The crime, committed, and now, the punishment “phases”, and he’d not gotten off easy in this! From the Front Page Sections, translated…
He’d Scapegoated Someone Who’d Tried to Break Up the Arguments
A man, Tang started an altercation with another man, Weng at a restaurant, after he’d lost the case of physical assault that he was suing Weng for, he’d committed arson by Weng’s home, causing six of Weng’s family to die; the first trial gave Tang death penalty, the High Courts yesterday found, that Tang had enough time to decide on a better way of handling the matter, but instead, he’d set the fire, and still maintained the rulings, and stripped him of his public position for life.
The fifty-two-year-old Tang in April of 2014, took an umbrella into the restaurant, but the owner of the restaurant wouldn’t allow him to enter, they got into an argument; Weng, a customer at the time tried to break up the fight, and he was involved. Tang sued the owner of the restaurant and Weng, that as they pushed him out of the door, it’d caused him to trip and fall and injured himself, but all the other witnesses testified that Weng and the others never laid a hand on him, and so, the courts didn’t rule in Tang’s favor.
Tang held a grudge after losing, two years ago on the early morning of March 23rd, he’d gone to Weng’s place and set fires to the scooters parked there, Weng wasn’t at home, so he didn’t die, but, six of his loved ones were burned to death. On the first trial, Tang had, escaped death penalty; on the civil court front, the courts ruled he’d needed to pay $20 million N.T. for the emotional distress, and $75,000 N.T. for the funeral arrangements.
During the time when the Higher Courts were ruling, Tang denied having committed arson, and said that the police forced the confessions out of him, the judge asked him why he’d bought a total of $190N.T.s worth of gasoline that day, he said, because he was moving out of his rental residence, “I’d bought it to clean up the property”. Claimed that he’d admitted to arson because he was “lacking in psychological health, suffered from insomnia”.
The defense attorney for Tang said that he was mentally retarded, with an I.Q. score of 74, had a negative self-esteem, that his elementary school instructors made the comments of him being “careless”, but there was also another instructor who’d commented that he was “responsible” too, and the psych evaluations didn’t show that Tang was antisocial, and stressed that Tang set the fires to the motor vehicles, “He’d not set the property on fire directly”, he shouldn’t be given the death sentence.
The district attorney said, that as Tang was arrested, he’d admitted to setting the fires after having an altercation with Weng, and selected the early morning hours to set the fire, causing six to die, that he should be sentenced to death, that is what is right, for the lives he took; the attorney who was fighting for Weng’s behalf, Hsieh also said, that everybody in Weng’s families is dead, there was only him left, that they hoped the verdict stayed the same.
And so, this man lost control, and he’d scapegoated the man who’d attempted to break up the fight that he had at the restaurant, and, what was worse was he’d gone and set a fire that killed the families of the man who tried to break up the fight, and, his attorney argued that he didn’t have “intentions” to murder anybody? Uh, but the FACT is SIX people DIED because of HIS bad behavior, and death is the only punishment that is right and just!