posted on March 11, 2001 06:30:56 PM
The logical conclusion of your doubt is that first degree murder can't be prosecuted, as no one can climb into another person's mind and truly discern intent without any trace of doubt.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:35:54 PM
What is strange is your terming it "probable accident".
You've raised several points, ranging from his living in a supposed hostile environment to his mom being tired to your lack of confidence in South Florida juries as a rule, none of which bear any relation to whether this was a "probable accident" or not.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:42:35 PM
HJW, how can an "accident" happen over and over and over again? An accident is something spontaneous, unknown or unplanned. That "boy" tossed her over all over the place. I also wonder how the hell the mother was "napping" thru it all. It all stinks, and there is no way it was an "accident". I dont care if the boy was black, white, green or blue and I dont care if the state was Florida, Montana or Mars. He killed her and it was NO accident.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:45:12 PM
"oops....didnt mean to throw you in the stair rail"...picks her up and slams her down..."gosh darn...didnt mean to hit your head on the edge of the coffee table"...get my drift? He did this all over that room, and you KNOW she was screaming, or moaning or whatever. Why didnt the mother HEAR it? Yeah, she needs to join sonny boy.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:46:30 PM
Ah, the good old "media influence" defense. Codswallop. Why is that in Japan, where TV & movies are *much* more violent & graphic than here in the U.S., you don't have children running around committing murder & mayhem on a daily basis? I've seen some of their shows...none of ours feature close-up, slow-motion scenes (with sound effects) of someone being disemboweled with a sword, nor are our games shows centered around violence &/or degradation as many are in Japan. Yet, strangely enough, cases like the ones discussed here are rare there. "Media Influence"--yeah, right.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:46:51 PM
that's true, but she has probably been evaluated more than once. This would not be the case if she were for instance, a clerk in a grocery store. I was just replying to your statement that the fact she was a State Trooper had no revelance to her mental state.
There are 2 troopers, a police officer, a couple of lawyers and a judge in my family. I know a little about the job.
[ edited by december3 on Mar 11, 2001 06:48 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 06:50:18 PM
Jamesoblivion
"You've raised several points, ranging from his living in a supposed hostile environment to his mom being tired to your lack of confidence in South Florida juries as a rule, none of which bear any relation to whether this was a "probable accident" or not."
Ridiculous! I did not use any of that
information to support my belief that
this was a probable accident. The subjects
that you have listed were mentioned while
I was discussing the case...Not supporting
my opinion that I believe that the boy did
not intend to kill his playmate.
posted on March 11, 2001 06:57:49 PM
I guess Im missing something. I didnt see anywhere in this thread that the mother being a state trooper made her exempt from being a basket case herself.
posted on March 11, 2001 07:01:54 PM
Hepburn, HJW said that the woman and the child both needed to have a mental evaluation. I merely said she had probably been evaluated many times as Law Enforcement Officers are as part of their job. This does not mean she doesn't have a screw loose, just that there should be less chance of it going unnoticed.
[ edited by december3 on Mar 11, 2001 07:02 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 07:09:46 PM
Thanks for pointing it out. I think her evaluation didnt work. No way she could "nap" thru what that little girl experienced.
posted on March 11, 2001 07:17:21 PM
Yes, and perpetrated by kids who playfully mow down their schoolmates, failing to notice or understand that those screams & blood signify that that they are hurting them...
posted on March 11, 2001 07:17:38 PM
Hepburn,I had thought about that, but I don't recall ever seeing the layout of the house mentioned anywhere. In my house, if I were in the back bedroom, you could have a rodeo in the den and I would probably not hear it.
Of course if I were watching a child I wouldn't be in a different room. The fact she was makes me think she believed her son could be trusted with the little girl.
[ edited by december3 on Mar 11, 2001 07:19 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2001 07:55:16 PM
My house is the same way...if I am in my bedroom with the door closed, I cant hear anything in the rest of the house. BUT, I think I would hear loud thumps and bangs, and screams. Unless, of course, I took something to make me sleep, like drugs. That IS standard I guess, to sleep in another room with the door closed while Im babysitting a 6 year old. Um hm.
posted on March 11, 2001 09:44:28 PM
Well hell, from now on let's just say that every kid who murders did it on "accident" - prolly all these school shootings are accidents - heck, they didn't know what they were doing....poor lil' innocent kids!
My aching ass .....anyone who thinks it was an accident, then let that monster come and live with you .... or your kids.......or your grandkids.
posted on March 12, 2001 02:42:11 AM
Personally, I find it hard to forcefully
argue with anyone who feels that it is wrong to hold a 12 year to the same standards as an adult. To sentence a child to life imprisonment does not seem right. As a parent, it is all too easy to put your own child's face on that of any youngster caught up in a tragedy, even if it flies in the face of reason.
I'm reminded of a quote from Benjamin Disraeli:
Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologize for truth.
I think it applies to both sides of this issue.
Based on what I know of this incident, I agree with the verdict. It does make me feel uncomfortable with myself. It brings me pause. I question my own sense of compassion and humanity. I can only imagine that the members of the jury suffered similar misgivings and self-doubt and yet they voted unanimously to convict and sentenced the boy to life. The right decision can hurt. Just imagine if it were truly yours to make.
posted on March 12, 2001 04:33:24 AM
We cannot keep sending these juveniles the message that they can do what they want and get away with it because of their age. These kids know right from wrong, they are neither stupid or naive. This boy probably knew a little bit more about the law just from being around his Mother and her friends.
I wish things were the way they used to be when I was a child. They aren't, children now days are street wise and savvy beyond their years.
I'm not hard hearted, I feel for the victims and their families. I think they deserve justice.
posted on March 12, 2001 05:35:16 AM
dubyasdaman
I stated,
The case was lost when the prosecutor decided to charge the 12 year old boy as an adult.
You ask, "Care to explain this one? I'm really curious about the logic behind it."
This statement was not intended as an argument. It was part of a list of events
that eventually resulted in the conviction
of a 12 year old child of murder.
It is my opinion that when the prosecutor
went out on a limb and charged the child
as an adult, he felt that the climate was
strongly in his corner for a conviction.
posted on March 12, 2001 05:58:12 AM
This 12 year old was lynched, pure and simple. There are hundreds of cases with similar facts that don't even get prosecuted.
Many of them happen with juveniles driving automobiles. I believe it was reported that Dubya Bush's wife ran a stop sign as a teen and killed a person- perhaps she should still be in prison.
From the previous posts, the next time a junior high football player dies from being hit, there should be a murder charge.
It is unbelievable that this 12 year old child gets convicted for first degree murder, and Kennedy's cousin is going to trial for beating a youth to death with a golf club 25 years ago, and may be tried as a juvenile, even though he is in his 40's.
The case of this 12 year old is a text book case of manslaughter, at best. There is no way a 12 year old can have the requisite experiences, and wisdom, and knowledge that form the basis of realizing the perminance of death and life imprisonment. There is no way a 12 year old would necessarily have the experience to know when a plaintive wail was one of immenent death or otherwise. Hell, you have to be over 35 years old to be president.
It must be the case that the many of you who believe that this 12 year old has the capacity of an adult, must have been driving, raising a family, doing military service in a nuclear missle silo, completing medical school, etc., at the age of 12 years.
I did things that were dangerous and life threatening at age 12, both to myself and my young friends. It was just dumb luck that none of us were killed or seriously injured. This included pushing each other out of trees, being "knights" with homemade implements that could have impaled and easily killed any of us, jumping off roof tops with homemade parachutes, and it is only with an adult perspective and experience that I realize these things were so dangerous. We even had a friend that was a "bleeder" and used to smack his nose on purpose to watch it bleed. We all had nose bleeds before, but his was "cooler", we had no understanding it was life threatening. We climbed 8 story buildings to see who could hang over the edge the longest, it was adventure, not life threatening acts.
There are even video tapes for sale of young kids doing wrestling moves in their backyards that are life threatening. They don't show the episodes where someone is killed or seriously injured. These kids are jumping from the roof of a house onto each other, hitting each other with chairs, to mimic or even one up the "pro" wrestlers.
For those of you who do not think race played a role in this case, you're living in a dream world.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 12, 2001 05:59 AM ]
[ edited by reamond on Mar 12, 2001 06:00 AM ]
[ edited by reamond on Mar 12, 2001 06:01 AM ]
[i]It is my opinion that when the prosecutor
went out on a limb and charged the child
as an adult, he felt that the climate was
strongly in his corner for a conviction.[/i]
Or maybe it could be that the crime was so heinous, the beating so brutal, the evidence so compelling, that to not charge the perpetrator as an adult would be an abrogation of duty.
The prosecutor here did his job in a well-balanced way IMO. He charged the boy as an adult because of the nature and brutality of the offense, and then showed compassion by offering a VERY reasonable (for the boy) plea bargain.
posted on March 12, 2001 06:12:35 AM
No one ever suggested that a 12 year old should drive a car, raise a family ect. They should know right from wrong. When you played with your little friends, if you had pushed one of them out of a tree and he lay there bleeding and asking for help, would you have run for help, or kicked him to make him bleed some more?
I watched an interview on A&E several months ago with kids serving time, they asked them why they did what they did, if they were sorry they did it, ect. The one that stuck in my mind was a boy who said he was at the scene of the crime, but he didn't pull the trigger. He told the police he was the shooter because his "friends" were all older and they said it would go easier on him because he was under age and would not be tried as an adult.
posted on March 12, 2001 06:30:56 AM
Knowing right from wrong is exactly the adult element that permits an adult to take responsibilities, such as military service, raising a family, and which youth lacks. We seem to forget that this kid has only been on this earth 12 years, with 1/3 third of those years spent in infancy.
Would I kick my playmate if I pushed him/her from a tree and they were bleeding and asking for help ? As an adult I know exactly what I would do. As a child, I would not. I may not have rendered aide, may have ran and not told anyone. If we were palying one of our more agressive war games, he/she may have been kicked, jumped on etc.. Children in Africa and South America are forced into rebel military service for precisely these reasons, they kill anyone with little prompting. They lack the experience to fathom the value of an individual life or how death is permanent. Empathy comes from experience, it is not inheirent in the human.
Experience over time is what molds a youth into an adult. Inexperienced youth by definition have not had the years of experience that adults have. We keep ascribing adult interpretations to a 12 year old.
From what I have read here, many of you must believe a 12 year old should be allowed to have consentual sex with an adult. I do not. Children lack the experience given by years to both interpret and react to serious situations as an adult would.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 12, 2001 06:32 AM ]
[ edited by reamond on Mar 12, 2001 06:38 AM ]
posted on March 12, 2001 06:44:03 AM
In the late 1980s, there was a case in NYC of a loony "lawyer" and his live in love who illegally adopted two children. The father would beat the girl and one beating put her in a coma and she eventually died.
The father, when told by the doctor that she would survive but be severely brain damaged said: "So what you're telling me is that she won't be an Olympic athlete, but she'll live." Something similar to that, anyway.
He was tried and although Murder 2 was one of the choices, he was convicted of Manslaughter 1 because the jury believed that when he struck the blow, he only meant to hit the girl, not kill her. As with this case in Florida, I can understand that and accept that manslaughter should have been the charge for the wrestling boy.
Had this father been convicted of Murder 2, I don't think there would have been any outrage. Frankly, there was outrage that he was convicted fo Man 1 and people were pissed at the jury. The Mayor of New York City said during the trial that the guy should be "boiled in oil."
Frankly, I just don't care if this kid in Florida gets sent away for life. I just don't care. It is one less depraved individual on the streets.
I also believe the mother should be charged. She said: Why should he plead guilty when he was just playing? She was a state trooper who claimed she didn't know about mandatory sentencing laws in the state in which she worked. What did he do in her job? Write parking tickets? If her son was incompetent and she was sleeping, leaving a 7 year old in his incompetent care, she belongs in jail.
Can you imagine having one of your kids beaten to death and thet was the response from the murderer's parents?
[ edited by december3 on Mar 11, 2001 06:48 PM ]