Jury recommends 90-year sentence for teen in Spring pipe attack

So being high means you deserve to get a pipe rammed up your ass? Being high gives one an excuse for ramming a pipe up someone's ass?

 

The Verdict was correct

 

So if a girl is drunk then its OK to rape her?

Victims do bear a responsibility for their own safety and the price of the penalty of that responsibility is whatever happens to them. The perpetrators though also bear a responsibility since its their choice to commit the crime. What you're saying is turns that on its head by arguing that the perpetrator is really the victim. It doesn't work that way. Even if the victim should've known better the perpetrators still had a choice and a responsibility.

Except that's not the law. Should drunk drivers only be tried by a drunk jury? Should serial killers only be tried by a jury of serial killers? That's a stupid argument. A jury is asked to make an impartial decision not a decision based upon in the same situation as the suspect which is why being drunk and high isn't an excuse but an aggravating circumstance since it was a factor in the commission of the crime. Again they had a choice to get drunk and do drugs and they had a choice on whether to assualt the victim and then try to cover it up.

 

But I wasn't using the drugs as an excusing factor. The guy wasn't killed. They weren't attempting to kill him. They were assaulting him. The drug involvement in the assault is an aggravating factor. The severe bodily injury is another. If the pipe can be classified as a deadly weapon (not sure on that, if it was then pretty much anything could be), that would be another aggravating factor. There is a maximum number of "points" that can be tacked on to assault, to my understanding. The drugs were being used as an excusing factor in my post to 1) show that it wasn't a hate crime (you generally don't sit around and get high with someone that you hate, I wouldn't think) and 2) to show that their intent was not to murder him, which would take attempted murder off the table (where the state seems to agree with me since they were not charged with attempted murder).

New Yorker brings up an interesting point about the victim (though not where he was going with that point). Shouldn't the victim still face the drug charges? Are you excused from coke charges against you if you take a beating? Does the severity of the beating enter into it? Did the DA just decide he had suffered enough?

 

New Yorker;

I have another question related to why you are arguing in this manner. In the thread regarding the video of the shooting of Tibetan Pilgrims you pooh poohed the argument that the Tibetans should know better than to risk a dangerous border crossing. Since you believe that victims are responsible for their behavior and that their failure to be responsible is a mitigating circumstance would you now agree that those it was partially those Tibetans pilgrims fault that they got shot since they should've known that the Indian border is very dangerous.

 

They slashed him with a knife, and they stomped him in the head several times. One kid wore steel boots.

Seriously, I don't know why subsequent news reports leave out the details and only keep the sensationalist parts.

Is it because readers would die of boredom since beatings, slashings, and shootings are common?

It's like the media is **** on purpose.

 

Here the drug defense works against that argument since the degree of force they used they couldn't properly determine the extent of the damage done. Again being drunk and high doesn't excuse it and further as I stated in my reply to New Yorker it was a choice of them to get drunk and high in the first place.

Sure anything could be depending on its use. If I hit you in the head with a coffee cup with the intent to kill you that is a deadly weapon and what I'm doing is murder or attempted murder.

I will agree with you that the hate crime argument is one that isn't clear cut and one of the biggest problems with hate crimes is their subjectivity. On the issue though if they were trying to murder him or not again intoxication doesn't matter. To the point that the state chose not to charge them with attempted murder that is the DA's discretion but at the sametime the brutality, that they tried to cover it up and that the were drunk and high to begin with would aggravate the situation. Getting drunk and high is a choice to begin with that they are liable for also.

Just saw this:

It is the DA's discretion and in a case like this the DA would consider that the victim had already suffered horribly and to prosecute him further would be to doubly punish him, in the moral not legal sense, and finally that a conviction would be very unlikely.

 

I think it's you who needs to think much harder about what I said. Unless you're a woman who only uses one side of the brain.

 

The kid has a possibility of getting out at age 47. i would take that any day over not being able to crap correctly for the rest of my life and having a pole kicked up my ass.

 

You horse around with friends. . . . they were not his friend

Rocket River

I think I agree. .you are just doing the stimulus/response thing
cause other wise. . . . . .

 

I know this guy who had an Accicent . .the car tumbled
and he did not have a scratch . . so now .. everyone hurt in an accident
is suspect of lying. . cause I KNOW THIS GUY THAT DIDN'T

You cannot possibly be that. . uhm . .. well . . .you know. .

Rocket River

 

Yeah, I think you nailed it.

 

you're right, those pilgrims were spies and got what's coming to them! Victims are always crying.

 

that guy will be able to crap fine in a year or two.

 

whoa...what do you have against women?

 

I think a drunk driver should be tried by a drunk jury. If someone's judgement is impaired, and they make a mistake, in order to remove the effects of that impairment, then those who judge him must also be subjected tot he same impairment.

Unless the serial killer was drunk when he did the crime, I don't think your analogy hold true. HOwever, if the serial killer was psyhcotic, then the jury should be psychotic too.

 

it was a PLASTIC pipe. It wasn't like they knew it would rip his colin - i mean, skin heads are not known for their intelligence.

 

Again do you have some sort of medical knowledge that informs your judgement?

 

That is a ridiculous argument. Jury's are meant to make informed and impartial decisions. Its not about the jury being in the same mental state as the defendent but they are to make an impartial judgemement on the defendent. What you are asking is for them to be making a partial judgement by putting them into the same condition as the defendent. Finally you still ignore the issue that getting drunk and high is a choice of the defendent that aggravates the circumstance. If you're going to argue that juries can't make judgements unless they are in the same circumstance as the defendent then you would not only need drunk juries to judge drunk drivers but serial killers to judge serial killers, pedophiles to judge pedophiles and so on.

But I suspect you might know this and are playing devil's advocate.

 

That seems to be what you are stating in this thread. Anyway the question wasn't about them being spies. I know several posters brought up that they were spies in the Tibet thread but a few also brough up that the pilgrims should've known the border was dangerous. Whether they are spies or not under your reasoning Tibetan pilgrims attempting the crossing should bear some responsibility, and in fact you even argued that they were likely very aware of the danger, and that that responsibility is a mitigating factor.

If you want logical consistency and your argument is victims responsibility mitigates perpetrators guilt then certainly PRC border guards aren't that culpable for shooting the Tibetan pilgrims since the pilgrims should've known better.