Jump to content

Washington DC Carjacking Teenage Girls


cabowabo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Do you think 5-8 years in a facility that is likely more stable than your household is apropos “punishment” for assault, theft, and murder?  We can agree their brains were not fully developed adult brains, however they absolutely knew what the consequences of driving someone clinging to a car down a street at high speed was.  
 

If a 15 yo sexually assaulted your daughter, what kind of rehabilitation period would you suggest? Few years in a light duty juvenile facility so he could get a stable life, maybe work on his GED, then out into the world as if it never happened?  This wasn’t a bar fight gone wrong. It was an assault (taser), theft, then a continued assault (dragging him down street) which led to his death.   Several bad decisions, not a spur of the moment teenage faux pas.  The fact is these two teenage girls and an absolute drag on our society, forever will be, and it is a shame they didn’t perish in the wreck. 

Your response to a question was a maieutic one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if I am not mistaken, another LBJ connected person (nephew) stole a car and went joyriding in high school.  He's now a prominent constitutional law scholar and authority on national security law at UT and other prestigious law schools.  His juvenile record is buried a little deeper than Christian's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a mighty big assumption there in bold.

Yeah. Their punishment seems a little light to me, but it also doesn't seem very "conservative" (using the pro-limited government view they pretend to hold) to want the state to determine who is and who isn't doomed to be useless dregs, and to then punish those determined to be useless. That seems pretty fucked up, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why?  You believe our best and brightest typically come from felonious backgrounds, after spending their youth in facilities?  Have any kind of stats on that?  Dollars to donuts they are offenders again, shortly after release.  Someone else will pay with their life, or property, and then we can all pay to house and feed them some more, and hope they can rehabilitate.  Then we can do it again. 

What do you suggest we do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

fify.

I believe many never feel remorse for their crimes.  They are told, by people like you, that it isn't their fault.  It was really the situation they were forced into.  So, really, they can't be blamed for their actions. It's the actions of others for decades that caused this, right?  

I agree that a lot of folks do not feel remorse for their crimes.  I also know of a white rich kid I knew with felony possession of narcotics that received deferred after other minor drug offenses, receive deferred adjudication.  they were told by the law, their parents, and society as a whole they had not really done anything bad.  But those same changes on a poor black kid?  Completely different outcome, likely incarceration.  But they are not tolks by me it's OK, and I do not think you were referring to me specifically, or I hope not.

As in accidentally ran a stop sign, or maliciously ran a stop sign and ran someone down in cold blood?  Are you trying to say what these girls did was an accident?  At what point was the tasing, stealing, and then dragging a man several blocks down the street an accident?  

Does it matter to the dead person, the dead person"s family, if they just were not paying attention?  Or changing the radio?  Again what do you think a similar outcome might have been in for a black teen in the exact same time frame?  Radically different and incarceration is the most likely truth here.

Not familiar with this, but fuck that guy too.  Murder is murder, not too hard to understand.

Google AG Ravnsborg -  Well it is South Dakota - and of course the guy was white, and Republican, and got preferential treatment. If Black or Brown it would be in the regular Fox News rotation of outrage. I could just kill somebody, call it a deer, have the Sheriff (R) drive out with you, never think about blood work to see if you were still drunk... and Poof! Felonies are misdemeanors!  White Justice!!!

 

Fattie Flattie - Not at all disagreeing that the sentence for these girls wasn't light, or in rotation on Fox News.  But ,the totality is that white wealthy folks ROUTINELY get away with crimes and receive very, very light sentences.  For every one of these cases like the teen carjackers, there is a black guy in prison for 20 years for possessing a joint.(Louisiana)  So to me the overall perspective is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I set off running to wake from the dream
My brother's rifle went into the sheen
I kept on running into the south lands
That's where they found me, my head in my hands

The sheriff he asked me why had I run
And then it came to me, just what I had done
And all for no reason, just one piece of lead

I hung my head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah. Their punishment seems a little light to me, but it also doesn't seem very "conservative" (using the pro-limited government view they pretend to hold) to want the state to determine who is and who isn't doomed to be useless dregs, and to then punish those determined to be useless. That seems pretty fucked up, actually.

To be fair, I don't think the "punishment" has been decided, nor has the plea deal been "finalized."

The only deets I could find indicated that the plea was not to contest "responsibility" in return for not being treated as adults.  Most of what I see reported is from unreliable right wing outlets with an agenda.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

DIdn't say best and brightest.  That's a terrible strawman and you should be ashamed. 

True.  I guess the world needs ditch diggers too.  

 

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Are you so full of vengeance that you aren't?

I don't know, I'll have to think on that a bit.  They literally destroyed an entire family in seconds.  I'm having a hard time finding a fuck to give about their second chance.  Dude they crushed doesn't get a second chance.  The family he was working for won't get a second chance.  I'd be surprised if they'll even got a sincere apology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, horn4life said:

Fattie Flattie - Not at all disagreeing that the sentence for these girls wasn't light, or in rotation on Fox News.  But ,the totality is that white wealthy folks ROUTINELY get away with crimes and receive very, very light sentences.  For every one of these cases like the teen carjackers, there is a black guy in prison for 20 years for possessing a joint.(Louisiana)  So to me the overall perspective is important.

I don't disagree at all, and posted up thread that I believe it's bullshit there is that much subjectivity in our sentencing.  It's where minorities get fucked the most from our criminal justice system, imo.  Different times for the same crime.  It's bullshit.   Which is why 6 years seems light af to me on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im all for letting minors have second chances.
But there are some crimes so severe that the offender needs to pay an ultimate price by lengthy incarceration.
This is one.
Its a capital crime, causing death of another during the commission of a felony armed robbery. No other way to look at it. Not kids just joyriding or stealing a car. Premeditated to use a taser to car jack. They killed an innocent older person cause he wouldnt give up his car. They coulda fled at anytime but no, they were hell bent on taking it. Prolly have done it many times before. So fucking needless and tragic.
Fuck em.
They are pieces of shit.
Same as if an adult had done it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys aren't really answering any questions or addressing any problems.

What do we actually do and for what purpose? What is the goal?

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

 Different times for the same crime.  It's bullshit.   Which is why 6 years seems light af to me on this. 

Do you know of white teens getting longer sentences for the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you know of white teens getting longer sentences for the same thing?

Of course not. I know there are teens that are 3 years older that never leave prison once they kill someone.  Those 3 magic years between 15 and 18 where everything comes together and one is fully developed, you know. Makes all the difference in the world, apparently.   GTA video game life ends and goes straight to real life.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Their intention was to rob the man. Their intention was not to crash the car. The killing was accidental, by definition.

What they wanted was for him to leave the vehicle so they could drive away in the car. They panicked, afraid of consequences and terrified that their idiotic plan wasn't working. They are idiots, brats, poorly-raised, and obviously awful influences on each other. Their intention was not to kill this guy.

I didn’t mean to kill that man, I just wanted their stuff and didn’t know he’d be home.  Really, I was just there to steal, then freaked out when he came out of the room with a gun. It was an accident, by definition.

Almost certain I’ve that exact first 48. Don’t think it worked out for him. Probably because it was murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Of course not.

OK so when you said "Which is why 6 years seems light af to me on this." referencing black oppression in the criminal justice system you were lying?

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I didn’t mean to kill that man, I just wanted their stuff and didn’t know he’d be home.  Really, I was just there to steal, then freaked out when he came out of the room with a gun. It was an accident, by definition.

Still not addressing anything. Still not even attempting to make a logical point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Still not addressing anything. Still not even attempting to make a logical point.

I’m clearly addressing the fact your bullshit about the death being clearly an accident is bullshit.  They are murderers.   They assaulted, thieved, assaulted again, and then murdered a man. Like I said, the real shame is the victim perished instead of these “children”.  Fuck them 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think their intention was to kill this guy? It's a simple yes/no question.

I think the second they sped off with him still attached to the car, they didn’t care whether he lived or died.   They very clearly knew he was still attached to the car as they sped off.  
 

I do not believe they planned to kill him from the onset.  So it wasn’t purely premeditated.  But they killed him, whether they planned to or not. 

Edited by fattyflattie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider to put this in perspective.  Eight or six years sounds like a short "sentence."  But why is that?  Is it just compared to the relentlessly punitive sentences handed out to adults?

When you're 13 or 15, high school seems like an eternity.  College graduation or attaining legal drinking age is a future almost beyond comprehension.  If you don't think being stuck in a juvy hall for that length of time has some seriously punitive aspects for a child of that age, your perspective is lacking.

I think most of our adult sentences are a) essentially arbitrary, with the only guiding principle, if any, being retribution, and b) too long in most cases by about half.

And sticking a juvenile in an adult prison, a fundamentally abusive environment, practically guarantees that they will have almost no future as an adult and will be a ward of the state either in prison or "on welfare," or some combination, for the rest of their lives.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another thing to consider to put this in perspective.  Eight or six years sounds like a short "sentence."  But why is that?  Is it just compared to the relentlessly punitive sentences handed out to adults?

When you're 13 or 15, high school seems like an eternity.  College graduation or attaining legal drinking age is a future almost beyond comprehension.  If you don't think being stuck in a juvy hall for that length of time has some seriously punitive aspects for a child of that age, your perspective is lacking.

I think most of our adult sentences are a) essentially arbitrary, with the only guiding principle, if any, being retribution, and b) too long in most cases by about half.

And sticking a juvenile in an adult prison, a fundamentally abusive environment, practically guarantees that they will have almost no future as an adult and will be a ward of the state either in prison or "on welfare," or some combination, for the rest of their lives.

I think the first part is important. Sticking a 13 year old in juvy for 8 years is literally a sentence equal to 61% of her life to that point. When she gets out she'll have spent nearly 40% of her life there. That is pretty fucking punitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think the first part is important. Sticking a 13 year old in juvy for 8 years is literally a sentence equal to 61% of her life to that point. When she gets out she'll have spent nearly 40% of her life there. That is pretty fucking punitive. 

But an 18 yo who commits murder getting out at 28 and that seems like a slap on the wrist.  10 years for taking away someone else’s life forever. Helluva deal for literally erasing someone from the living world. 

Most everyone on this board wants Chauvin put away forever.  He killed the same amount of people as these girls.  And I’m sure he didn’t really think he was going to kill anyone that day.  Maybe just rough em up a bit. So, accident?  Whoopsie. 6 years. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 2:46 AM, Dahobbs said:

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that objective evidence indicates white kids would be treated worse in similar circumstances? What the fuck drugs have you been taking? 

Is the messaging of that post any different from this?

 

On 4/4/2021 at 9:44 PM, Gourmand said:

If the roles were reversed with the two individuals below, the black man would have received the death penalty.

spacer.png

 

On 4/6/2021 at 1:29 AM, williemackgarza said:

What would happen if the victim was black with white teens???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, if I am not mistaken, another LBJ connected person (nephew) stole a car and went joyriding in high school.  He's now a prominent constitutional law scholar and authority on national security law at UT and other prestigious law schools.  His juvenile record is buried a little deeper than Christian's.

I imagine hot wiring a car for a joyride is a bit different than (1) an active carjacking using a weapon, (2) doubling up on the attempt when the the victim resists (non-aggressively), (3) and then killing him (by accident!), (4) and then not showing a shred of remorse.

At 13 and 15 years of age, the most egregious crime contemplated by most people is stealing a Coors from the 7-11.  If we're gonna waive off the consequences of their crimes on the grounds of "undeveloped brain", the next question would be at what age does that stop being a valid excuse?  if we infer from the idealogue-mob who post on surly... it suggests some people's brains will never finish developing.

What punishment is appropriate for these 2?  Have them handsew Nikes from the inside of a cell until they pay what the man earns for his family.

 

Edited by 52-80
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

But an 18 yo who commits murder getting out at 28 and that seems like a slap on the wrist.  10 years for taking away someone else’s life forever. Helluva deal for literally erasing someone from the living world. 

Most everyone on this board wants Chauvin put away forever.  He killed the same amount of people as these girls.  And I’m sure he didn’t really think he was going to kill anyone that day.  Maybe just rough em up a bit. So, accident?  Whoopsie. 6 years. 

Doesn't that depend on the particular circumstances of the case? If that 18-year old just walked up to someone and shot them for no reason, yeah it may seem light. But if that 18-year old was in an argument with someone else (let's say over a girl) and a punch turned into someone smacking their head into the pavement and dying, then 10 years seems excessive. The result was the same, someone died. But we evaluate those cases differently. And I think this case is lot closer to the latter than the former. 

And doesn't it depend on what our goals are with the criminal justice system? Do we believe the only goals should be retribution/punishment? I certainly don't. And not all countries operate that way. And, in particular here, where we are talking about minors, I absolutely believe rehabilitation has to serve a larger role. 

As to Chauvin, I see the aggravating factors as follows: (1) He didn't act in a moment of panic like those girls, but rather he slowly killed a man over an extended period of time despite pleas to stop, (2) he was a police officer and as a result had a special role of trust in our society and special training. He violated both of those. (3) His age, experience, and actions, indicate he wasn't ignorant of what he was doing, but rather that he was uncaring.

But, even given all that, I do believe that rehabilitation still must be a significant goal of our system. As I said earlier, we shouldn't mistake retribution with justice. 15 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable for him given all of those factors. 

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Is the messaging of that post any different from this?

 

 

Uh, yeah. I wasn't objecting to the kind of question, but rather the presumption behind it. @Gourmand was recognizing the fact (which you and I have discussed ad nauseum in this thread) that blacks are treated worse in our criminal justice system. @williemackgarza was ignoring reality and insinuating that the exact opposite happens. 

54 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I imagine hot wiring a car for a joyride is a bit different than (1) an active carjacking using a weapon, (2) doubling up on the attempt when the the victim resists (non-aggressively), (3) and then killing him (by accident!), (4) and then not showing a shred of remorse.

At 13 and 15 years of age, the most egregious crime contemplated by most people is stealing a Coors from the 7-11.  If we're gonna waive off the consequences of their crimes on the grounds of "undeveloped brain", the next question would be at what age does that stop being a valid excuse?  if we infer from the idealogue-mob who post on surly... it suggests some people's brains will never finish developing.

What punishment is appropriate for these 2?  Have them handsew Nikes from the inside of a cell until they pay what the man earns for his family.

 

See above, what is the purpose of our criminal justice system? And do you disagree that minors should be treated more gingerly and with an eye more towards rehabilitation? I take it from other posts that no one really disagrees with the general idea of treating minors differently. But once you've conceded that, the argument that determining the line is difficult sounds hollow. Maybe you can make the argument that the line should 12 years old, or 10. But that isn't the consensus our society has reached. And I'm quite confident that in a different situation you'd be arguing that another 13 and 15 year-old shouldn't have their entire lives ruined and should be treated differently because of their age.

As to your final suggestion, that would be more the role of the civil justice system, not the criminal justice system.  

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

But an 18 yo who commits murder getting out at 28 and that seems like a slap on the wrist.  10 years for taking away someone else’s life forever. Helluva deal for literally erasing someone from the living world. 

Most everyone on this board wants Chauvin put away forever.  He killed the same amount of people as these girls.  And I’m sure he didn’t really think he was going to kill anyone that day.  Maybe just rough em up a bit. So, accident?  Whoopsie. 6 years. 

Cops who commit crimes should face harsher sentences than ordinary citizens who commit the same crime. Certainly more than a child who commits the same crime.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So it wasn’t purely premeditated.

I guess this is as close as I'll get to an honest and straight answer from you to a very simple question.

Quote

But an 18 yo who commits murder getting out at 28 and that seems like a slap on the wrist.

There's no organized thinking to any of this shit, just drifting from one case to the next seeking some kind of vague emotional satisfaction. That should not be how our criminal justice system works.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

See above, what is the purpose of our criminal justice system? And do you disagree that minors should be treated more gingerly and with an eye more towards rehabilitation? I take it from other posts that no one really disagrees with the general idea of treating minors differently. But once you've conceded that, the argument that determining the line is difficult sounds hollow.....Maybe you can make the argument that the line should 12 years old, or 10. But that isn't the consensus our society has reached. And I'm quite confident that in a different situation you'd be arguing that another 13 and 15 year-old shouldn't have their entire lives ruined and should be treated differently because of their age.

>What is the purpose

It ain't black and white (binary speaking, not race), that's for sure.  A mix of rehabilitation, deterrence, AND punition - for fucking sure.  Anders Breivik killed 80 people and he's sitting in a nice dorm room for 10 more years.  That's BUNK.

>And do you disagree that minors should be treated more gingerly

That question isn't really instructive.  (You admitted that no one really disagrees...). The question is how much more gingerly, and why? 

>But once you've conceded that, the argument that determining the line is difficult sounds hollow

Which means it's not about placing a hard, binary line at what is a minor.  It's accepting that because the younger someone is, the less informed they were about their decisions, the more "potential" for reform, yadda yadda yadda, their sentencing should take that into account.  It's basically what is the multiplier to apply?

A 12 year old shoplifting a video game from Target should be punished more softly than a 24 year old.  Obviously.  But in what world do you soften the punishment for something as callous as an active carjacking, refusing to renege, escalating it to a crash, and then not showing an ounce of decency to look after the guy who was just flung from the car. 

Being 15 years old isn't a license to kill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2021 at 12:48 PM, Nivek said:

I was just referring to the specific district, since that is the one you mentioned.    Are the buildings in a state of disrepair and unsafe?   Is the administration pay higher because it warrants having better teachers or incentivizing them to work at these school?  In other words, if the class has a 50% failure rate would an average or new teacher cause that rate to increase to 60%?  How can we define success in an area where the graduation rates/scoring is seemingly in a state of crisis?   

(Thanks and we did.  It is exhausting but the reward of seeing a 10 yr old declare of his 4 yr old brother "He's SMART!" after the 4 yr old see's an egg in a tree and decides to shake the tree to obtain the egg rather than trying to jump.   Or the middle child hide some of her eggs for the little guy to find only to watch him put them into her basket to share.)

Yes they are. It's a city wide problem.  I have no problem with the higher salaries if perforce is commensurate with those salaries.  And the issue is also tied to low income families, and lack of parental involvement, but maintaining the status quo in that kind of situation is just throwing good money after bad.

Yeah, those were great days, and they'll be gone in a flash, enjoy every chance you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

>What is the purpose

It ain't black and white (binary speaking, not race), that's for sure.  A mix of rehabilitation, deterrence, AND punition - for fucking sure.  Anders Breivik killed 80 people and he's sitting in a nice dorm room for 10 more years.  That's BUNK.

>And do you disagree that minors should be treated more gingerly

That question isn't really instructive.  (You admitted that no one really disagrees...). The question is how much more gingerly, and why? 

>But once you've conceded that, the argument that determining the line is difficult sounds hollow

Which means it's not about placing a hard, binary line at what is a minor.  It's accepting that because the younger someone is, the less informed they were about their decisions, the more "potential" for reform, yadda yadda yadda, their sentencing should take that into account.  It's basically what is the multiplier to apply?

A 12 year old shoplifting a video game from Target should be punished more softly than a 24 year old.  Obviously.  But in what world do you soften the punishment for something as callous as an active carjacking, refusing to renege, escalating it to a crash, and then not showing an ounce of decency to look after the guy who was just flung from the car. 

Being 15 years old isn't a license to kill

It seems we agree our system of justice should not be aimed solely at punishment. And we agree that rehabilitation should be part of the goal. And we agree that age should be a factor in sentencing, reflecting our belief that younger children are less informed and understanding of the consequences of their actions. You just think that for these particular minors we should ignore all that. Why? Like, let's say instead of 13 and 15, they were 7 and 9 and did the exact same thing. Would you still be saying that we should lock them aware forever?  Or, would recognize that maybe a 7 and 9 year old that do terrible things don't really understand the consequences of those actions? 

I do note your continued insistence that the girls never showed an ounce of remorse. How do you know that to be the case? I have no idea what discussions have happened or what they've said since the incident and I suspect that neither do you. 

Finally, how exactly do you see being locked away for 6-8 years (again, half of their lives to this point) as being granted "a license to kill?" Or are you just mowing down a strawman for the emotional satisfaction?

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

I imagine hot wiring a car for a joyride is a bit different than (1) an active carjacking using a weapon, (2) doubling up on the attempt when the the victim resists (non-aggressively), (3) and then killing him (by accident!), (4) and then not showing a shred of remorse.

At 13 and 15 years of age, the most egregious crime contemplated by most people is stealing a Coors from the 7-11.  If we're gonna waive off the consequences of their crimes on the grounds of "undeveloped brain", the next question would be at what age does that stop being a valid excuse?  if we infer from the idealogue-mob who post on surly... it suggests some people's brains will never finish developing.

What punishment is appropriate for these 2?  Have them handsew Nikes from the inside of a cell until they pay what the man earns for his family.

 

The point is that juveniles are given a chance that adults generally are not.

And at least a couple of them completely maximized the chance they were given.

Had they had adult criminal records, neither of them would have gained a law license, in all likelihood.

It's not to equate their crimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It seems we agree our system of justice should not be aimed solely at punishment. And we agree that rehabilitation should be part of the goal. And we agree that age should be a factor in sentencing, reflecting our belief that younger children are less informed and understanding of the consequences of their actions. You just think that for these particular minors we should ignore all that. Why? Like, let's say instead of 13 and 15, they were 7 and 9 and did the exact same thing. Would you still saying that we should lock them aware forever?  Or, would recognize that maybe a 7 and 9 year old that do terrible things don't really understand the consequences of those actions? 

I do note your continued insistence that the girls never showed an ounce of remorse. How do you know that to be the case? I have no idea what discussions have happened or what they've said since the incident and I suspect that neither do you. 

Finally, how exactly do you see being locked away for 6-8 years (again, half of their lives to this point) as being granted "a license to kill?" Or are you just mowing down a strawman for the emotional satisfaction?

Where did I say we should ignore their age and all its implications for these particular minors?  Or is that not a strawman?  The circumstances like age gets added to the context of the crime.  The crime is particularly heinous that cannot be significantly absolved on the grounds of being 13/15.  It would be MORE absolved if they were 7/9, but you would need be a wicked person to even fathom the possibility of that occurring. 

You claim nobody knows their remorse.  We're not institutional psychs, but we have seen the video.  And you could say yeah well they were shellshocked and they did not and could not react appropriately.  But you can also add 1+1+1 of the preceding circumstances and it favors not giving them the benefit of the doubt. 

They should be rehabilitating roads and sneakers for a very long time.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because, by believing it, he feels righteous anger. Which is enjoyable to feel.

Maybe the fact they were trying to leave the scene in lieu of checking on the crumpled body 10’ from them. It was more important to search for their phone than to establish what damage they just caused.  Now I’ve never killed anyone, accidental or otherwise, but I led like to think if I did I could garner up an ounce of emotion about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Maybe the fact they were trying to leave the scene in lieu of checking on the crumpled body 10’ from them. It was more important to search for their phone than to establish what damage they just caused.  Now I’ve never killed anyone, accidental or otherwise, but I led like to think if I did I could garner up an ounce of emotion about it. 

If you could stop making this about yourself constantly it would be a more productive conversation.

The assertion is that they never felt remorse, which is unproven. That's extremely different from whether or not they felt it in the moment. We have maybe 10 seconds of (non-)reaction from them on the provided video. That's it.

It seems like the people who would know more about their remorse/motives/etc... would be the lawyers and judges connected to the case who came up with this deal. Yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Where did I say we should ignore their age and all its implications for these particular minors?  Or is that not a strawman? 

 

You said: "But in what world do you soften the punishment for something as callous as an active carjacking, refusing to renege, escalating it to a crash, and then not showing an ounce of decency to look after the guy who was just flung from the car." 

You previously said being a minor should be a factor in sentencing, but the quote above indicates that for these particular minors that fact is irrelevant. That is what I meant by "ignore." It isn't a strawman because you said it. 

Quote

The circumstances like age gets added to the context of the crime.  The crime is particularly heinous that cannot be significantly absolved on the grounds of being 13/15.  It would be MORE absolved if they were 7/9, but you would need be a wicked person to even fathom the possibility of that occurring. 

What does particularly heinous mean? It isn't particularly heinous compared to a serial killer. And isn't particularly heinous compared to the hypothetical 18-year old who shoots a random stranger in the head. And it really isn't particularly heinous compared to violent 30 minute beating that leaves the victim alive, but completely broken and paralyzed. Their actions were bad. On that we agree. But your reaction to them isn't principled. It is just anger. 

Quote

 

You claim nobody knows their remorse.  We're not institutional psychs, but we have seen the video.  And you could say yeah well they were shellshocked and they did not and could not react appropriately.  But you can also add 1+1+1 of the preceding circumstances and it favors not giving them the benefit of the doubt. 

 

I didn't say nobody knows. I said I don't. And I said I suspect that you don't. I assume the DA knows whether they have expressed any remorse since the incident and that was a factor in this particular deal. And last I checked, our particular system of justice was premised on giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't discard that because you are angry.  

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mandatory sentencing is stupid.  Sometimes judges screw the pooch and hand down dumb ass sentences.  Get ready for a lot more of those with so many completely unqualified judges confirmed by McConnell and Trump the last few years.  

But I also need to point out that this crime is on rotation at Fox for one reason, the perps are not white,  Just as you have not seen a even a minute a for each broadcast hour of the police officer killing George Floyd.  Instead you see coverage of the drug dealer lowlife that is pleading the 5th and refusing to testify, as the primary angle of coverage of the George Floyd trial.  Think about that for a moment.  The most influential and watched conservative News Station simply ignores the George Floyd trial that shook the nation all last Summer.  WHY do they not cover it more?  Why do these teen criminals get more aggregate coverage than a trial where a policemen WILLFULLY put his knee on a man's neck that he KNEW until he expired?

IF your primary news source is Fox News you really, really do yourself a disservice by religiously watching the skewed coverage from the only foreign controlled broadcast News Station in the country.  Not to worry, if black people get mad and riot if George Floyd's murderer is acquitted. Fox will have the coverage nearly wall to wall.  And Fox News viewers will not understand "the clear overreaction" to the verdict.  Because Fox News watchers simply have so rarely seen the 9+ minutes of a man expiring due to police excessive force, Fox viewers honestly do not have much context to form opinions regarding the facts of the trial.  But they will be able to tell you a good deal about the cancel culture attacking Dr. Suess.

Fox News' coverage is basically racist. Now you can argue about whether the coverage slant is simply catering to the audience, or shaping the audience?  

AGAIN - you have to ask yourself why the girl hijacker story has received so much more coverage than the George Floyd trial. I attribute it to racism AND knowing their audience... and to me that is sad as an American, and genius if all I care about is money.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Mandatory sentencing is stupid.  Sometimes judges screw the pooch and hand down dumb ass sentences.  Get ready for a lot more of those with so many completely unqualified judges confirmed by McConnell and Trump the last few years.  

But I also need to point out that this crime is on rotation at Fox for one reason, the perps are not white,  Just as you have not seen a even a minute a for each broadcast hour of the police officer killing George Floyd.  Instead you see coverage of the drug dealer lowlife that is pleading the 5th and refusing to testify, as the primary angle of coverage of the George Floyd trial.  Think about that for a moment.  The most influential and watched conservative News Station simply ignores the George Floyd trial that shook the nation all last Summer.  WHY do they not cover it more?  Why do these teen criminals get more aggregate coverage than a trial where a policemen WILLFULLY put his knee on a man's neck that he KNEW until he expired?

IF your primary news source is Fox News you really, really do yourself a disservice by religiously watching the skewed coverage from the only foreign controlled broadcast News Station in the country.  Not to worry, if black people get mad and riot if George Floyd's murderer is acquitted. Fox will have the coverage nearly wall to wall.  And Fox News viewers will not understand "the clear overreaction" to the verdict.  Because Fox News watchers simply have so rarely seen the 9+ minutes of a man expiring due to police excessive force, Fox viewers honestly do not have much context to form opinions regarding the facts of the trial.  But they will be able to tell you a good deal about the cancel culture attacking Dr. Suess.

Fox News' coverage is basically racist. Now you can argue about whether the coverage slant is simply catering to the audience, or shaping the audience?  

AGAIN - you have to ask yourself why the girl hijacker story has received so much more coverage than the George Floyd trial. I attribute it to racism AND knowing their audience... and to me that is sad as an American, and genius if all I care about is money.

 

It's not just racist, it's fearmongering.  So much of the bad legislation and policy of the last half-century or so is the result of fearmongering.  Irrational fear is one of the most reliable voter sentiments out there to be preyed upon.

Of course, fearmongering and racism go hand-in-hand because it's easier to stoke fear of browns and others.  If there were no browns, there'd still be fearmongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

You said: "But in what world do you soften the punishment for something as callous as an active carjacking, refusing to renege, escalating it to a crash, and then not showing an ounce of decency to look after the guy who was just flung from the car." 

You previously said being a minor should be a factor in sentencing, but the quote above indicates that for these particular minors that fact is irrelevant. That is what I meant by "ignore." It isn't a strawman because you said it. 

What does particularly heinous mean? It isn't particularly heinous compared to a serial killer. And isn't particularly heinous compared to the hypothetical 18-year old who shoots a random stranger in the head. And it really isn't particularly heinous compared to violent 30 minute beating that leaves the victim alive, but completely broken and paralyzed. Their actions were bad. On that we agree. But your reaction to them isn't principled. It is just anger. 

I didn't say nobody knows. I said I don't. And I said I suspect that you don't. I assume the DA knows whether they have expressed any remorse since the incident and that was a factor in this particular deal. And last I checked, our particular system of justice was premised on giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't discard that because you are angry.  

You are right - I did not fully complete my sentence.  You can read the context of the entire post and understood my point that their age should not significantly absolve of their responsibility.  That should be obvious, but I wont put it on you for my syntactic failure. 

Heinous is grave and extreme.  Aggravated car jacking -- threatening someone with a weapon, and escalating that threat, is ipso facto heinous.  You dont need to recalibrate the word by comparing it to a homicide, and doing so is a distraction (but Anders Breivik didn't kill as many people as Tim McVeigh!!!).  You can give people all the benefit of the doubt you want, until you end up discarding the fact that they attempted the car jacking, escalated the car jacking, and ultimately killed a man.

My reaction to this is that they committed something very serious and deserve a far tougher punishment than what the plea bargain suggested. 

Try to park the personal emotion angle.  Unlike others, Im not the one trying to signal any zen or righteousness.  Im not interested in the shape and color of your feelings, so you shouldnt try to guess at mine.  Let the topic be the topic.

Edited by 52-80
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It seems like the people who would know more about their remorse/motives/etc... would be the lawyers and judges connected to the case who came up with this deal. Yes?

Agree. My two cent hot take after viewing the video was with the engine racing and the car in neutral/park, when the partner put it in gear (and it's not like they had been driving for ten years), the rest was a blur of teenage  'oh shit' and they were trying to process it all--emotions, actions, results.  Easy to pass judgement from miles away, so I'd hope that the adults involved spent time with the subjects. Regardless, tragedy all around.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like teens aren't known for their shitty judgment and failure to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Granted, the initial act of carjacking was monstrously criminal, the rest of it, tragic as it was, was teenage stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not like teens aren't known for their shitty judgment and failure to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

In an alternate universe where everything everything else transpired exact same way, car speed down the street, flipped over, with the guy tossed out but luckily not killed.

mom: *yanks the kids home by their ears.*

dad: don't be too harsh.  they're just teenagers.  they didn't fully realize what they were doing.  plus, i never taught little bessie to drive so she didn't know what would happen when she was mashing the gas and yanking on the gear lever.  can't blame them too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one "park the personal emotion angle" when one "sides"s argumentation is offered without any kind of articulated rationale? When one's argument against a sentence is to say it is "BUNK" then what intellectual purchase do I have on it?

It's not even that I disagree with your ideas for what should be done with the girls, but when the process is a black box I have no use for what comes out of it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If you could stop making this about yourself constantly it would be a more productive conversation.

The assertion is that they never felt remorse, which is unproven. That's extremely different from whether or not they felt it in the moment. We have maybe 10 seconds of (non-)reaction from them on the provided video. That's it.

It seems like the people who would know more about their remorse/motives/etc... would be the lawyers and judges connected to the case who came up with this deal. Yes?

If he could do that he likely wouldn't be a conservative.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...