Tough Moral Quandary

[zorq]

This reminds me of Zimmerman and Martin.

An Aggressor aggravates an innocuous party minding their own business. The party minding their own business confronts or engages physically with the aggressor. Then someone ends up dead.

In the Zimmerman Martin case, the aggressor killed the party minding their own business. In this case, party minding their own business killed the aggressor.

But those are just the broad strokes of what happened. As always, the devil is in the details, and luckily in this case, we have more than just the word of one party to provide some of those details. And that was always the biggest problem with the Zimmerman Martin case. We couldn't trust Zimmerman to tell us the truth. It has always boggled my mind how easily and quickly certain people chose to believe every word spoken by man with such a strong motive to lie.

Anyway, I have much more trust in a just outcome for this case as the large amount of evidence available will be weighed appropriately in a court of law.

 

[bigfield]

This does not change the charge though, merely the punishment. This child needs to be seriously taught that fighting is not ever an appropriate response and drilled on more positive ways to react. All of them do.

There are plenty of scenarios where fighting as an act of defence is an appropriate response.

We do teenagers a disservice by setting this absurd expectation that they should never resort to violence. We need to teach teenagers to make mature, moral decisions about when they need to fight and when they do not.

 

[southernhybrid]

I agree with Jarhyn, that involuntary manslaughter seems like a reasonable charge. They will get their day in court and be considered innocent unless found to be guilty. While most of these charges result in a prison term of a few years, some get longer sentences and in some cases, probation is the sentence. Due to their age, I hope the sentence will be short or they will be given a long term of probation, giving them the opportunity to change their behavior.

Look at it this way. If I accidentally run over you in my car in broad daylight and kill you, it's likely I will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I didn't mean to kill you but perhaps I was driving too fast or being careless, so I didn't have time to avoid hitting you. etc. It appears as if these young men were also being careless and/or overreacting to the situation they were in, so the charges seem reasonable.

The original charge of murder was too severe imo, so it's good it was changed to lesser charge. Just because a person didn't mean to do harm, doesn't mean they shouldn't or won't be charged with a crime. Like it or not, that's the system we have.

 

[Gospel]

We couldn't trust Zimmerman to tell us the truth. It has always boggled my mind how easily and quickly certain people chose to believe every word spoken by man with such a strong motive to lie.

Yeah, I still don't understand how Zimmerman ignoring the police dispatcher's instructions not to follow didn't establish him as the aggressor. Sure we all have a right to be out in public but we don't have the right to stalk someone in public.

 

[Jarhyn]

This does not change the charge though, merely the punishment. This child needs to be seriously taught that fighting is not ever an appropriate response and drilled on more positive ways to react. All of them do.

There are plenty of scenarios where fighting as an act of defence is an appropriate response.

We do teenagers a disservice by setting this absurd expectation that they should never resort to violence. We need to teach teenagers to make mature, moral decisions about when they need to fight and when they do not.

The mature, moral reasons to fight are not available generally to teens, unless there is history between those teens.

The events that transpired should lead to dispassionate assignment of charges to everyone involved. There are claims of stolen cars and destroyed phones. That elevates the act to murder in a lesser degree or manslaughter in a higher degree, accessory, and grand theft, if this is indeed true, and accessory to involuntary to the other party.

If it's a behavior with history between these groups, that may be applicable in deciding punishments but not the guilt of those charges. It may be that Time Served is appropriate for some party, but there can be no question that they were involved in the death of their friend.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree with Jarhyn, that involuntary manslaughter seems like a reasonable charge. They will get their day in court and be considered innocent unless found to be guilty. While most of these charges result in a prison term of a few years, some get longer sentences and in some cases, probation is the sentence. Due to their age, I hope the sentence will be short or they will be given a long term of probation, giving them the opportunity to change their behavior.

Look at it this way. If I accidentally run over you in my car in broad daylight and kill you, it's likely I will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I didn't mean to kill you but perhaps I was driving too fast or being careless, so I didn't have time to avoid hitting you. etc. It appears as if these young men were also being careless and/or overreacting to the situation they were in, so the charges seem reasonable.

The difference is, the person you hit jumped in front of the car or was acting in a manner that was in part responsible for the accident.

My beef is that there were two groups of people at the location, one that was doing what the location was made for and the other with the intention to piss people off. Intent matters a lot to me. The brothers didn't go there intending to do anything but use the court. The other group had intentions that were not civil. Ultimately, Jarhyn probably has the best angle on this regarding the responsibility of the outcome falling on ALL parties.

 

[Gospel]

I could have sworn that's what I was saying, but I might be mistaken about my own perspective.

 

[Gospel]

They aren't being charged. The teens who were using the basketball court as intended are the ones being charged.

Just for clarification, accessory charges are primarily designed for... Oh wait, I can't mention race.

 

[Jarhyn]

They aren't being charged. The teens who were using the basketball court as intended are the ones being charged.

Just for clarification, accessory charges are primarily designed for... Oh wait, I can't mention race.

Well, I said how I would handle it, and what the ethical series of actions appears to be. What we can say of those who do not follow that prescription for action is that the people failing to do so are not ethical, and clearly derelict in their duties.

I agree with your assessment that accessory charges are generally abused to cast a wide net for brown people involved in a situation. This should be scrutinized heavily when it happens, but I find that everyone not dead and not the killer here get accessory charges for jumping into a fight over squirt guns. Court can sort out who is guilty or innocent of that, and what to do about it.

Time Served for accessory to your friend's death is a hell of a thing to live under.

 

[Toni]

From what I can tell, the dead boy and his friends were….doing a stupid TikTok challenge. And the toys they used made realistic machine gun sounds.

I understand how adrenaline got triggered and how that over-rode common sense. Stupid, senseless actions that did not ( as far as I can tell) intend genuine harm, resulted in more adrenaline driven stupidity and led to an inadvertent death.

I think the adrenaline rushing through everybody’s veins, especially the basket ball players, and can I just add, the testosterone would have likely reduced awareness or concern for an injury that it is easy for arm chair critics to claim should have been obvious. In other words, everyone was angry and startled/frightened, although perhaps no one involved would consciously admit that even to themselves. The kids with the toy guns didn’t mean to hurt someone. The ball players likely just wanted to teach the dumb kids not to do something so stupid because someone could get hurt.

And someone did. And he died.

Horrible tragedy. Difficult to blame the basketball players who had just been playing some ball. I suppose criminal liability will depend on state statutes.

 

[southernhybrid]

I agree with Jarhyn, that involuntary manslaughter seems like a reasonable charge. They will get their day in court and be considered innocent unless found to be guilty. While most of these charges result in a prison term of a few years, some get longer sentences and in some cases, probation is the sentence. Due to their age, I hope the sentence will be short or they will be given a long term of probation, giving them the opportunity to change their behavior.

Look at it this way. If I accidentally run over you in my car in broad daylight and kill you, it's likely I will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I didn't mean to kill you but perhaps I was driving too fast or being careless, so I didn't have time to avoid hitting you. etc. It appears as if these young men were also being careless and/or overreacting to the situation they were in, so the charges seem reasonable.

The difference is, the person you hit jumped in front of the car or was acting in a manner that was in part responsible for the accident.

My beef is that there were two groups of people at the location, one that was doing what the location was made for and the other with the intention to piss people off. Intent matters a lot to me. The brothers didn't go there intending to do anything but use the court. The other group had intentions that were not civil. Ultimately, Jarhyn probably has the best angle on this regarding the responsibility of the outcome falling on ALL parties.

Regardless, I would still probably be charged with manslaughter, but I never said the person jumped in front of my car. I just was careless or not paying close attention enough to see you crossing in front of me. I should have slowed down, stopped and let you pass, as the walker is supposed to have the right of way.

Still, this would be settled in a court with a jury. I guess that's why I disagree with you on this. Somebody died and it appeared as if it was due to the unintended actions of someone else. It wasn't an accident, so it's reasonable to charge the person or persons who were involved in this crime, even if he had no intention of killing the victim.

To me, the same law applies in the situation in the OP. They aren't guilty, but they are being charged. If there is evidence that what they did was just self defense, they should be found innocent. But, none of us know exactly what happened, all we know is what is in the linked article.

I get what you're saying about intent. They didn't intend to kill the young man, but that's exactly what the charge of involuntary manslaughter is about. It's not about intent. It's about a person's careless or inappropriate actions that resulted in someone else's death. We may not like or agree with the law, but that's my understanding of it. Not having intent is exactly how its's defined. It's about someone's careless or inappropriate behavior resulting in the death of someone. If it was intentional, they would have been charged with manslaughter or worse yet, murder.

So, I'll leave it at that since I seriously doubt we will accomplish anything by continuing to disagree. I do hope if these teens can demonstrate evidence that they were really acting in self defense, they will be found innocent.

 

[TomC]

In other words, everyone was angry and startled/frightened, although perhaps no one involved would consciously admit that even to themselves. The kids with the toy guns didn’t mean to hurt someone. The ball players likely just wanted to teach the dumb kids not to do something

Bingo! This.
Kids doing dumb kid stuff.

Some weren't well taught "Don't start trouble."
Others weren't well taught "Violence isn't the answer."
End result is tragedy.

I'm still inclined to put the parents up as "most responsible parties". I just tend to ascribe blame to the adults who are expected to take care of their kids. Not the kids.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm still inclined to put the parents up as "most responsible parties". I just tend to ascribe blame to the adults who are expected to take care of their kids. Not the kids.

The good ole 'blame the parent' crap. In our household, I was the well behaved student, my sister was the get into trouble student. But then again, every other household, the siblings are identical in behavior.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I get what you're saying about intent. They didn't intend to kill the young man, but that's exactly what the charge of involuntary manslaughter is about. It's not about intent. It's about a person's careless or inappropriate actions that resulted in someone else's death. We may not like or agree with the law, but that's my understanding of it. Not having intent is exactly how its's defined. It's about someone's careless or inappropriate behavior resulting in the death of someone. If it was intentional, they would have been charged with manslaughter or worse yet, murder.

I take it a bit further though. You throw a punch, there is absolutely no intent in causing death. Driving a car isn't the same, as you are in charge of a 2500 pound machine that'll kill people if you hit them. A fist? The liability isn't the same. Prosecution has discretion to press charges.

 

[Elixir]

Prosecution has discretion to press charges.

Morality is what the courts say it is. With some exceptions like the Alito-Thomas court.

 

[TomC]

I'm still inclined to put the parents up as "most responsible parties". I just tend to ascribe blame to the adults who are expected to take care of their kids. Not the kids.

The good ole 'blame the parent' crap. In our household, I was the well behaved student, my sister was the get into trouble student. But then again, every other household, the siblings are identical in behavior.

Yep
I'm very big on parental responsibility.

Very big on adults taking responsibility for the outcome of their actions in general, really.

I suppose that makes me a conservative. I'm okay with that.
Tom

 

[southernhybrid]

I'd just like to add that the 3 who were charged, were young, but they were still legally adults. Their ages are 19, 20 and 21. They may not have fully developed brains, but they are considered adults under the law and while I might see them as kids at my age, they really aren't kids. They are young men.

 

[Toni]

I'd just like to add that the 3 who were charged, were young, but they were still legally adults. Their ages are 19, 20 and 21. They may not have fully developed brains, but they are considered adults under the law and while I might see them as kids at my age, they really aren't kids. They are young men.

Emphasis on young.

And I need to add, according to one of the articles linked, the toy that shot the gel pellets made a realistic machine gun sound.

Now, when I was a kid, no one in a school yard in the US would have thought that sound was really a weapon being fired. Almost every boy I knew in middle school could do a pretty decent machine gun sound with just their mouth. (I was envious).

But today, we live in a world where people respond to perceived threats with heightened awareness/fear/fight/flight reactions. People are shot and killed by trained law enforcement for having something shiny in their hands, like a cell phone.

This tragedy is a result of out of control gun culture. And kids doing stupid TikTok challenges.

 

[Gospel]

I'm still inclined to put the parents up as "most responsible parties". I just tend to ascribe blame to the adults who are expected to take care of their kids. Not the kids.

The good ole 'blame the parent' crap. In our household, I was the well behaved student, my sister was the get into trouble student. But then again, every other household, the siblings are identical in behavior.

Yep
I'm very big on parental responsibility.

Very big on adults taking responsibility for the outcome of their actions in general, really.

I suppose that makes me a conservative. I'm okay with that.
Tom

Nah that makes you an arm chair parent. Are you at least a pet owner?

 

[TomC]

Nah that makes you an arm chair parent. Are you at least a pet owner?

Yeah.
Similarly, I think all adults should take responsibility for the outcome of their behavior. Sorry to upset you with my conservativism.
Tom