Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Fry 'em

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154

    Default Fry 'em

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/23...-overpass.html

    "The following individuals have been charged with second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder: Kyle Anger, Alexander Miller, Mark Sekelsky, Mikadyn Payne and Trevor Gray. Anger is 17, but the rest of the ages are not entirely clear at this time. They are all being charged as adults in Genesee County.

    On October 18, 32-year-old Kenneth White of Mount Morris was killed while riding in a truck on his way home from a construction job when a rock smashed through the car’s windshield and killed him.

    The incident happened in Vienna Township, which is about 80 miles north of Detroit.

    Last week, the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office said the incident appears to have been a prank.

    No one else was hurt, but four other vehicles also were struck with large rocks or concrete chunks."

    They have no value. Worthless shit holes the lot of them. Not a single one of them decided 'you know this could kill someone' they didn't just throw a single rock, they threw multiple times. Sadly there will probably be some bull shit plea deal and they will be out with good behavior in 10 years tops. Sickens me.

  2. #2
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    No intent to kill or cause injury means the death penalty isn't reasonable. They're absolute dumb shits but being a reckless moron doesn't merit death, even if death results.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No intent to kill or cause injury means the death penalty isn't reasonable. They're absolute dumb shits but being a reckless moron doesn't merit death, even if death results.
    I'm OK with life in prison as consolation prize. Really glad the judge didn't allow these fucks bail.

    Also how the hell do you figure no intent to cause injury?

  4. #4
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm OK with life in prison as consolation prize. Really glad the judge didn't allow these fucks bail.

    Also how the hell do you figure no intent to cause injury?
    Were they aiming at people, or at cars? The latter, to which damage does not constitute a personal injury. Were they trying to actually destroy cars or force them into crashes so that people would get injured? You know they weren't, that they almost certainly could never even see the people in the cars they were bombarding. They were trying to be troublesome assholes and they succeeded admirably but there is absolutely zero indication that their actions constituted any kind of battery. As far as intent goes, intent was for this to be a "prank."
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Were they aiming at people, or at cars? The latter, to which damage does not constitute a personal injury. Were they trying to actually destroy cars or force them into crashes so that people would get injured? You know they weren't, that they almost certainly could never even see the people in the cars they were bombarding. They were trying to be troublesome assholes and they succeeded admirably but there is absolutely zero indication that their actions constituted any kind of battery. As far as intent goes, intent was for this to be a "prank."
    They dropped multiple rock blocks onto a highway with moving cars. This wasn't even the first rock being dropped. "haha you were in a 70 mph car wreck with a rock in the road ohhohohoh what a funny prank" are you absolutely being serious here? This was a clear intent to injure and that is why the DA is charging them with 2nd degree murder.

  6. #6
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    They dropped multiple rock blocks onto a highway with moving cars. This wasn't even the first rock being dropped. "haha you were in a 70 mph car wreck with a rock in the road ohhohohoh what a funny prank" are you absolutely being serious here? This was a clear intent to injure and that is why the DA is charging them with 2nd degree murder.
    No, they're doing 2nd degree murder planning to use "reckless endangerment" as a way to bypass the need for intent, claiming that it was so obvious that injury could happen that it doesn't matter if they intended it or not.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #7
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,733
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No, they're doing 2nd degree murder planning to use "reckless endangerment" as a way to bypass the need for intent, claiming that it was so obvious that injury could happen that it doesn't matter if they intended it or not.
    Sounds appropriate, causing injury is a pretty obvious consequence when you throw rocks on a highway.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  8. #8
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    It looks more like manslaughter to me but that's a lesser included so things can always go down to that, either via plea or by jury decision. Easier to make the case through reckless endangerment.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #9
    ======== Timbuk2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,804
    No mention of liberals invalidates the entire thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    "Scientists raise alarm: bananas can cause EU"

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Seems to me there are two valid ways to look at:

    1. The kids were stupid, had no clue that the rock could kill someone. The level of stupidity and idiocy rises to the level of 'wow keep these people away from society forever, there is no fixing this level of mental retardation.'

    2. They knew it would likely injury and possibly murder someone through their actions. Random murderous actions rise to the level of depraved *evil* that they should be locked away forever because they'll have a high propensity to do serial killer levels of bull shit if they are released.

    Either way if I was on the jury I'd go for the max charge possible. The fact that the judge denied bail is a good sign.

  11. #11
    ======== Timbuk2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,804
    EVIL!!

    EVIL

    EVIL I TELL YOU'RE THEY'RE EVIL!

    ~

    Can't provide any rational argument against evil. No sireeee! Evil! Let's bring on some 17th century witch burning!! This be the devil's work!

    EVIL!
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    "Scientists raise alarm: bananas can cause EU"

  12. #12
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Seems to me there are two valid ways to look at:

    1. The kids were stupid, had no clue that the rock could kill someone. The level of stupidity and idiocy rises to the level of 'wow keep these people away from society forever, there is no fixing this level of mental retardation.'
    Flatly untrue. It is, in fact, eminently correctable. You just don't want it corrected.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Flatly untrue. It is, in fact, eminently correctable. You just don't want it corrected.
    On the balance how much value do you place on potential innocents being harmed? If 100 criminals are in prison and the choice is life or release (making it simple for the sake of argument) and 99% of those criminals will never victimize another person again but that one person will rape someone. How much value should society be placed on the criminal's freedom versus the victimization of the innocent?

    Y value will be the value society finds in a guilty criminal living out from behind bars, X will be the value of the innocent being victimized.

    Now if you consider a criminals life to be of equal value of that of an innocent the equation becomes simple. You would want to let the criminals go. For me personally I don't place really any value on their lives and happiness compared to that of the innocent people in society. If I knew there was a 1% recidivism rate for rape, murder, armed robber I would say keep them in prison for life.

    All that I ask is that you and every other bleeding heart liberal clearly say and state how many people raped are you OK with in order for rapists to have their freedom from prison. How many people are you OK with being assaulted to let those who assault people out of prison. Then let people decide what values they think are fair.

  14. #14
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    On the balance how much value do you place on potential innocents being harmed? If 100 criminals are in prison and the choice is life or release (making it simple for the sake of argument) and 99% of those criminals will never victimize another person again but that one person will rape someone. How much value should society be placed on the criminal's freedom versus the victimization of the innocent?
    They should value their lives equally. 99 of those people are innocent of further wrong-doing and you are victimizing THEM. Using the state to do so, in fact. I'm more of a libertarian than you are. Have them serve a reasonable term for what they have done, and since I place an emphasis on rehabilitation I'm even willing to accept the idea of sentences being conditioned on a good-faith belief that they HAVE been rehabilitated, within some mild limits to protect from overextension and abuse of state power. But I cannot and will not punish someone for future crimes they MIGHT commit, anymore than I will do so for those who have not yet been caught committing a crime, i.e. the supposed innocent of yours.

    There is no number because you can't apply probability to decide whether you are going to toss someone in jail for a crime they have not provably committed.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post

    There is no number because you can't apply probability to decide whether you are going to toss someone in jail for a crime they have not provably committed.
    We aren't tossing people in jail for a crime they have not provably committed we are *keeping them there* for crimes they have already committed.

  16. #16
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    We aren't tossing people in jail for a crime they have not provably committed we are *keeping them there* for crimes they have already committed.
    No you're not. You just said you weren't. You said you wanted to permanently take away their freedom because of the risk of future crime. That's what recidivism means, it's not a term which applies to actions already taken.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No you're not. You just said you weren't. You said you wanted to permanently take away their freedom because of the risk of future crime. That's what recidivism means, it's not a term which applies to actions already taken.
    Not sure if I'm not being clear or if you are deliberately misinterpreting. The person who is in prison *currently* is not there due to future crimes. They are there for past crimes. The decision on how long the sentence should be should absolutely consider the likelihood of the person re-offending. Do you disagree with that notion?

  18. #18
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,260
    If your rationale for sentencing all criminals to life in prison is that they may have a 1% chance of reoffending then you are in fact punishing them for future possible crime. If not, your position is simply that all criminals should be in prison for life. Interesting that you're not so concerned about likelihood of harm when it comes to firearms. Ridiculous, but interesting.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    If your rationale for sentencing all criminals to life in prison is that they may have a 1% chance of reoffending then you are in fact punishing them for future possible crime. If not, your position is simply that all criminals should be in prison for life. Interesting that you're not so concerned about likelihood of harm when it comes to firearms. Ridiculous, but interesting.
    I just want people to be clear in what they believe. If we took a look at rape and sentenced 1,000 rapists to 10 years (hah even 10 years is too much for liberals) vs. life imprisonment we just need to be honest with the citizens. At 1% (a laughably low number its likely far higher) recidivism rate we then tell the people this:

    "Ten women being raped is a fair price to pay for a 1,000 rapists getting a 2nd chance at life." If that is the position politicians want to take I just want them to crystallize it for the people. This makes sense, doesn't it?

    Apply the same principal to murder, armed robber, kidnapping, arson etc. (All violent crime for the most part - I've already made it clear I think victim-less crimes are an inherent oxymoron like drug use).

  20. #20
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Not sure if I'm not being clear or if you are deliberately misinterpreting. The person who is in prison *currently* is not there due to future crimes. They are there for past crimes. The decision on how long the sentence should be should absolutely consider the likelihood of the person re-offending. Do you disagree with that notion?
    No. You cannot consider actions they have not been convicted of when determining the penal response to the acts they have been convicted of. Innocent and guilt is not a state of being, Lewk. It is a description of a person's relation to specific acts. You are not an innocent person or a guilty person. You are innocent of doing x, or guilty of doing y.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #21
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I just want people to be clear in what they believe. If we took a look at rape and sentenced 1,000 rapists to 10 years (hah even 10 years is too much for liberals) vs. life imprisonment we just need to be honest with the citizens. At 1% (a laughably low number its likely far higher) recidivism rate we then tell the people this:

    "Ten women being raped is a fair price to pay for a 1,000 rapists getting a 2nd chance at life." If that is the position politicians want to take I just want them to crystallize it for the people. This makes sense, doesn't it?

    Apply the same principal to murder, armed robber, kidnapping, arson etc. (All violent crime for the most part - I've already made it clear I think victim-less crimes are an inherent oxymoron like drug use).
    We're not talking about rape, we're talking about dropping rocks. If you're concerned about preventing rape you'd be better off just randomly putting men in jail. Put a hundred randomly selected men in jail and I guarantee you'll prevent a few rapes outside prison.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No. You cannot consider actions they have not been convicted of when determining the penal response to the acts they have been convicted of. Innocent and guilt is not a state of being, Lewk. It is a description of a person's relation to specific acts. You are not an innocent person or a guilty person. You are innocent of doing x, or guilty of doing y.
    Bull shit. If that were the case they wouldn't bother with parole boards.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    We're not talking about rape, we're talking about dropping rocks. If you're concerned about preventing rape you'd be better off just randomly putting men in jail. Put a hundred randomly selected men in jail and I guarantee you'll prevent a few rapes outside prison.
    Don't be absurd. You don't harm innocents for what they might do. You can and should harm *guilty people* for what they do. This is the core basis of any sensible justice system. If an offender is likely to re-offend you want to keep them separated from society for as long as possible. The entire purpose of sacrificing some of our rights to the government is to keep people safe. The core social contract is predicated on the government protecting you from criminals and invaders.

  24. #24
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Bull shit. If that were the case they wouldn't bother with parole boards.
    Why not? See my comment about rehabilitation.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •