Thug hurls acid over a student and her cousin as she celebrated her 21st birthday, leaving him in a coma

[*]Man threw corrosive substance through car window at Resham Khan and cousin

[*]Victims tried to drive away to escape attacker but crashed as 'pain took over'

[*]Miss Khan has had a skin graft while cousin Jameel Muhktar, 37, was put in coma

[*]Manchester Met business student is 'wondering if my life will ever be the same'

[*]Her Twitter thread about the ordeal has been retweeted more than 6.9k times

[*]Miss Khan's friends have set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for her therapy 


A thug who hurled acid at a student and her cousin as they celebrated her 21st birthday has left the pair with life-changing injuries. Manchester Met university student Resham Khan, and her cousin Jameel Muhktar, were driving through Beckton, east London, when they were stopped by a red traffic light. They had the windows down and were playing music, feeling celebratory after not having seen each other since Miss Khan returned from an exchange year in Cyprus.
[*]


+9


Attacked: Manchester Met university student Resham Khan (pictured), and her cousin Jameel Muhktar, were driving through Beckton, east London, when they were stopped by a red light. As they waited for the lights to change a man threw a corrosive substance through the open window and into Miss Khan's face - before going round to the driver's side and throwing more acid at Mr Muhktar. Miss Khan, a Business Management student, said she watched her clothes burn away as she struggled with the 'excruciating' pain. She said she and her cousin, 37, tried to drive away from their attacker but crashed the car when the 'pain took over'. They were forced to strip naked on the A13 as they begged passersby for water to help ease the agony. A kind stranger drove the pair to hospital where Mr Muhktar was put into an induced coma while Miss Khan was given a skin graft.
[*]




Brutal: As they waited for the lights to change a man threw a corrosive substance into Miss Khan's face - before going to the driver's side and throwing more acid at Mr Muhktar


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4637724/East-London-thug-hurls-acid-student-21st-birthday.html#ixzz4l2gh2uUB 

When the fuck are they going to stop people being able to buy this substance? Where are they getting it from? Car batteries? Ebay?

It's Car Battery Acid, or you can buy Sulphuric Acid from a Chemist.

It's used by Builders to clean Brickwork.

nicko wrote:It's Car Battery Acid, or you can buy Sulphuric Acid from a Chemist.

It's used by Builders to clean Brickwork.

It needs to be licensed then.

Why, just why?

HoratioTarr wrote:

nicko wrote:It's Car Battery Acid, or you can buy Sulphuric Acid from a Chemist.

It's used by Builders to clean Brickwork.

It needs to be licensed then.

NO

what is needed is for a life sentence...meaning LIFE for wrongful use thereof...

the problem isnt the substance, its the fact that inevitably, there are no/imsufficient consequences for the misuse of such...
licences cost money....

for which YOU (and everyone else) will end up paying for...

there was a similar cry about acetone and hydrogen peroxide (the chief components of teh TATP explosive belioved of terrorists)

now I use both....and in reasonable quantities at times, as part of wood dyeing processes and the acetone as a safe solvent for some dyes.

if itbwas licenced the cost would be high and inebvitably that would have to be passed on to customers...

also because the COST of the licence would be identical for a sole trader as a massive business, the sole trader, (once again) gets battered out of existance by unfair competiton costs

also are you willing to pay say £250 for the licence...since you have that same acid in your car battery and "could" drain it from there to use???????

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It needs to be licensed then.

NO

what is needed is for a life sentence...meaning LIFE for wrongful use thereof...

the problem isnt the substance, its the fact that inevitably, there are no/imsufficient consequences for the misuse of such...
licences cost money....

for which YOU (and everyone else) will end up paying for...

there was a similar cry about acetone and hydrogen peroxide (the chief components of teh TATP explosive belioved of terrorists)

now I use both....and in reasonable quantities at times, as part of wood dyeing processes and the acetone as a safe solvent for some dyes.

if itbwas licenced the cost would be high and inebvitably that would have to be passed on to customers...

also because the COST of the licence would be identical for a sole trader as a massive business, the sole trader, (once again) gets battered out of existance by unfair competiton costs

Licensing doesn't necessarily mean having to pay a lot of money, just being registered to use it? Crimes like this are truly awful because they totally ruin that person's life.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It needs to be licensed then.

NO

what is needed is for a life sentence...meaning LIFE for wrongful use thereof...

the problem isnt the substance, its the fact that inevitably, there are no/imsufficient consequences for the misuse of such...
licences cost money....

for which YOU (and everyone else) will end up paying for...

there was a similar cry about acetone and hydrogen peroxide (the chief components of teh TATP explosive belioved of terrorists)

now I use both....and in reasonable quantities at times, as part of wood dyeing processes and the acetone as a safe solvent for some dyes.

if itbwas licenced the cost would be high and inebvitably that would have to be passed on to customers...

also because the COST of the licence would be identical for a sole trader as a massive business, the sole trader, (once again) gets battered out of existance by unfair competiton costs

Licensing doesn't necessarily mean having to pay a lot of money, just being registered to use it?   Crimes like this are truly awful because they totally ruin that person's life.

try telling that to greedy local authorities (who generally are the ones who carry out such licencing) who will charge what they think they can get away with ..
ANYTHING that requires a licence is just another cash cow..

Acid attack throwing has to be one of the most cowardly crimes, the effects are life long, that's if the person survives it.
I agree with LF, the people who do it should be given a life sentence....just as their victims have.

If you ban the substance they will find something else to use if burning and scarring someone is what they have in mind.

I agree Syl, they should get life, they've made sure their victims lives are ruined.

In this instance they should get the death penalty, and it still would be a better fate than they gave the victims.

Original Quill wrote:In this instance they should get the death penalty, and it still would be a better fate than they gave the victims.

proportionality quill?

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:In this instance they should get the death penalty, and it still would be a better fate than they gave the victims.

proportionality quill?

If I understand you, yes!

Beautiful young children, having now to go through life with all the derision and pity associated with defacing...for many death probably would be better. So, I would categorize the crime creating this condition equal to a capital offense.

Of course, who knows what death is? We send soldiers off to die for a shiny piece of medal, and think we are being righteous.

I need to stop reading the fucking newspaper. I've just seen a piece about some sick geranium Chinese boiling a dog alive in a wok while people stand around laughing. I feel sick.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

proportionality quill?

If I understand you, yes!  

Beautiful young children, having now to go through life with all the derision and pity associated with defacing...for many death probably would be better.    So, I would categorize the crime creating this condition equal to a capital offense.

Of course, who knows what death is?  We send soldiers off to die for a shiny piece of medal, and think we are being righteous.

They weren't children.

We don't have the death penalty here - we generally consider it to be barbaric.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If I understand you, yes!  

Beautiful young children, having now to go through life with all the derision and pity associated with defacing...for many death probably would be better.    So, I would categorize the crime creating this condition equal to a capital offense.

Of course, who knows what death is?  We send soldiers off to die for a shiny piece of medal, and think we are being righteous.

They weren't children.

We don't have the death penalty here - we generally consider it to be barbaric.

I know all that.  But you guys keep casting me as some liberal snowflake, and it may be shocking to some of you to realize I have a few tough-love answers.  Lol.

Incidentally, the one young woman was lovely, and appeared to be gracious.  



If it happened in some parts over here, it might be a death penalty case. Well...no, the death penalty is on hold over here. But some people would be mighty angry.

I don't know what the penalty is, but it should be more than GBH or whatever. The consequences of an acid attack are very lasting, and the rehabilitation is long. They should get 20 years or so.

I get what you are saying Quill, BUT is that JUSTICE or revenge?

and if its revenge ...who's revenge is it??? the couples or society's?

Lord Foul wrote:I get what you are saying Quill, BUT is that JUSTICE or revenge?

and if its revenge ...who's revenge is it??? the couples or society's?

The older I get, the more I realize that it's all revenge. War, today, is obviously revenge...how dare they not cower and grovel to us!?

Of the four justifications for punishment, removal, rehabilitation, deterrence and retaliation, the latter seems to be the one that motivates most people.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I get what you are saying Quill, BUT is that JUSTICE or revenge?

and if its revenge ...who's revenge is it??? the couples or society's?

The older I get, the more I realize that it's all revenge.  War, today, is obviously revenge...how dare they not cower and grovel to us!?

Of the four justifications for punishment, removal, rehabilitation, deterrence and retaliation, the latter seems to be the one that motivates most people.

I would say removal is the first motivation for punishment, and for the most heinous of crimes make it permanent.

agreed, but one has to be careful to distinguish just who's revenge it is

one is acceptable, the other isnt (when we are talking about actions that affect individuals, as opposed to society as a whole...and even then there needs to be careful consideration as to the strength of the casus belli and the justice therof)

Vic wrote:..who's revenge is it??? the couples or society's?

Now, that's a really good question. Philosophically, it's supposed to be society's purposes (if not revenge), but the 'eye-for-eye' principle that I was espousing seems to go to the couple.

But I think society takes some vindication in making punishment be in proportion to what was done offensively. A part of that is to take into consideration the innocence of the victims. I mean, you want society's norms to be reinforced, and if someone can do that to such a nice, innocent looking pair, well...he's all that much more out of line.

Ahhh...now then quill, you are being swayed by your emotion and your amygdala is taking over your cortex....

"such a nice, inoocent looking pair"

more I beleive predicated on the clearly very pleasant young lady than anything else....

would you also apply such a heavy penalty to a thug who did the same to an ugly old moose???

Lord Foul wrote:Ahhh...now then quill, you are being swayed by your emotion and your amygdala is taking over your cortex....

"such a nice, inoocent looking pair"

more I beleive predicated on the clearly very pleasant young lady than anything else....

would you also apply such a heavy penalty to a thug who did the same to an ugly old moose???

True, the line blurs.  But don't throw out the baby with the bath.  A lot of our standards are based upon our likes, without pausing to consider the value of that to society.  With the girl, it's more the smile and what that means...she is nice, gracious (as I said) and the expectation is that she will be a pleasant addition to our society.  If she were grumpy, with a scowl, she would still be 'legal', but unnnn...society is better when people are nice.

The point is to remove violence and selfish unpleasantness from society, and she appears to be the opposite.  And keep in mind, we are talking about the criminal's imperviousness to society's norms, and throwing acid in the face of such a pleasant appearing person, that's just really, really not nice.  That's the way juries think, like it or not.

But is that "justice" I think not, IF what you are saying is that this justifies the DP becasue she is a pleasant looking young girl...and if its NOT justice it isnt law (given that the law concerns itself with justice) AND evem IF the law is not so much concerned with what is just but merely with keeping order in society, then again it fails becasue if your take of the above is applied, the opposite (that it IS ok to throw acid at an ugly old moose) applies

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Ahhh...now then quill, you are being swayed by your emotion and your amygdala is taking over your cortex....

"such a nice, inoocent looking pair"

more I beleive predicated on the clearly very pleasant young lady than anything else....

would you also apply such a heavy penalty to a thug who did the same to an ugly old moose???

True, the line blurs.  But don't throw out the baby with the bath.  A lot of our standards are based upon our likes, without pausing to consider the value of that to society.  With the girl, it's more the smile and what that means...she is nice, gracious (as I said) and the expectation is that she will be a pleasant addition to our society.  If she were grumpy, with a scowl, she would still be 'legal', but unnnn...society is better when people are nice.

The point is to remove violence and selfish unpleasantness from society, and she appears to be the opposite.  And keep in mind, we are talking about the criminal's imperviousness to society's norms, and throwing acid in the face of such a pleasant appearing person, that's just really, really not nice.  That's the way juries think, like it or not.

Are you crazy? It's nothing to do with how pleasant someone is or looks. Having acid chucked at you hurts, whether you look pleasant or not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

True, the line blurs.  But don't throw out the baby with the bath.  A lot of our standards are based upon our likes, without pausing to consider the value of that to society.  With the girl, it's more the smile and what that means...she is nice, gracious (as I said) and the expectation is that she will be a pleasant addition to our society.  If she were grumpy, with a scowl, she would still be 'legal', but unnnn...society is better when people are nice.

The point is to remove violence and selfish unpleasantness from society, and she appears to be the opposite.  And keep in mind, we are talking about the criminal's imperviousness to society's norms, and throwing acid in the face of such a pleasant appearing person, that's just really, really not nice.  That's the way juries think, like it or not.

Are you crazy? It's nothing to do with how pleasant someone is or looks. Having acid chucked at you hurts, whether you look pleasant or not.

When you're asking a jury to incarcerate someone for life, you'd be surprised how powerful a before/after photograph of an attractive girl is. The jury will gravitate toward that victim, and begin to vilify the defendant for taking away her good looks and lovely smile. Juries are just people, after all.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you crazy? It's nothing to do with how pleasant someone is or looks. Having acid chucked at you hurts, whether you look pleasant or not.

When you're asking a jury to incarcerate someone for life, you'd be surprised how powerful a before/after photograph of an attractive girl is.  The jury will gravitate toward that victim, and begin to vilify the defendant for taking away her good looks and lovely smile.  Juries are just people, after all.

Fair enough. I think the same can be said if a child, a disabled person, or a pensioner is attacked with acid though because they're seen as defenceless. Of course if someone is not any of those, they're still defenceless against such an attack if it comes out of the blue.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When you're asking a jury to incarcerate someone for life, you'd be surprised how powerful a before/after photograph of an attractive girl is.  The jury will gravitate toward that victim, and begin to vilify the defendant for taking away her good looks and lovely smile.  Juries are just people, after all.

Fair enough. I think the same can be said if a child, a disabled person, or a pensioner is attacked with acid though because they're seen as defenceless. Of course if someone is not any of those, they're still defenceless against such an attack if it comes out of the blue.

Of course. We are both saying the same thing. It's just one example is further down the road than the other.

Jurors are going to be sympathetic to the victim, whomever he or she is. But some victims will play upon the juror's sympathy more. We choose pretty ladies to be our movie stars. The same sentiment comes out when jurors gravitate toward certain victims.