2 Romanian teens get 2 years for killing a man in London

You stupid victim blamer.

You are absolutely right that he was reckless to throw the first punch. But that does in no way, shape, or form excuse beating someone to death. To keep beating on him when he is on the ground, to stamp on him. That's sick. These animals should be locked away for eternity.

So they are Romanians.

no. They do have, in many cases, Romanian citizenship- but they aren't Romanians (or Bulgarian, or Slovakian). They are Roma.
unlike Brits, many continental countries actually have a somehow set cultural identity.

At which point did I not condemn their actions? All I'm saying is he should have not done anything in the first place. Their sentence reflects the fact they reacted and did not instigate the voilence. Also locking people away is not the best option, look in to Norway's prison system and they are the most lenient and focus on rehabilitation (and have lowest reoffending rates).

Human instinct is to punch someone back when they hit you. If there are three of them, then you are an idiot for not knowing how to handle situations like that with anything other than voilence.

They plead guilty to manslaughter and one of them was a minor. No murder charge (he died in hospital the next day). So sentencing looks 100% on the money to me. They wouldn't be deported as they are most likely British citizens, having lived here for 6 years already.

no. They do have, in many cases, Romanian citizenship- but they aren't Romanians (or Bulgarian, or Slovakian). They are Roma.
unlike Brits, many continental countries actually have a somehow set cultural identity.

Victim blaming =/= not condemning perps.

You blamed him for starting it. And I agreed, that was stupid and he "deserved" a beating in the sense that he could not have complained had they simply beaten him. But the level of aggression and violence it takes to actually kill someone...that is completely out of proportion.

100% they were romani gypsies, not romanians. As a romanian I cringe at the confusion, they are a completely different race and culture that migrated from India hundreds of years ago. Romanians have enough faults as it is, we don't need to be confused with gypsies on top of that. They are the south asian looking people you see begging in the streets or sleeping in Hyde Park on a pile of rubbish. Virtually the entirety of ''romanian crime'' is done by gypsies, the actual romanians are much harder to notice since they look european, they integrate, work and pay their taxes. If anything they are the ones being by abused through poverty wages and working conditions. It's like saying the typical englishman is Mo from Whitechapel who married his cousin.

The ratio decidendi was spot on, the sentencing is light. The man attacked them first (albeit with provocation) and they killed him acting in excessive self defence. Its been held as an act of reckless manslaughter due to the mitigating fact the builder punched them.

The CPS struck a deal with defence council as manslaughter is a discretionary sentence, hence the guilty plea. Due to the first act of violence being on behalf of the builder, manslaughter was almost the perfect charge for this case - but i think 5 years would have been more appropriate with 3 years referral for mitigated GBH for the younger one.

They did stamp on an unconscious man until they inflicted wounds so awful they caused death.

I don't like to comment too specifically on this sort of stuff because to be honest, unless you're actually in the courtroom from start to finish you can't really know absolutely everything that happened. I don't disagree with you, but I think the sentencing was at least in the right ballpark and so I'm willing to trust the judge's, er, judgement in this case.

It was certainly more appropriate than the 15yrs - life a lot of people seem to be determined to give them. I entirely get the idea of reneging specificity in such instances (i was reading the forum off the back of my last exam and was in full on legal consideration mode =P ), and certainly if we can't trust judges who can we trust.

I'd argue part of their role is public facilitation and that even in mitigating circumstances a little more harshness may be required for those who go above and beyond the law so excessively. It wasn't a case of excessive self defence where in the moment they massively overreacted in immediacy ie stabbing him with scissors or shooting him three times - there was a drawn out process of beating whilst he was unconscious which implies a degree of intent.

The supposed killing blow came after the fact. After they had beat the man and stamped on him, members of the public were helping him up, then one of the assailants ran up and hit the victim hard enough in the face that it was heard more than seen, as was the moment when the victims head hit the floor.

It could have been argued the confrontation was over at this point, so self defense shouldn't have been a viable plea. At best, crime of passion.

no. They do have, in many cases, Romanian citizenship- but they aren't Romanians (or Bulgarian, or Slovakian). They are Roma.
unlike Brits, many continental countries actually have a somehow set cultural identity.

Romanians have enough faults as it is, we don't need to be confused with gypsies on top of that.

100% they were romani gypsies, not romanians. As a romanian I cringe at the confusion, they are a completely different race and culture that migrated from India hundreds of years ago. Romanians have enough faults as it is, we don't need to be confused with gypsies on top of that. They are the south asian looking people you see begging in the streets or sleeping in Hyde Park on a pile of rubbish. Virtually the entirety of ''romanian crime'' is done by gypsies, the actual romanians are much harder to notice since they look european, they integrate, work and pay their taxes. If anything they are the ones being by abused through poverty wages and working conditions. It's like saying the typical englishman is Mo from Whitechapel who married his cousin.