Tough Moral Quandary

[Jimmy Higgins]

We need to tell them that bullies get to get away with shit.

To fuck with that. Sorry, boy, but if you aren't a sociopath, you aren't allowed to get away with defending yourself.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean it's textbook involuntary manslaughter. What more is there to say? It's about as open and shut as it gets. They should be given every opportunity to come to understand the tragedy of what happened, and to understand how it can be avoided in the future, and if they don't again after that then repeat the process in a much more serious way.

There might be extenuating circumstances such as the provocation of the water guns absent a common understanding between the groups to engage in harmless shenanigans from time to time. Whether these rise to extenuation is doubtful; fisticuffs for wetness is not acceptable. We can on society expect more creative and nonviolent throwdowns.

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.

All children involved are potentially accessory to involuntary manslaughter for being involved in the fight. I should clarify that.

Indeed the children with the water guns are guilty of disturbing the peace and accessory to involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you cut it. Possibly also directly guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All children involved are potentially accessory to involuntary manslaughter for being involved in the fight. I should clarify that.

Indeed the children with the water guns are guilty of disturbing the peace and accessory to involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you cut it. Possibly also directly guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

All children involved are potentially accessory to involuntary manslaughter for being involved in the fight. I should clarify that.

Indeed the children with the water guns are guilty of disturbing the peace and accessory to involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you cut it. Possibly also directly guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

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

They should all be charged.

 

[ZiprHead]

More detailed article:

Self-defense or manslaughter? Brothers to go on trial for Ethan Liming's death

DeShawn and Tyler Stafford will go on trial for Ethan Liming's death after a fight in the I Promise School parking lot. The brothers claim self-defense.

news.yahoo.com

I was looking at this as an unfortunate accident resulting from the actions of stupid teen boys until I read this:

DeShawn and Tyler continued to hit and kick Liming while he was on the ground.

As Liming’s friends tried to get him into his car to take him to the hospital, Jones began punching them and took their cellphones, throwing them to the ground and breaking them.

Tyler and DeShawn argued with Liming’s friends, who ran from the scene. Tyler got into Liming’s car and drove it to the west end of the parking lot. He parked the car, took a cellphone from it and threw it to the ground, breaking it.

Tyler, DeShawn and Jones left, leaving Liming lying on the pavement. None of them called 911; one of Liming’s friends alerted police.

Wow. That will change the mood of the procedings.

It would for me.
Imagine, you punch a person in the face so hard their head hits the pavement. You see that. You probably hear it too. What does that do to you? Ever seen/heard a human skull bounce off of concrete? What effect might it have on you? Realizing what you have done do you help the person? Panic and run? Continue to beat on the person?
This is the type of person who is unfit to live in society.

I have, back when I was probably ten years old. I've never forgotten that sound.

 

[TomC]

All children involved are potentially accessory to involuntary manslaughter for being involved in the fight. I should clarify that.

Indeed the children with the water guns are guilty of disturbing the peace and accessory to involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you cut it. Possibly also directly guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

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

You mean the perps who not only executed a kid with a toy gun, but then stole and destroyed the victim's friends phones and took their car?

Funny how quickly some people develop nuanced views when race doesn't fit their ideology.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All children involved are potentially accessory to involuntary manslaughter for being involved in the fight. I should clarify that.

Indeed the children with the water guns are guilty of disturbing the peace and accessory to involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you cut it. Possibly also directly guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

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

You mean the perps who not only executed a kid with a toy gun, but then stole and destroyed the victim's friends phones and took their car?

Funny how quickly some people develop nuanced views when race doesn't fit their ideology.
Tom

Executed? Walker was much closer to being executed than Liming. I'm not justifying any of the actions. I'm questioning the manslaughter charges. People came in, instigated some shit... and then more shit happened.

Funny your obsession of race, when I haven't even raised it. I'm questioning the role of instigating violence and then becoming a victim of it, and the difficulty it is to have people held to justice for stuff they did not start. He was killed because of head trauma from a fall. Acts of malice and crimes after the fact does not change the state of mind involved in the actual incident that leads to Liming's death.

 

[TomC]

Funny your obsession of race, when I haven't even raised it.

I didn't raise it either.
@Gospel got out in front, explaining that race isn't a factor this time. Because nuance and lack of complete information and such.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Funny how quickly some people develop nuanced views when race doesn't fit their ideology.
Tom

Is it accurate to say that by labeling their actions as involuntary manslaughter, I'm somehow justifying their behavior over "ideology"?

 

[TomC]

Is it accurate to say that by labeling their actions as involuntary manslaughter, I'm somehow justifying their behavior over "ideology"?

Yes.
It wasn't just him falling.
The perpetrators then attacked his friends, trashed their phones and took their car, nearly guaranteeing that he would die from the injuries inflicted on a child with a demonstrably toy "gun".
Did you read the article? The part TV quoted in this thread?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Is it accurate to say that by labeling their actions as involuntary manslaughter, I'm somehow justifying their behavior over "ideology"?

Yes.
It wasn't just him falling.
The perpetrators then attacked his friends, trashed their phones and took their car, nearly guaranteeing that he would die from the injuries inflicted on a child with a demonstrably toy "gun".
Did you read the article? The part TV quoted in this thread?
Tom

If indeed that is the case, I'd classify it as murder. There are discrepancies in the various articles available; for instance TV's link (you seem to adore for reasons that may be characterized as "ideology") stated that there was no 911 call, while other sources claim there was a 911 call. Is my skepticism towards the details presented in these articles being influenced by my personal "ideology", rather than the reports changing as new information is confirmed?

Naturally, if we take TV's article as gospel, then it seems entirely reasonable that the judge would release them on bond, and even go so far as to reduce the bond amount, right? I mean, does this statement come from a place of ideology, or is it just plain logic?

 

[TomC]

Naturally, if we take TV's article as gospel, then it seems entirely reasonable that the judge would release them on bond, and even go so far as to reduce the bond amount, right?

I can't imagine why you'd think that article suggests that. The perpetrators killed the victim after punching him and hearing his skull hit the pavement.

Full Disclosure:
That's the only article I read. I didn't even mean to click the link, my phone is wonky and did it. So I read it. TV quoted it.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I can't imagine why you'd think that article suggests that.

I didn't claim that the article implied that. My point was that the judge's decision to reduce the bond and allow their release might indicate a discrepancy or new development compared to the initial reports from law enforcement. This, in turn, might have influenced the judge to alter the terms. I'm asking you whether you think this line of reasoning stems from an 'ideological' stance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Funny your obsession of race, when I haven't even raised it.

I didn't raise it either.

You explicitly implied that my position was due to race.

Funny how quickly some people develop nuanced views when race doesn't fit their ideology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it accurate to say that by labeling their actions as involuntary manslaughter, I'm somehow justifying their behavior over "ideology"?

Yes.
It wasn't just him falling.
The perpetrators then attacked his friends, trashed their phones and took their car, nearly guaranteeing that he would die from the injuries inflicted on a child with a demonstrably toy "gun".
Did you read the article? The part TV quoted in this thread?
Tom

Did you even read what Gospel wrote?

 

[Gospel]

I don't think TomC cares to read what I write as I frequently find myself rebutting claims I haven't actually made.

 

[TomC]

I don't think TomC cares to read what I write as I frequently find myself rebutting claims I haven't actually made.

Who brought up race in this thread?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I don't think TomC cares to read what I write as I frequently find myself rebutting claims I haven't actually made.

Who brought up race in this thread?
Tom

It appears that the subtleties of my post may have bypassed you. A more detailed review of my comments would reveal that I was highlighting the incongruity of combining two remarks that, while frequently mentioned, are rarely, if ever, presented together; and when they do converge, they usually undermine each other.

However, the focal point here isn't that, but rather the insistence that anything Gospel posts, irrespective of its content, must be met with disagreement

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think TomC cares to read what I write as I frequently find myself rebutting claims I haven't actually made.

Who brought up race in this thread?
Tom

It appears that the subtleties of my post may have bypassed you. A more detailed review of my comments would reveal that I was highlighting the incongruity of combining two remarks that, while frequently mentioned, are rarely, if ever, presented together; and when they do converge, they usually undermine each other.

However, the focal point here isn't that, but rather the insistence that anything Gospel posts, irrespective of its content, must be met with disagreement

Wait... if I agree with that, then that means I don't disagree with your assessment... but if I disagree, that means I agree with your assessment. *head explodes*

 

[Gospel]

If that appeared in the catch 22 book it would fit in flawlessly.

---