannot be rehabilitated then it has to be put down because the effort to make a "doggy prison" would be laughable. Also it's not that we feel superior, it's a biological fact, not that it makes it right.

[Zuth]

Shocking how young some criminals are these days.