http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/us/florida-teens-drowning-man/index.html
I say punish the scumbags to the MAX.
I say punish the scumbags to the MAX.
SJWs care to comment on this?
- Thread starter Walter Brennaneer
- Start date
What pieces of sh*t. While they aren't under any legal obligation to help the guy, they certainly (should) have a moral duty to do something. The lack of basic human decency is appalling. WTF is wrong with people?
I'm not sure you understand what the term SJW actually means.
On that note, the kids are terrible human beings.
On that note, the kids are terrible human beings.
Punish them for what? They broke no actual law, just those of human decency. Plus, they probably couldn't swim. You know.
SJW? I think those are the folks who would be most appalled. Anyway, they had no legal obligation to save him. Me, as a trained deep and swift water rescue responder, would. I see they are being charged for not reporting a death. With is kinda weird. I get WHY we should legally report a death, but I can say there are certain deaths I would walk right the fvck away from, like a mob hit.
I don't understand what the fvck someone with a significant physical disability is doing just rolling his ass up to the water to try and swim unassisted? I read an article about this on Yahoo a few days ago and it didn't say he fell in on accident, rather the man entered the water deliberately.
This statement from the article...
The teens admitted being in the area "smoking weed," police said.
This would be the perfect opportunity to pull what they did on OJ...unable to punish the major transgression, double up on the minor one.
Laws might not have been technically broken, but what those kids did (or didn't do in this case) is an indictment of their character. How do you even get to the point where you do something like that? I'll bet that this group will be ostracized by their schoolmates and everyone with knowledge of their deeds. They might not get punished by the law, but I'm guessing their life just changed for the worse.
Sadly I don't know if I agree with your last paragraph. I would like to think kids today will shun them but I have a feeling they have a few kids in their click that don't care what happened
Views like that are destructive and counter-productive to our justice system.
That's cute.
You mean that same justice system that let OJ go free? Well I'd hate to be counterproductive to THAT system.
But you can't have it both ways. You can't defend these kids because they technically didn't break the law yet find it "counterproductive" for the system to punish these kids to the max (under the law) for a law that they did break.
The problem there is you are punishing someone for actions that were not illegal. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. While their lack of action was beyond horrible, the justice system should never excessively punish someone for legal activity just because they have the opportunity even if the legal activity is morally disgusting (not saying it doesn't happen).They should be treated the same as any other teens smoking weed and their failure to act should not be considered.
I understand your point. The thing is, there's no uniform punishment for possession/using marijuana. I would imagine that the punishment runs the gamut. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a judge exercising his right to assign punishment based on the extenuating circumstances of the case and choosing the more stringent end of the spectrum. Judges do it all the time. The level of remorse, prior records, respect for the judicial process, etc. is taken into account when meting out justice. I see no problem with these kids actions being taken in consideration for the marijuana offense.
This is from sentencing guidelines passed in Florida for juveniles...
- Several new factors will have to be weighed by judges tasked with sentencing a juvenile, including the maturity of the offender, his or her background, the nature of the crime, and the potential repercussions on the community.
The impetus for the new legislation was a 2010 case in which Jacksonville teen was sentenced to life for robbery.
The need to pass guidelines and this actual case where a juvenile received life for robbery shows that there is no set punishment for any particular crime. This judge used other factors in sentencing this kid. So if there's a slippery slope we're already on it.
I agree judges should have discretion to use extenuating circumstances for sentencing like criminal history, drug addiction, age, etc. but I don't think that should extend to someone not doing something they have no legal duty to do because we don't like it. Again, I'm not saying this doesn't happen on a regular basis. However, I don't think it should extend to lawfully activity that has no involvement in the pending charges in an ideal system.
While judges have a lot of discretion in sentencing there are going to be some issues pop up when the attorney appealing the sentence, which is all but guaranteed in a case like this. Defense counsel can show that the judge gave probabtion to the previous 100 teens charged with marijuana possession but these guys get 6 months in prison because they didn't do something they have no legal obligation to do. That has constitutional issues all over it.
Didn't the article say they were being charged with failure to report a death? Sure it's only a misdemeanor but it's still the law and they broke it. So if that's the case they did have a legal duty to do.
If true, they only had a duty to report. There is still no duty to rescue and any failure to rescue would be irrelevant. That does not change the fact that the legal duty for which people would want to "throw the book" at them does not exist.
You're right. Instead of allowing peers to reach a decision and allow a defendant to have quality representation for his defense, we should just castrate or behead anyone accused of a crime.
You can pick-and-choose plenty of individual cases that verdicts may not have reached a decision based on what probably happened. I'll take our system, with those individual instances, over any other system in the world.
Since you seem to have such an issue with our system, which one would you prefer in the world?
Interesting that you left out the next sentence in which it was explained that the Supreme Court ruled that sentence to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Likewise, "doubling down" on a petty marijuana charge would lead to the same thing if you are trying to punish somebody based on something as atrocious as these teens did. Want to give them five years in jail for that to teach them a lesson about not being assholes? Sorry, it won't fly, and rightfully so.
In my world allowing someone to die in front of you without lifting a finger to help and taunting them in their final moments is a little more than being an "asshole". But hey...that's just me...and anyone else with the capacity to feel empathy.
The Supreme Court did overturn the life conviction. But that doesn't deter from my point that judges have latitude on the punishment they distribute. And I'd venture to say most harsh punishments are not overturned in the judicial process. And that latitude is almost always decided by the extenuating circumstances surrounding a case.
I never once suggested that these kids get 5 years for smoking pot. That's just the hyperbole you use to state your case. These kids deserve more than a slap on the wrist. Im quite sure the sanctity of our judicial process will survive if these "assholes" get the more stringent end of what is normally meted out to juvenile offenders for their crime.
The Supreme Court did overturn the life conviction. But that doesn't deter from my point that judges have latitude on the punishment they distribute. And I'd venture to say most harsh punishments are not overturned in the judicial process. And that latitude is almost always decided by the extenuating circumstances surrounding a case.
I never once suggested that these kids get 5 years for smoking pot. That's just the hyperbole you use to state your case. These kids deserve more than a slap on the wrist. Im quite sure the sanctity of our judicial process will survive if these "assholes" get the more stringent end of what is normally meted out to juvenile offenders for their crime.
There is exactly zero duty to intervene and rescue. There is a duty to report a death, which duty seems to be violated. That has nothing to do with trying to giving harsher sentences for things that are not legally required.
Agreed. But trying to punish people for being assholes, regardless of the extent of the assholishness (I created that one), shouldn't happen if it wasn't an illegal act (without getting into the discussion if what they did was/wasn't illegal). "Doubling-down" on their punishment seems to be more than just getting a punishment on the more stringent side for a simple possession charge.
Not once did I say they had a duty to act. They had a duty to report they didn't do that so punish them for that illegal act
I would hope the parents step up their "guidance" of the kids after this. I know if any of my kids did the same thing I'd be devastated. However, the fact that their kids show so little regard for human life, I would tend to believe they haven't been overly influential up to this point.
I think we are in agreement that they should be guilty under the failure to report statute if the allegations are true.
Similar threads
