. . . if you’re looking for a way to kill someone and get off easy, don’t use a gun, just push him into on-coming traffic.
. . . if you’re looking for a way to kill someone and get off easy, don’t use a gun, just push him into on-coming traffic.
low blow and gutter humor
Agreed. Only I’m not trying to be humorous. I’m being deliberately provocative.
Here you have two situations where two friends were goofing around, and by accident, one killed the other. One was with a gun. One was by pushing the other into traffic. Whichever way they did it, the other person is dead just the same.
Yet one guy gets indicted for involuntary manslaughter and the other doesn’t even get indicted on a lesser charge. It makes no sense. What other conclusion are we to draw?
Or you could shoot him in the head, dump the body in your front yard and say he was your friend and that you did not know the gun was loaded.
What is with our judicial system? Both of these clowns are out walking our streets now.
I was dumbfounded when a read the Grand Jury refused to indict. Anyone have any insight? Do Grand Jury indictments have to be unanimous? Was it one nutso who refused? Can another Grand Jury be empaneled?
Talk to some Richwoods students and you hear a different story. The guy with the gun wasn’t just goofing around with a gun which was illegal for him to possess. The Rolling Acres incident is also gang related. Those involved were G’s.
Believe it or not, firearms involved in a death can make a difference. And if it’s gang related with high school students involved it just makes it that much worse regardless whether it was goofing around or not.
CJ, sometimes you come off as very cold hearted. This is one of those times.
Swiss Miss: If I’m reading you right, you’ve added a couple of pieces of information that have not shown up in any news reports that I’ve read: (a) it was illegal for him to possess a gun, and (b) the incident was gang related. These additional pieces of information, if true, certainly make this situation different from the Bradley incident. However, how is the public supposed to know that if it’s not reported? All we see is two kids who accidentally killed their friends, but one gets a harsher sentence than the other. All I’m asking for is a little differentiation.
PI– Not trying to be cold-hearted. But I am starting to wonder if there isn’t some cultural prejudice going on.
Consider this situation — a young male joins a group of other young males, abuses a substance that impairs his mental capacities, and ends up killing his friend by accident with a weapon.
The public’s perception of how bad that situation is apparently hinges on what we call the group of young males (“fraternity” or “gang”), what substance is being abused (alcohol or drugs), and what kind of weapon is being used (car, roman candles, gun). But when it comes right down to it, the situations are identical. We just sympathize with one more than the other based on our culture.
In truth, we should sympathize with both — we should weep over any death. One person’s life isn’t worth more than another’s.
Obviously it all depends upon who you are… if you are a poor urban kid you are a murderer, and if you are a wealthy suburban kid (or rural kid going to a upper social class school) you are troubled or irresponsible, and you are guilty of bad judgement.
Remember the title of the WW2 novel? “They Were Expendable”. Some people are just more expendable than others.
Adults, teens, pushing around like that isn’t a game. It isn’t funny either. But I know there are a great many people out there who think such dangerous ‘play’ is ‘ok’. Perhaps some of them were on the Grand Jury.
I have a nephew who goes to Richwoods and just called him to ask about this Rolling Acres story. He told me that the kids involved were GD or Gangster Disciples. Well there goes the neighborhood.
Each case carries its own set of circumstances, circumstances that go far beyond the color of skin. We may not like our system, but its the only one we have so we might as well have faith that the individuals responsible for making the “call” do so only after careful consideration of all the facts.
Mouse: No, and Yes to your questions.
Re: diane vespa: “We may not like our system, but its the only one we have so we might as well have faith”…
Are you kidding? How about “We might not like our system … so why not change it?”
Our system is SERIOUSLY flawed by money, power and class and racism.
Our jurists and juries are jokes. Our legal system is an elitist good old boys frat party. Our lawyers are (WITH NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS)ruthless capitalists using the legal system as their own personal monopoly to fleece the public with no recourse other than to use their services. The worst lawyers become public defenders… what a bargain.
“why not change it?” OK. How about a proposal? It’s easy to find flaws in the system (it has a lot of them), and call for change. You don’t have to be Barack Obama to sing that number. But designing a better system is a lot harder than condemning the existing one. I will also say that the vast majority of jurors in this area try very hard to do a good job and render a just verdict. Sure, all jurors are imperfect people, but to broad-brush call our juries “jokes” is very unfair.
Perhaps if we compare previous records?
Does the GD youngster have any priors?
Does the BU youngster have any priors?
Is the ‘system’ biased? Of course it is!!
It seems we [the people] can do as much about the judicial system in this country as we can anything else. I would love to win the big-money lottery. My list of crusades would be a mile long: big oil, pharmaceutical companies, regional museum group, Aaron Schock, C.J. Summers, etc. I would get them all. Until then, what can we do?