posted on March 11, 2001 01:20:32 PM
Dont get all soft hearted about the fact that this kid is only 12 and could not know better.Are you forgetting those two boys in England who lured that small child away and killed him? They knew what they were doing.There was also a boy in New York who also killed a small child.The things he did were horrible.Its about time kids saw that they CAN be punished for crimes instead of using the excuse that they did not know better.They do.
posted on March 11, 2001 01:21:09 PMHJW: I merely took your post as you wrote it.
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.
But I stated that that was exactly *my* situation. My mother--like other poor single mothers--was able to "train" me well. With my background, I feel that it is demeaning to state that poor families can't or won't do this.
In this case, we are focused on a black child in a hostile environment, unsupervised by an exhausted mother.
Well, I *am* white... but to assume that *that* is the defining difference in how *my* exhausted single mother raised me is demeaning, IMO, to blacks.
Do you think, bunnicula, that this child, raised in your environment with your parents would have been involved in this incident?
Outside of the fact that my family is white, my "environment" was the same as this child's. As I said, we were poor & lived in poor neighborhoods. And, really, there are kids from *affluent* environments who commit atrocious crimes such a this, too. What is your excuse for them?
edited for UBB
[ edited by bunnicula on Mar 11, 2001 01:23 PM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Mar 11, 2001 01:25 PM ]
The following post, which was the first post by you on this thread
was the post that I was responding to. Later, you came up with
the poverty post.
Your first statement...
"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.
My response
posted on March 11, 2001 06:23:39 AM new edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 01:44:33 PM
That child weighed 170 lbs. The little girl weighed 43. It took some time for her to die. She had to be screaming in agony and bleeding. I don't believe for one second that he didn't know what he was doing.
Whether he was 12 or 50, the little girl is just as dead. I think he should be locked up and I think his Mother should be kicked off the State Police Force. She doesn't seem responsible enough to have that kind of job.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:03:03 PMNo He is a criminal because he killed that little girl. He was almost twice her size, and no one will ever convice me that he didn't know what he was doing. I am tired of children killing children and I'm glad the laws are getting tougher.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:08:05 PM
Of course that is my opinion. I formed my opinion because he was convicted by a jury who saw all the evidence. I can't imagine why you would disregard that verdict. Why have you formed yours?
posted on March 11, 2001 02:08:50 PM
Can someone explain why this boy was not permitted to have a competency hearing? It just seems so strange to me that the judge would not want to have a professional opinion on his ability to comprehend, and behave in accordance with, adult standards.
I don't know where I stand on this. The Bulger case here in Britain (where the 2-year-old was led away and killed by two young boys) raised all of these arguments of nurture, parenting, and understanding of right-and-wrong.
I can remember doing stupid stuff when I was a kid, and things getting a little out of hand, but I also KNEW when to stop, or that I was doing wrong by not stopping. A lack of self-discipline is certainly a childhood trait, but I would have expected a 12-year-old to understand when it was no longer "play".
And if he REALLY didn't know that the girl was being severely damaged by his "play", I would seriously question his mental abilities.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:14:12 PM
I live in Florida. I get to see this in the morning paper every day. If the boy had not been competent to stand trial he would not have. They used the "he was just playful" defense.
[ edited by december3 on Mar 11, 2001 02:15 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 02:19:09 PM
Jamesoblivion,
Juries make mistakes every day and I would
never base my opinion on the verdict of a
jury.
I suspect that this decision will be overturned because of legal incompetence.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:23:08 PM
I agree that the decision will probably be overturned. I'm not too sure juries make mistakes every day, but they do make mistakes sometimes.
Why is it that you feel he isn't guilty of what he was charged? Do you think that he is perhaps guilty of manslaughter? Should he be punished in some way? How?
posted on March 11, 2001 02:23:21 PM
"An autopsy showed that Tiffany suffered a fractured skull, a lacerated liver, a broken rib, internal hemorrhaging and other injuries that even medical experts called by the defense agreed were inconsistent with horseplay."
"Tiffany Eunick will never have a second chance at life, and there are so many who plead for a second chance for the defendant," Lazarus said.
"The acts of Lionel Tate were not the playful acts of a child. The acts of Lionel Tate were not the acts born out of immaturity," he said.
Until the trial began, Grossett-Tate said, she had no idea her son could face life behind bars under Florida's mandatory sentencing laws.
"People say I am a fool not to accept the plea from the state," she told Lazarus on Friday. "But how do you accept a plea for second-degree murder when your child was just playing?" from the LA Times website article.
The mother obviously lives in a different part of the country than I do. No one I know would consider this "playing".
posted on March 11, 2001 02:25:21 PM
I asked about the competency because it says in the report in http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010309/us/wrestling_death_2.html that "A judge decided Friday not to grant a competency hearing to a teen-ager convicted of killing a 6-year-old girl while imitating pro wrestlers."
posted on March 11, 2001 02:27:25 PM
This was after the fact. The judge is being a hardass though, that's for sure. Even the prosecutor says he will not oppose a clemency of some sort (although he stands by the murder one conviction).
posted on March 11, 2001 02:33:29 PM
Think how many times that poor child was kicked, thrown, and hit for that kind of damage to occur. The screams of a child in severe pain are not something that could be mistaken. Even the experts that were called to the stand for the defense say this probably did not happen while playing. The attorney's have even said that there was more to the story than the boy said. I just don't understand how someone could lay the blame at the feet of everyone but the one who did this. Neither he or his family is taking reponsibilty for what he did. It does not matter if he is black, white, boy or adult. He took another child's life in a most brutal manner. He deserves exactly what he got.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:34:37 PM
If any of these kids understood they could face life in prison, maybe the murders would stop. We have let far too many off too easily because they were juveniles. They count on the fact that their age will get them a light sentence.
posted on March 11, 2001 02:38:16 PM
I hope they throw away the key while hes in there. I also hope some other kid that weighs twice more than he does, ALSO watches wrestling and wants to "practise". And what the hell does his color have to do with anything??? He murdered that little girl, plain and simple. Now he can sit in jail forever as far as Im concerned. Too bad mommy cant join him.
Sending children to prison for the rest of their life is unacceptable in a civilized society.
And why would this be? It's my opinion that kids killing kids for fun and entertainment is unacceptable in a civilized society.
A murderer is a murderer, whether he be 12 or 92. If this kid in fact knew what he was doing (and it's quite obvious that he did), a lifetime sentence is reasonable. If this murderer (who was convicted by a jury who had the benefit of hearing all the evidence) had been an adult a death sentence would be reasonable.
I believe it will be overturned though due to the apparent lack of a competent defense attorney.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 11, 2001 02:57 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 03:05:01 PM
I am still bemused...
On one hand, people are saying that this boy "knew" he was doing wrong, and has been rightfully tried, convicted and sentenced as an adult.
On the other hand, that he is bound to get off, because his attorney was "incompetent".
Why? Because he lost? Because the boy was tried as an adult? I can't quite get the rationale for why this case will be lost, when so many feel that it has ended in a just conviction and sentence.
posted on March 11, 2001 03:07:22 PM
Because he should have taken the plea bargain. His lawyer is a fool. For that reason alone this conviction will not stand.
posted on March 11, 2001 03:07:51 PM
A competent attorney would have advised his client to accept the slap-on-the-wrist plea bargain after being faced with apparently overwhelming evidence against said client.
The defense attorney probably thought that the jury would be swayed by the fact that the boy was 12 years old. He gambled his client's life away. Very foolish and very incompetent.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 11, 2001 03:10 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 03:07:54 PM
An unfortunate consequence of my experience is that I can, with some accuracy, visualize the appearance of a murdered child. When this topic was first raised in a previous thread and the scene and injuries were described, I saw the little girl. I know how I'd feel to be called to that place. My eyes would become watery and I'd let out a deep breath. I'd feel remorse that I wasn't there to prevent it, no matter that I couldn't have been. At some point I know I would have talked to her body, promising to do the best I could to see that whoever did this would never again be able to do it to another little girl.
I don't really know how I'd feel about the boy after I'd learned his age and heard his story. I'd need to see his eyes and hear him talk. I would have to know much more about him than I've learned from the newspaper stories. I don't know him, or his circumstances, well enough to say whether or not he deserved the sentence he received.
I can only assume the boy received a fair trial and that the jury carefully weighed all the evidence. If indeed such was the case, he got what he deserved. It's no cause for celebration. But I feel it is justice.
posted on March 11, 2001 03:13:51 PM
Saying the defense was incompetent is real popular. They were offered a plea. The Mother refused it. The attorney (who I am guessing here) was hired by the Mother, and went along with her wishes. In my opinion, with a different lawyer and different jury but the same evidence, he'd stll be found guilty.
[ edited by december3 on Mar 11, 2001 03:17 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 03:18:02 PMwith a different lawyer and different jury but the same evidence, he'd stll be found guilty.
Absolutely. But a different lawyer would have explained the gravity of the decision at hand and "helped" (not tried to force) her make the right decision. If he indeed was unable to explain the importance of the plea bargain in a way that the mother understood that she should accept it he is still incompetent.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 11, 2001 03:21 PM ]
I stated,
Sending children to prison for the rest of their life is unacceptable in a civilized society.
Neither you, a jury or I can determine if this death was murder.
By murder, I mean that the boy intended to kill the playmate.
Since there is that doubt, I don't think that we are justified in
sending the boy to jail for the rest of his life.
If an adult, wrestling with another adult committed this act, he would probably be convicted of
manslaughter.
My solution would be based on a complete mental evaluation of both
the boy and his mother. Based on the results of these tests, an
appropriate resolution could be enacted.
Earlier, you critized my remark that the prosecuting attorney had
failed. I made that statement because I don't think that a 12 year
old child should be tried as an adult and as far as I know, he made
that decision.
posted on March 11, 2001 03:21:26 PM
I doubt an adult would be convicted of manslaughter for beating a child to death. An adult would have gotten the death penalty.
