Unarmed 17 year old black kills white man with a punch to the head

James P. writes:

The UK Telegraph reports that a 17-year-old black thug has been sentenced to eight years “detention” for knocking a man to the ground and killing him during the London riots last summer:

Darrell Desuze, 17, punched the elderly man to the ground as disturbances swept the country on August 8 last year. [Richard Mannington Bowes], who had been trying to put out a fire in a dustbin near his home in Ealing, West London, suffered brain damage and died three days later in hospital. Desuze’s mother Lavinia was jailed for 18 months at the same court today for perverting the course of justice by cutting up his clothes….

Wearing sunglasses and a distinctive top saying “Robbers and Villains,” [Desuze] threw his full weight behind a punch to Mr Bowes’s jaw, buckling his legs and knocking him unconscious.

The pensioner fell backwards on to the pavement and his head took the full force of impact on the road.

An unarmed 17 year old boy can kill a grown man? Who knew!

Unarmed 17-year-old black boy—and he’s
sort of sweet looking, don’t you think?

Note that the victim has an Eloi for a sister filled with nauseating “compassion” for the vicious thug:

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Mannington Bowes’ sister Anne Wilderspin, who was in court today, said she forgave Desuze—repeating what she said just after her brother’s death.

“Richard was my only brother and although I have been separated from him for many years, I had always hoped to be reconciled with him again,” she said.

“When I heard that he had been injured in the Ealing riots, I was hoping that my long-held desire to see and talk to him was being fulfilled.”

She said she was disappointed when she arrived at hospital in Paddington to find he had not regained consciousness and was on a life-support machine.

“I was completely devastated that I had found my brother and lost him again on the same day,” she said. But she said she was concerned for the accused and felt compassion for him.

“He has potentially ruined his life and will find it difficult to make an honest living in the future.”

She said he had committed a “terrible crime” but added: “I do forgive him and, as a committed Christian, pray to the Lord Jesus that he will turn over a new leaf.

“Both my husband and I hope that in this case justice will be tempered with mercy.”

She said she hoped the teenager would be rehabilitated in a “loving environment and find a new purpose in life.”

LA writes:

There is a crying need for a sensible and respected Christian authority to lay out the ground rules of Christian forgiveness. Jesus’ statements about forgiveness as recorded in the Gospels are highly contradictory and cannot serve as a practical guide in the absence of commentary, and the Catholic Catechism is not of much help either. The idea that you instantly and automatically “forgive” a person for a crime, no matter how serious it may be, and no matter whether the person has shown any remorse, does not feel right. It feels like a kind of sickness. But today’s Christian clerics are such wimpy liberals that there is little hope for clarification from that quarter.

It’s gotten so extreme you could make a cartoon of it. A black hoodlum runs up to a white man, hits him in the face with all his force, the white man falls to the ground dead—and instantly a chorus of white people dance onto the scene, waving their arms above their heads and singing to the hoodlum, “We forgive you, we forgive you, we forgive you! We have compassion for you.” The hoodlum in rage picks up a brick and smashes one of the singers to the ground, dead. The rest of the chorus pause for an instant to look at their dead colleague lying on the ground, then resume singing, “We forgive you! We forgive you! We forgive you! We have so much compassion for you!” The same continues until just one member of the chorus remains alive, singing, “I forgive you, I forgive you!” The hoodlum disgustedly pulls a gun from his shirt and with a single shot to the head shoots him dead.

LA continues:

Here is more on the behavior of Darrell Desuze during the riots:

The judge said Desuze “played a full part in the violence” and could be seen on CCTV smashing windows, looting shops, throwing missiles at police and wheeling rubbish bins into the street so they could be set on fire….

Desuze … was caught on camera kicking in the glass doors of a shopping centre before joining a mob that attacked heavily outnumbered police with missiles around Spring Bridge Road.

- end of initial entry -

Laura Wood writes:

According to Catholic doctrine, there are nine ways of being accessory to another’s sin:

“By counsel, by command, by consent, by provocation, by praise or flattery, by concealment, by partaking, by silence, by defence of the ill done.” [Roman Missal, 1962]

Though the current Catholic Catechism does not adequately explain these clearly defined terms of complicity, the Church has served as an authority on the matter since the first century and its historic understanding of the limits of forgiveness cannot be overturned by Church progressives, however much they may fail in their responsibility to instruct.

Anne Wilderspin has not just indulged in grossly misplaced empathy. She is complicit in her brother’s murder.

Catherine H. writes:

I wanted to emphasize what Mrs. Wood said regarding the authority of the Catholic Church in these matters. The Church was once entirely unambiguous in such matters as the role of secular authority in maintaining justice in society. Studying the laws of Catholic societies in the Middle Ages can provide prime examples of the Church’s traditional views in these matters.

I would also add that one of the most frequent mistakes Christians make today is to confuse personal obligations with the obligations of the state. It does not seem to occur to anyone that a Christian’s personal duty to forgive the wrong done to him (including acts of violence) does not translate to a duty of the state to forgive. On the contrary: the state (meaning the secular arm of authority in civil life) exists for the purpose of ordering civil life. This includes the responsibility of protecting its citizens from danger, as well as upholding principles of justice. It is entirely right and just that one citizen may lose his life for his crimes, and there would be no contradiction if Anne Wilderspin were to forgive Darrell Desuze, and yet support the state’s duty to execute him. Further, the state would be acting rightly in protecting innocent lives by ending a guilty one, while also fulfilling its role as an agent of impersonal justice.

The same mistake is often made regarding illegal immigrants in the U.S., with the American Catholic bishops urging the state in its official capacity to practice the private, personal virtue of “hospitality.” They do not acknowledge the vast gulf between the charitable duty of a single person, and the duty of the state (which is ordered toward the protection of its own citizens before all others).

This subject does not even begin to address how the subject of race confuses these ideas for the modern mind. If Darell Desuze had been white, would Anne Wilderspin have been equally “forgiving?”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 17, 2012 10:26 AM | Send