[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Well, I have a problem with that. So “battered women” get a pass, right?
[/quote]
I dont think battered women get a pass.
Intentional manslaughter is still a B felony.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
okay…let’s be fair here.
He did not just get slapped and insulted. They both hopped the counter to pursue him. They didn’t slap him, stand their ground and he went running off to find a weapon, return to the counter and commence the ass whipping. THEY pursued him. He had every reason to perceive some level of threat.
Be fair. [/quote]
Bo-Twistin’ Shit-nez
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
What sentence is he likely to receive if convicted?[/quote]
Aggravated Assault (felony assault) in NJ is up to 5 years. I’m not sure about NY.
[/quote]
He’s going to get assault with a deadly weapon. [/quote]
Yea, same thing. Assault 1 in NY. B Felony.
With a prior felony conviction (if it’s in the last 10 years) he is facing 10-25. [/quote]
A friend of mine, who is a judge here in CA, told me the same over breakfast this morning. He concluded that around 18 years is what he would get here in CA.
Interesting to hear things from his perspective. The law is all that matters, nothing I said constituted mitigating circumstances in his mind. He felt for the guy but was like, “10 years in prison should have thought him to get the hell away from any situation that could get him back in there. He should have called the cops, run like hell or ask his fellow employees for help”.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Battered woman syndrome falls in line with extreme emotional distress. It can mitigate murder to manslaughter in many situations. Further, extreme emotional distress doesnt have to be an instant response. It can brood, meaning the woman can suffer from systematic abuse and then defend herself at a time when there is no immediate threat.
I havent watched the video in over a day, I thought the guy returned to the front of the restaurant (not back to his register obviosly) but if that’s not the case, my mistake.
His calculated and vicious beating of the woman after she was down was not a mistake though. He was tryign to kill her [/quote]
Well, I have a problem with that. So “battered women” get a pass, right? What about children who grew up being battered? What if they happen to male? Is a male child better equipped to deal with being abused than an adult woman? (I am in no way suggesting that ALL women who are battered only suffered as adults, nor am I condoning the behavior - I am merely arguing against the double standard).
[/quote]
A young man who commits a violent crime after growing up in the situation you describe will have his story heard during the sentencing phase of his trial. He has the chance to raise that issue DURING the trial, but that would essentially require him to admit guilt. Not many people choose that route at a trial. If found guilty the judge would consider the kid’s family background. So while it may not be a statutory mitigator like battered woman sydrome is (and maybe it should be, I dont have the experience to say) a judge can consider it and hand down an appropriate sentence.
I dont agree that extreme emotional distress and PTSS are the same thing. My intuition tells me that PTSS is closer to an insanity DEFENSE than it is to eed MITIGATION.
I believe all of that, to a degree. But I dont believe that a person who reacted the way this guy did simply from being slapped and chased is anything but damaged individual. The fact that he killed someone as an adult reinforces my opinion. I know nothing of is upbringing. And too many people grow up in absolutely horrid situations that dont react this way for me to assume that his response is the norm even among that category of people.
[quote]
Now I’m not making excuses for him. I’m not saying any of this to give him a pass. As I told BG in my post up there, I agree that he went back hit them again while they were down, and if he can’t control that, then he SHOULD be separate from the rest of us. But he wasn’t “Calculating” in what he did. You cant sit here and know what he was thinking. He was in a state of rage triggered by an attack and fueled by adrenalin - that doesn’t just “disappear” five to seven seconds after an attack. It can take HOURS to recover from a serious fight or flight response. I’ve personally experienced DAYS of hyper alertness and being on a “hair trigger” following certain incidents in my life.[/quote]
This wasnt a serious fight. He got slapped and felt insulted. I know the blind rage youre talking about. Allowing yourself to succumb to it in a situation like this makes you a bad person that is not capable of intermingling in this society.
He is a grown man that got smacked by a woman. This happened in a public place with more than a few other people around. Can you imagine what the result would be if this took place somewhere secluded? This guy is a killer through and through. I dont believe that he decided that morning that he was going to attempt to kill the next person that disrepected him but he clearly has no reservation to taking extreme measures to handle a relatively mundane conflict. I agree that he may be a ticking time bomb for whatever reason but that doesnt excuse hulk raging, at all. An adult man that is not diagnosed as a mental retard has to have control of his ‘off switch’. It is essential.
I only said that he calculated the beating AFTER she was down. It was a conscious decision to inflict extra damage on her (after self defense became a non issue). He was trying to teach her a lesson at that point. That cant be tolerated in a civilized society.
Your stuff about how society produces this sort of person is relevant as a social issue but irrelevant as a legal matter. The law will never be perfect. Which is why judges have leeway in the sentencing. In this case though, as a repeat violent felony offender, it’s hard to imagine he doesnt get the statutory max for aggravated assault. And I wouldnt be shocked if the prosecutor goes after attempted murder.
Shitty parents will always exist. Poverty will always exist. Some people are just unlucky from birth in that regard. [/quote]
okay…let’s be fair here.
He did not just get slapped and insulted. They both hopped the counter to pursue him. They didn’t slap him, stand their ground and he went running off to find a weapon, return to the counter and commence the ass whipping. THEY pursued him. He had every reason to perceive some level of threat.
Be fair. [/quote]
I know that. And I wouldnt have a problem if he hit them with the rod. To defend himself. Would he have went to get the rod and then beaten them had they stood their ground? I’d bet not, but the beating was a result of a lunatic avenging is bruised ego.
Put it this way. There were more seconds spent beating the women than there were spent defending himself.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
okay…let’s be fair here.
He did not just get slapped and insulted. They both hopped the counter to pursue him. They didn’t slap him, stand their ground and he went running off to find a weapon, return to the counter and commence the ass whipping. THEY pursued him. He had every reason to perceive some level of threat.
Be fair. [/quote]
Bo-Twistin’ Shit-nez[/quote]
The difference between me and you is that Im emphasizing facts that get the women justice. Youre skewing facts to defend this scumbag’s actions.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do believe that we have a hung jury here fellas.[/quote]
conjures memories of mayhweather / ortiz huh?
technically, mayweather was within the rules, and a lot of people are unhappy with outcome.
technically, this guy is guilty and a lot of people are unhappy with the likely outcome.
btw do you think Bhop was fouled?
boxing is in the toilet.
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
Yep. Many of the self righteous here would be in jail now if a camera followed them all their life.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
Yep. Many of the self righteous here would be in jail now if a camera followed them all their life.[/quote]
HA! I know I would be.
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
Yep. Many of the self righteous here would be in jail now if a camera followed them all their life.[/quote]
HA! I know I would be.
[/quote]
Dude, the main ones complaining would be.
That is what’s funny.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
Yep. Many of the self righteous here would be in jail now if a camera followed them all their life.[/quote]
HA! I know I would be.
[/quote]
Dude, the main ones complaining would be.
That is what’s funny.[/quote]
Stick to dentistry b/c debate and logic is certainly not your strong suit. And that’s apparent thru many threads.
No one is “complaining”.
No one is being “self-righteous”.
I said more than once the dude was in a tough spot and it sucks.
What we were doing was debating how the law applied and how he crossed it. None of that involves being self-righteous. To claim someone is complaining or being self-righteous in this thread is tantamount to claiming you’re afraid of ghetto dyke bitches that might slap you. Are you? You seem very worried about this threat to your safety.
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
No it wouldn’t. Wrong. And your analogy is bad to boot.
And if you can let go of your one dimensional thinking for one moment, do you want to live in a society where a simple assault can be justification for a felony assault? If a woman in your family ever struck a man, do you want that man to have license to kick the living shit out of her and fracture her skull? If your son, brother, whoever - one day exercised poor judgment and started something he shouldn’t have - do you want his punishment to put his life in peril?
So what you’re arguing here is that you want the right to crack a skull when someone is down and no longer a threat? Is that it?
Think of the full ramifications of your argument before you reply. Because your logic is simply untenable. The law protects you at work and everywhere else for that matter. It just doesn’t allow you to go bat shit fucking crazy.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF MEN IN JAIL RIGHT THIS MINUTE B/C THEY LOST THEIR COOL IN A FIGHT OR DISPUTE AND WENT OVER THE LINE. MEN (and women) OF ALL RACES AND BACKGROUNDS.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
Yep. Many of the self righteous here would be in jail now if a camera followed them all their life.[/quote]
HA! I know I would be.
[/quote]
Dude, the main ones complaining would be.
That is what’s funny.[/quote]
Stick to dentistry b/c debate and logic is certainly not your strong suit. And that’s apparent thru many threads.
No one is “complaining”.
No one is being “self-righteous”.
I said more than once the dude was in a tough spot and it sucks.
What we were doing was debating how the law applied and how he crossed it. None of that involves being self-righteous. To claim someone is complaining or being self-righteous in this thread is tantamount to claiming you’re afraid of ghetto dyke bitches that might slap you. Are you? You seem very worried about this threat to your safety.
[/quote]
That wasn’t even directed at you. You seem to be sticking to the facts. the same can not be said about others who are claiming all sorts of shit like him running to the back and the coming back to beat people up.
Yeah, I do consider that self righteous.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
do you want to live in a society where a simple assault can be justification for a felony assault?
[/quote]
I cut away the rest of your blubbering, as this seems to be what you are taking issue with.
The answer is yes, basically. If you hit me, there should be no law that keeps me from hitting you back twice as hard, and keep hitting you until you are out cold.
If you have two attackers and you got both of them on the ground, it would be downright foolish to let them regain their footing and keep it up. If I have the option to flee, then fine, I will take it.
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
do you want to live in a society where a simple assault can be justification for a felony assault?
[/quote]
I cut away the rest of your blubbering, as this seems to be what you are taking issue with.
The answer is yes, basically. If you hit me, there should be no law that keeps me from hitting you back twice as hard, and keep hitting you until you are out cold.
If you have two attackers and you got both of them on the ground, it would be downright foolish to let them regain their footing and keep it up. If I have the option to flee, then fine, I will take it.[/quote]
And where do we draw the line? Who decides what constitutes an assault and what does not? If some guy gets in my face at a bar, am I allowed to break a bottle and gash his throat because I “feared for my life”? Letting him live would have been downright foolish, right?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
This thread would be so different if this happened in a different setting. Say two students jump a teacher in school and pursues him, and he picks something up to defend himself, knocks them down, and then gives them a couple of whacks even after they have been on the ground… because they were trying to get back up and the guys adrenaline was sky high etc.
I don’t want a society where people can come to where I work and pick a fight, and I get jailed for cracking their sculls. I’ve been involved in knife fights where I work, fist fights and so on have happened several times. It’s easy to sit in judgement after the fact, but quite something else when you are in the middle of it.
[/quote]
Yep. Many of the self righteous here would be in jail now if a camera followed them all their life.[/quote]
HA! I know I would be.
[/quote]
Dude, the main ones complaining would be.
That is what’s funny.[/quote]
Stick to dentistry b/c debate and logic is certainly not your strong suit. And that’s apparent thru many threads.
No one is “complaining”.
No one is being “self-righteous”.
I said more than once the dude was in a tough spot and it sucks.
What we were doing was debating how the law applied and how he crossed it. None of that involves being self-righteous. To claim someone is complaining or being self-righteous in this thread is tantamount to claiming you’re afraid of ghetto dyke bitches that might slap you. Are you? You seem very worried about this threat to your safety.
[/quote]
That wasn’t even directed at you. You seem to be sticking to the facts. the same can not be said about others who are claiming all sorts of shit like him running to the back and the coming back to beat people up.
Yeah, I do consider that self righteous.[/quote]
fair enough.
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
do you want to live in a society where a simple assault can be justification for a felony assault?
[/quote]
I cut away the rest of your blubbering, as this seems to be what you are taking issue with.
The answer is yes, basically. If you hit me, there should be no law that keeps me from hitting you back twice as hard, and keep hitting you until you are out cold.
If you have two attackers and you got both of them on the ground, it would be downright foolish to let them regain their footing and keep it up. If I have the option to flee, then fine, I will take it.[/quote]
I see you put all your intellectual might behind that response. Thanks for the thoughtful answer. Probably explains why you work somewhere where there is allegedly knife fights and other such chicanery.
Two unarmed women.
Down.
“Testosterone” Nation my ass. More like Estrogen World.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
do you want to live in a society where a simple assault can be justification for a felony assault?
[/quote]
I cut away the rest of your blubbering, as this seems to be what you are taking issue with.
The answer is yes, basically. If you hit me, there should be no law that keeps me from hitting you back twice as hard, and keep hitting you until you are out cold.
If you have two attackers and you got both of them on the ground, it would be downright foolish to let them regain their footing and keep it up. If I have the option to flee, then fine, I will take it.[/quote]
And where do we draw the line? Who decides what constitutes an assault and what does not? If some guy gets in my face at a bar, am I allowed to break a bottle and gash his throat because I “feared for my life”? Letting him live would have been downright foolish, right?
[/quote]
You do realize you’re attempting to be logical with someone that works somewhere where knife fights are apparently commonplace right? 
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
do you want to live in a society where a simple assault can be justification for a felony assault?
[/quote]
I cut away the rest of your blubbering, as this seems to be what you are taking issue with.
The answer is yes, basically. If you hit me, there should be no law that keeps me from hitting you back twice as hard, and keep hitting you until you are out cold.
If you have two attackers and you got both of them on the ground, it would be downright foolish to let them regain their footing and keep it up. If I have the option to flee, then fine, I will take it.[/quote]
Wait, I thought the beat down was justified because you wouldn’t be thinking straight but now you’re saying it’s because it’s what you want to do and you’re able to evaluate what is and isn’t foolish and make a good decision. Which is it? Heat of the moment or a good idea?