posted on March 9, 2001 04:42:48 PM new
Can he appeal? I saw on the news that before the trial they offered him 3 years in a juvenile facility, but that was turned it down in favor of going to trial.
I don't know the full facts of the case, but definately it's a tragedy for both the victim (especially) and the perpetrator. My friend in Boca Raton says that the boy is mentally retarded...was he tested?
posted on March 9, 2001 05:23:54 PM newMy friend in Boca Raton says that the boy is mentally retarded...
He must be if he turned down that plea-bargain.
What a tragedy for both families. I would not say that his sentence is too harsh, though. After all, he took an innocent life. I fail to see how that child's death could be called an accident. Stupid, yes. Poor judgment, definitely. His actions directly caused her death, intentional or not. Calling it an accident seems like an attempt to shirk responsibility and blame.
posted on March 9, 2001 05:34:36 PM new
LOL!!! at the forst part of your post Debbie.
Regarding accidents and death, in law there is what's called mens rea. It basically means the state of mind.
The degrees of murder are based on this. Cold blooded premeditated murder is the worst- cold blooded means that the actor wasn't in a heightened state of fear or anger and he/she sought a result of death or serious bodily injury.
However, an intentional act does not mean you intended the result - as example, you intended to make a left turn, you did not intend for a collision to happen, nor for the other driver to die. In the case at hand, I don't think the boy intended to kill the girl, nor do I believe he has the requisite mental capacity to premeditate a murder because I don't believe he can appreciate the gravity of taking a life, nor do I believe he knew by flipping her or whatever he did, he knew death or even serious injury would result.
I think the verdict in this trial is due to frustration over the violence being committed by our youth. I doubt the verdict or sentence will stand. That kid needs help, and I don't think he'll find it in prison.
If he does spend much time in an adult institution, he might as well be there for life.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 9, 2001 05:49 PM ]
posted on March 9, 2001 05:56:37 PM new
This boy was only 12 years old when this alledged murder occurred.
Actually, he was practicing wrestling moves that he had seen on
TV. I don't think that he intended to kill his playmate.
This is another embarrassing event for the state of Florida...
and for the United States of America. To sentence a child to federal prison for the rest of his life for accidently killing a playmate is
horrendous!
His lawyers are responsible for failing to accept the plea bargain.
posted on March 9, 2001 06:10:53 PM new
On an NBC news report I saw earlier this evening, Florida authorities stated that the inflicted injuries went far beyond a kid practicing wrestling moves. They said it was a savage brutal beating, not the product of playfulness.
The boy received life, but was first offered a pretty cushy minimum sentence plus ten year probation -- which he rejected on the advice of his lawyer and mother, a former Florida state cop. She was crying on TV and said she rejected it because why should he have to plea to first degree murder when it was only play. The lawyer also said something to the effect of "I never imagined this would happen."
Jeb Bush says he expects a clemency request in this case but until that happens has left strict orders that the boy is to be kept out of the main prison population.
posted on March 9, 2001 06:39:26 PM new
People are in denial who don't WANT to believe that a 12 year old can savagely beat
a small child to death. Surely he was not aware when he fractured her skull and ripped her internal organs to pieces that that would hurt.
If you want him out it should be in your house with your kids and pets. All these people who want him out will be safe from him. They should sign a waiver to finish his sentance for him if they are wrong and he does it again.
posted on March 10, 2001 04:57:53 AM new
It is not denial that a 12 year old "can" beat a child to death - a 7 year old is physically capable of causing death. It is a denial that a 12 year old can form the requisite mental capacity under murder statutes.
I didn't say he should be "out", I said he needed help.
Regarding the extent of injuries, I know of an 11 year old that pushed a 10 year old off a gym set. Result- fractured skull and fractured vertibrae with life threatening and permanent injuries.
So I suppose the 11 year old should go to an adult prison for 3-5 for attempted murder and aggravated assult? But there were no charges even filed- it was an average size white child in the suburbs.
People look at the size and skin color of this particular 12 year old and wanted him treated as an adult, with adult mental capacities.
posted on March 10, 2001 10:05:08 AM new
If the kid flipped the girl once and when she hit the ground died instantly, I could understand the "accident" angle.
However, the beating this girl took was brutal. This kid had to know he was hurting her badly and simply continued on. Now he can continue his life behind bars so no other little child is at risk. Sure he cried at his sentencing, however, he was having a ball beating a small girl to death in "play".
His lawyer did refuse a cushy deal as Spazmodeus said. Why? Because they felt that since it was only "play" that the poor guy shouldn't be punished at all? That mindset in itself is worthy of jail time.
We can call it "rough" play. It happens every day.
How do you know that this boy intended to kill the playmate?
Or does it not matter to you?
A child is a child and should be treated as a child by the courts! What is happening to
equal justice.
No exceptions should be made because the child is black, poor,
large and strong.
Good grief! The state of Florida is a jungle, only exceded in
barbarism by Texas.
posted on March 10, 2001 10:53:14 AM new
The bottom line is that a child is dead. Someone's child, someone's baby will not grow up. That fact is because of the actions of this boy.
Whether he intended to kill the girl or not, she's dead. He showed at the very least a depraved indifference to human life by continuing with this "rough play". I'm sure the girl cried and screamed. Was he unable to determine in his mind that when a small girl is screaming in pain that it is now time to cease throwing her around like a rag doll?
His recklessness proved fatal for this girl. She no longer has a life, he has life in prison. A fair trade off IMO.
posted on March 10, 2001 11:16:56 AM new
It is outrageous that this boy has been sentenced to life. I doubt if the boy even has a grasp as to what life imprisonment means.
Of course he did not intentionally kill the little girl. He was mimicking what he sees on TV without any thought of his size compared to his "opponent's". After all, the wrestling "losers" get up and walk away after a "bruising" match, don't they?
Am I the only one who thinks the mother (cop or not) should be charged with negligence?
For one...Parents should not allow young kids to watch TV wrestling, even if they are assured it is all fake. It's too violent.
For two...it's one thing to be napping while your 12-year-old is in the house, alone, watching TV, etc., but she was responsible for another's 7-year-old child also that day.
Did I say napping? With all of the noise from this "savage brutal beating", comatose would be more accurate. Mothers (and, I'm sure, some fathers) will understand what I mean.
posted on March 10, 2001 05:05:38 PM new
Can a 12 year old "form the requisite mental capacity under murder statutes" as someone put it? Thinking back to when I was 12 years old, I would have to say "yes". In my case, I could have. Granted, there are likely 12 year olds who are not that mature. That's where ambiguity lies. But any sweeping statement to the effect that a 12 year old as a condition of that age can't form the requisite mental capacity is false.
As far as what the lawyer argued "he was "playing" wrestler, maybe or maybe not. Defense lawyers will say the darndest things to get their client off, and I have no particular confidence that such was the case. He certainly didn't demonstrate that for the jury.
All feelings aside, I believe that this kid got the worst possible legal advice (even if his mom nixed a deal), and that should be sufficient for him to be able to prove that he had inadequate legal counsel. I believe he'll have another day in court for that reason.
posted on March 10, 2001 05:23:48 PM newThe prosecuting attorney is at fault for charging the boy and trying him as an adult.
Incorrect. The prosecuting attorney did his job and did it well. To blame the prosecutor is ludicrous. He tried to go easy on the boy with a very reasonable plea bargain. The defense attorney apparently sucked, as did the mother. This sentence will undoubtably be appealed and reversed.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 10, 2001 05:24 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2001 08:37:46 PM new
The boy's original story was that he accidentally hit the girl's head on a table. He later changed his story to the "wrestling moves" practice i.e. he threw the girl against a stairway railing and a wall as he was tossing her onto a sofa. Even experts called by the defense said that the girl's injuries were inconsistent with horseplay.
Medical experts stated that the girl's injuries could be likened to injuries from a fall from a three-story building. That is not horseplay.
I do agree with femme that the mother should have been charged with negligence.
posted on March 10, 2001 11:24:50 PM new
I have been thinking back to when I was twelve (yes, my memory does stretch back that far!), and I have to ask a question:
exactly when was it decided in this country that 18 was the magical age when all of a sudden everything clicks for a kid & only *then* do they have the ability to understand right from wrong?
A twelve year old "isn't capable" of understanding that slamming another, smaller, kid around will do grievous bodily harm? "Isn't capable" of understanding that snapping bones, flowing blood, and screaming indicates that the "rough play" should stop?
Excuse me, but when I was twelve I & my friends knew if we caused someone else pain. We "played rough" all the time, yet strangely enough none of us ever murdered our playmates. We were taught right from wrong from a very young age & got consequences for violations of those principles. One of the big problems these days is that people go around saying kids are "too young" to be expected to behave, have manners, keep their hands to themselves, know right from wrong, etc. etc. etc. etc. Then act surprised when older kids act the way they do. They've learned that they can get away with murder with little or no consequences.
While so many are moaning that this young felon is having to pay for what he did, the little girl that he beat to death is conveniently being forgotten. That was *not* an "accident" or "rough play." An "accident" would have been if he pushed her & she hit her head falling down. The same with "rough play." And in both cases, that one thing would have brought an end to it. This was *murder*...he hit her, he slammed her into the ground, he jumped on her--several times & ignoring her screams of pain--until she was dead.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:23:39 AM new
bunnicula
You are lucky that you were so well trained
as we wish that all children could be.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Some
children are left alone, with a tv, while
their single mothers struggle to pay the
rent.
In this case, we are focused on a black child
in a hostile environment, unsupervised by
an exhausted mother.
Do you think, bunnicula, that this child,
raised in your environment with your parents
would have been involved in this incident?
I still believe that this was not an intentional murder. Sending children to
prison for the rest of their life is
unacceptable in a civilized society.
posted on March 11, 2001 11:48:49 AM new
Helen, I wonder how you've not only diagnosed his entire life story, but also his intent and corresponding innocence of the crime in which he was charged based seemingly upon the color of his skin.
posted on March 11, 2001 12:06:18 PM new
My 5 year old is a lot bigger than my 4 year old. They battle endlessly. My 5 year old has enough sense to know when she is hurtung her brother and stops, you can't tell me that 12 year old boy had no idea what he was doing. He fractured the girls skull in several places and rearranged her internal organs. She was probably most likely, I hope, unconscious through most of it. That boy deserves every minute of the sentence that he received.
edited to add: I agree with you 100% bunnicula.
[ edited by hcross on Mar 11, 2001 12:07 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 12:19:13 PM new
I swear there'd be more outrage in some quarters if that boy had been "practicing" his moves on a puppy or kitten, instead of a tiny 6 year old girl.
Would the frightening cruelty exhibited by that boy be more evident then? Would folks be more reluctant to loose him upon society? Boy...I truly wonder.
posted on March 11, 2001 12:22:51 PM newHJW: Of course it is just my opninion, but your statement comes across as incredibly demeaning to poor people in general & blacks in particular--and single-parent families everywhere.
I speak from personal experience when I say that poor families--even those with single parents who have to work long hours--are more than able to instill morals, manners, and self-control in their children. *I* was a latchkey child from an early age as my father deserted us when I was 7 years old. I did have an older sister, but due to a nervous breakdown she was institutionalized & not around for most of my childhood. My mother had to work to support us (no college education & had to teach herself shorthand to get a job as a secretary) & since we had no car long commutes by bus kept her from home even longer. And since there was no child support or alimony coming in we *were* very poor--many times meals consisted of buttered noodles in my house. But with all that on her plate, my mother taught me right from wrong...an amazing feat by your book I guess.
posted on March 11, 2001 12:47:25 PM new
Jamesoblivion, you state, "Helen, I wonder how you've not only diagnosed his entire life story, but also his intent and corresponding innocence of the crime in which he was charged based seemingly upon the color of his skin."
James, This is my opinion which is based on reliable news reports
about the incident. I have not exaggerated this data.
In Florida and throughout the south, the color of skin is a most
important consideration. Any black individual living in the south
and in this case in Florida is living in a hostile environment.
But, I have not based my opinion"seemingly upon the color of his skin
as you "wonder."
I have determined the strong posssibility that this child did not
intend to murder the other child based on my study of child psychology.
As long as there is any doubt as to the intention of this boy, I believe that it
is unconscionable to convict him of murder
and send him to jail for the rest of his life.
posted on March 11, 2001 12:59:05 PM new
Bunnicula. you state,
HJW: Of course it is just my opninion, but your statement comes across as incredibly demeaning to poor people in general & blacks in particular--and single-parent families everywhere
Nothing could be more untrue than your statement above. I consider it an unfair and
thoughtless assumption.
posted on March 11, 2001 01:08:09 PM new
Helen, that might not have been your intent but that is how it came across. That's what I meant by "seemingly". It was not a "thoughtless assumption" on my part as I must have read your post 5 or 6 times to be certain what I was responding to. I'll take your word that it's not what you meant.
This topic is 9 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new
