Excessive or Well Deserved?

Off Topic
304

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it.

But at the same time, his past actions and background have bearing on what he does now, so it should be brought up to an extent.

If he acted totally in self-defense, his past would not be as much a problem. When he crossed the line from defender to loose cannon attacker whipping downed opponents with a piece of metal, it means that instantly his background will be questioned harder. And rightfully so[/quote]

His background had nothing to do with the charge though. This wasn’t a grand jury charge (assuming background can even be introduced during this process). This charge was brought my LEO, likely after viewing the tape. I doubt they knew his record until after the booked him and up to sometime before the bail hearing.

In other words, they didn’t arrive at the scene, run his criminal background, THEN decide to charge him.

When the ARE unsure of a charge, they usually punt to the DA who decides whether to take it to grand jury or kick it back down to misdemeanor land.

307

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it.

But at the same time, his past actions and background have bearing on what he does now, so it should be brought up to an extent.

If he acted totally in self-defense, his past would not be as much a problem. When he crossed the line from defender to loose cannon attacker whipping downed opponents with a piece of metal, it means that instantly his background will be questioned harder. And rightfully so[/quote]

His background had nothing to do with the charge though. This wasn’t a grand jury charge (assuming background can even be introduced during this process). This charge was brought my LEO, likely after viewing the tape. I doubt they knew his record until after the booked him and up to sometime before the bail hearing.

In other words, they didn’t arrive at the scene, run his criminal background, THEN decide to charge him.

When the ARE unsure of a charge, they usually punt to the DA who decides whether to take it to grand jury or kick it back down to misdemeanor land.[/quote]

Interesting. [/quote]

Who is talking about the charge?

I said THE COURT RULING.

You can pretty much bet that it will now be hard to even find someone for that jury who does not know of the case or his background…unless they don’t use the internet AND don’t watch tv.

So yeah, his background will count quite a bit.

The guy will be tried in the court of public opinion first.

I am just saying the outcome, regardless of the circumstances changes greatly based on WHO is being charged.

308

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Now, surely a reasonable intelligent man such as yourself can find it within his vast and reasonable intellect to meet me halfway here…

[/quote]

Oh I have no doubt that much of what you’ve presented may very well pan out under our current jurisprudence system.
[/quote]

LOL it kills me debating with you b/c we really do agree on much, but you’re splitting hairs here I think. First, Push, I love ya man. But I’ve been involved in so much violence in my life, and seen so much violence, that all I can think of now is my children (and loved ones, even my friends in harm’s way every day) - and I think of them in all the “x’s” of the algebraic violence equation.

If my 18 year old does something stupid (which 18 year olds are want to do), I don’t want him beaten within an inch of his life (because, other than the obvious, that puts me and every one of my goons in a tough spot, because someone would pay for that :slight_smile: ). I’m semi-joking, but I’m making a point.

The same laws you imply that you don’t agree with, protect the weaker among us also. And we are ALL relatively weak in some way, at some time. Were these girls wrong? Absolutely. There is no defense to their anti-social actions and X and others are right; this shit is epidemic in our society (and not just among the hood rat bitches). But was a skull fracture justice for her attempted or connected slap? Hardly.

I hope no harm ever comes the way of anyone here and I certainly hope no one here ever find themselves on the wrong side of the system. Just take my advice everyone; avoid it if you can. If you can’t, do everything you can to make sure you come home.

Push, at one point in this encounter, this cashier is a clear victim. But at some point, he’s no longer the victim. You know it. And I know it. And you’re too smart to deny it. By all means, make your points, but don’t do so at the expense of the truth and intellectual honesty.

Just b/c she crossed a line, does not give one license to go “bat shit crazy”.

309

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

I don’t doubt it.

But at the same time, his past actions and background have bearing on what he does now, so it should be brought up to an extent.

If he acted totally in self-defense, his past would not be as much a problem. When he crossed the line from defender to loose cannon attacker whipping downed opponents with a piece of metal, it means that instantly his background will be questioned harder. And rightfully so[/quote]

His background had nothing to do with the charge though. This wasn’t a grand jury charge (assuming background can even be introduced during this process). This charge was brought my LEO, likely after viewing the tape. I doubt they knew his record until after the booked him and up to sometime before the bail hearing.

In other words, they didn’t arrive at the scene, run his criminal background, THEN decide to charge him.

When the ARE unsure of a charge, they usually punt to the DA who decides whether to take it to grand jury or kick it back down to misdemeanor land.[/quote]

Interesting. [/quote]

Who is talking about the charge?

I said THE COURT RULING.

You can pretty much bet that it will now be hard to even find someone for that jury who does not know of the case or his background…unless they don’t use the internet AND don’t watch tv.

So yeah, his background will count quite a bit.

The guy will be tried in the court of public opinion first.

I am just saying the outcome, regardless of the circumstances changes greatly based on WHO is being charged.[/quote]

I’m not sure whether his past record would be admissible or not as that is a complex legal issue depending on the State and a number of issues. But your outrage might be misguided. The young man is getting quite a bit of support in the court of public opinion. It’s natural to be outraged by the actions of these women. Your outrage (which I share by the way) is not unnatural. However, most juries will be carefully screened and most juries try to follow the letter of the law (except in some notoriously unkind-to-the-prosecution places in the country). My guess is this case never sees a jury.

As to your conclusion, I’m not sure I can agree. Any man that beats two women, causing a broken arm and skull fracture, has an uphill battle in the “court of public opinion”. In addition, if the case is plead out, DA’s have seen it all. They’re looking to move cases - not to get a pint of blood. This case isn’t that big in NY (I read the NYC paper every day; today it had a small paragraph, nothing major) to sway the local DA. They will do business on the merits.

311

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am just saying the outcome, regardless of the circumstances changes greatly based on WHO is being charged.[/quote]

X, that’s another one of those things that I don’t think anyone is really debating. You and BG may be talking past each other at this point.[/quote]

Just remember you said that the next time the debate of race, minorities and the justice system pops up.

314

^Just using that exchange to make a point. That’s all.

315

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am just saying the outcome, regardless of the circumstances changes greatly based on WHO is being charged.[/quote]

X, that’s another one of those things that I don’t think anyone is really debating. You and BG may be talking past each other at this point.[/quote]

Just remember you said that the next time the debate of race, minorities and the justice system pops up.

[/quote]

dude, poor white people are screwed by the system all the time too. it’s also a poverty issue. takes money and resources to fight the man :slight_smile:

316

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The guy will be tried in the court of public opinion first.

[/quote]

From what I am hearing, most people (around here, radio, coworkers etc) are highly sympathetic to the guy and it has a lot to do with his background. Mostly they say he went too far but feel like he was in a really tough spot. NO ONE feels bad for the attackers.

319

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

…As soon as she was subdued, he should have stopped… [/quote]

Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.
[/quote]

The funny part of this is that our criminal justice system is based 100% on ‘monday morning quarterbacking’. That’s all a jury does. Analyzes a situation after it happens.

In a civilized society, a rational adult is EXPECTED to consider things like how the threat has changed from moment to moment when deciding upon on an appropriate reaction.

I understand that not everyone possesses perfect judgement. But that is why a lot of this stuff is judged based on how a reasonable person is expected to act. If you think it’s reasonable for a person to beat a downed person with a rod to the point of a skull fracture, then I youre sitting on my jury if I ever attempt to kill someone.

320

nevermind. Im too late on all of this. Bodyguard has already said what I just said, it seems

322

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, the system is set up so that his lawyers can make the above argument, among others. Like I said, a plea is likely here but I see him going back to jail for some time. But the part you and others are missing is that he did what he did with a weapon. The weapon is a game changer. If he had been defending with his fists, feet, etc., then those extra couple blows might go unpunished. But he wielded a deadly weapon and that’s the part some of you can’t wrap your minds around.

Pick up a weapon, and your margin for error is narrower - AS IT SHOULD BE.

The woman could have died. Surely she didn’t deserve to die for acting like the little dyke animal she is and slapping someone does she? [/quote]

Depends who you ask around here, apparently.

People cannot understand that whether you think it’s right or not, these are the laws. And those laws, like you said, become a lot tighter when you brandish a weapon.

This is why so many fucking people who get arrested say, “BUT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!” Bullshit son, you lost your head and overreacted and now you’re up for manslaughter or murder.

“The heat of battle” doesn’t apply here. Keep your head or your ass ends up in jail. Deal with it.
[/quote]

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Im not a lawyer yet, but I dont see how is past action is relevant to this crime. The jury shouldnt be informed of his past crime. Maybe they will know he is a convicted felon, but unless he takes the stand, which he may have to do, I’m not sure the prosecutor can just give details of the past crime as evidence of anything.

323

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…But was a skull fracture justice for her attempted or connected slap? Hardly.

[/quote]

Aw c’mon, counselor, there was more than a slap. In fact, the cold hard facts are the women didn’t get beaten for the slap; they got beaten for jumping the counter and hunting him down back to the fryer. Had they just slapped him I completely agree it would’ve been “excessive” for him to grab the McDonald’s version of a tire iron and then start whoopin’ their obnoxious asses into death or coma.

Really…in its final fully distilled form it is the few “extra” whacks that we are discussing. I think we all agree when she got struck back by the fryer she had it coming and he was well within “reason”, right?

So…as I’ve said before in my mind I think more whacks/more time spent whacking would’ve been required for me to clearly establish that he went “bat shit crazy.”

You’ve brought up the fractured skull aspect; I contend if she (hypothetically) had received it from the first blow back by the fryer and we had already agreed she “deserved” it THERE and he was reasonable THERE then that would then become a moot point in this discussion, right?

My argument is he may very well have still been in defensive mode for the final few whacks; your argument is she effectively punted, he got the ball and switched from defense to offense. I understand your point of view but I aint a-gonna convict a guy and send him to the big house because she punted so fast his fight or flight mental mechanism couldn’t process the information.

I have no problem with the rest of your post (that I edited out).[/quote]

You’re doing it again; the ol’ PWI cut and post.

First, I do not agree it was more than a slap (if it even connected). Did she commit “menacing” when she jumped the counter? Yes. She did. But she’s still a not-even 5 foot something woman at the end of the day. This cannot be ignored.

Next, I only previously said that an intelligent argument “can” be made for picking up a weapon. I didn’t say it was justified or legal. In my opinion, picking up the weapon, retreating a few feet and giving them a warning would have been more appropriate. The cashier went from 0-60 in a split second. However, we can argue that point to death.

When it comes to your argument about a “few extra whacks” in the “heat of the moment”, you have ignored my prior gun analogy. He chose deadly force. It was a game changer. And he has to be judged by those stricter standards. He cannot give a “few extra whacks” anymore than you can legally pump a few more bullets into a defenseless, unarmed person.

324

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, the system is set up so that his lawyers can make the above argument, among others. Like I said, a plea is likely here but I see him going back to jail for some time. But the part you and others are missing is that he did what he did with a weapon. The weapon is a game changer. If he had been defending with his fists, feet, etc., then those extra couple blows might go unpunished. But he wielded a deadly weapon and that’s the part some of you can’t wrap your minds around.

Pick up a weapon, and your margin for error is narrower - AS IT SHOULD BE.

The woman could have died. Surely she didn’t deserve to die for acting like the little dyke animal she is and slapping someone does she? [/quote]

Depends who you ask around here, apparently.

People cannot understand that whether you think it’s right or not, these are the laws. And those laws, like you said, become a lot tighter when you brandish a weapon.

This is why so many fucking people who get arrested say, “BUT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!” Bullshit son, you lost your head and overreacted and now you’re up for manslaughter or murder.

“The heat of battle” doesn’t apply here. Keep your head or your ass ends up in jail. Deal with it.
[/quote]

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Im not a lawyer yet, but I dont see how is past action is relevant to this crime. The jury shouldnt be informed of his past crime. Maybe they will know he is a convicted felon, but unless he takes the stand, which he may have to do, I’m not sure the prosecutor can just give details of the past crime as evidence of anything. [/quote]

If it went to trial (which I don’t think it will - he’d be convicted I think and he can’t count on any manner of jury nullification in New York County), I can’t see a way for him to defend without taking the stand since he will have to testify as to his state of mind which is central to his defense. Once he takes the stand, past acts are probably fair game. I see no way to defend this at trial without his testifying. Prosecutor won’t “give details”, they will just ask the questions :slight_smile: Defendant will give the details :slight_smile:

325

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
My apologies, I was really responding to X’s post that you quoted. Sorry for the confusion.

To even raise the issue of different outcomes as X did, in my opinion, is a weak attempt to imply that this kid is getting a raw deal. He is not.

ANYONE that did this would be charged, regardless of background. To raise the issue of a prominent parent is a real reach b/c that alone is EXTRAORDINARY and has nothing to really do with the issues here.

This kid gets charged with his manslaughter background or not. His background, like EVERY criminal defendant about to be sentenced, IS considered upon sentencing and even during a plea process.

You and I have no disagreement I see.[/quote]

oh ok… I was just confused on what was being said lol.

I dont think that we disagree either.

The kid was completely in his right to lay those two hussies out, even using that weapon initially… but once they were down and he continued is when he crossed the line.

326

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
Go to japan, and lets see if you ever find a japanese woman doing that to a man. they wouldn’t dare, they have respect. they are raised to have respect(as they should) for men.[/quote]

Dude, I once pissed off a Japanese woman so much (simply by not calling her back after a date) that she broke into my apartment, hid in a kitchen cupboard - presumably for several hours - and started hurling my own dishes at me after I arrived home from work.[/quote]

I’m not talking about a japanese woman in this country. Shes an american woman. I’m talking in japan. They are raised differently there. All women here suffer from the same attitude.[/quote]

lol, you obviously don’t know anything about Japan.

327

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, the system is set up so that his lawyers can make the above argument, among others. Like I said, a plea is likely here but I see him going back to jail for some time. But the part you and others are missing is that he did what he did with a weapon. The weapon is a game changer. If he had been defending with his fists, feet, etc., then those extra couple blows might go unpunished. But he wielded a deadly weapon and that’s the part some of you can’t wrap your minds around.

Pick up a weapon, and your margin for error is narrower - AS IT SHOULD BE.

The woman could have died. Surely she didn’t deserve to die for acting like the little dyke animal she is and slapping someone does she? [/quote]

Depends who you ask around here, apparently.

People cannot understand that whether you think it’s right or not, these are the laws. And those laws, like you said, become a lot tighter when you brandish a weapon.

This is why so many fucking people who get arrested say, “BUT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!” Bullshit son, you lost your head and overreacted and now you’re up for manslaughter or murder.

“The heat of battle” doesn’t apply here. Keep your head or your ass ends up in jail. Deal with it.
[/quote]

Yes, and mental state and background still go into the final decision if presented to a jury. A jury does not think in black and white.

This man is going to be crucified laregly because of his past actions.

if this were some honor roll student who never got in trouble before, whose father was a stand out in the community and whose family was well known, you can bet the outcome would be largely different.[/quote]

Im not a lawyer yet, but I dont see how is past action is relevant to this crime. The jury shouldnt be informed of his past crime. Maybe they will know he is a convicted felon, but unless he takes the stand, which he may have to do, I’m not sure the prosecutor can just give details of the past crime as evidence of anything. [/quote]

If it went to trial (which I don’t think it will - he’d be convicted I think and he can’t count on any manner of jury nullification in New York County), I can’t see a way for him to defend without taking the stand since he will have to testify as to his state of mind which is central to his defense. Once he takes the stand, past acts are probably fair game. I see no way to defend this at trial without his testifying. Prosecutor won’t “give details”, they will just ask the questions :slight_smile: Defendant will give the details :)[/quote]

Right. Strangely enough, the trials I’ve watched and the one trial I second sat, the defendant testified each time. In the trial I was apart of he got grilled hard on his history. Being a member of the bloods and having 3 prior felony convictions doesnt bode well in a gun possessin case lol. I dont have any real world experience with a defendant’s criminal history being suppressed during a trial.