45 thoughts on “State’s attorney seemingly inconsistent”

1. C.J., I’m amazed that you cannot tell the difference between these crimes. The kid who threw the patio block was doing it so that it WOULD crash through someone’s windshield, or danged close to it. The dumb-arses who set off the roman candles did NOT do it to set the house on fire. Big difference. If the kid with the patio block had thrown it down to a kid below who was trying to catch it, and it bounced off the pavement and THEN went through some car’s windshield, THEN you would have a point in your comment. However, that was not the case.

2. I dunno CJ, if you were listening to the Oreo this AM, they were pratically being nominated for sainthood, good family and all. So why didn’t they drag him out once the fire was obvious?

3. Prego Man — how do you know the kid who threw the patio block “was doing it so that it WOULD crash through someone’s windshield”? How do you know he wasn’t doing it as a prank, thinking it would just bounce off the hood or the roof and scare the heck out of the driver?

4. C.J.: your dislike of Kevin Lyons is overshadowing your ability to see the difference between these two acts (intent and probability of harm). Your’e beginning to sound like Pam Adams now. Keep up your otherwise good reporting.

5. I know in collage that type was a very common prank, granted we did it with bottel rockets. I was the victome twice of this.

6. The intention when a brick was thrown from an overpass into traffic was to hurt someone or at the least do catstrophic damage to a vehicle. The intention when setting off fireworks in your sleeping roomates room is to scare the crap out of them and have a good laugh. No the kids did not think anything would catch on fire, it did not on the other occasions that this happened. Nothing ever caught fire the 50 or so times I saw this done in college and even after, usually with firecrackers or bottle rockets. I do remember a couple of hallway duals with roman candles. Not one single time did we or anyone I know think that our stupid college antics would result in someones death. And we were very stupid and there is no way myself and all my friends from school should have survived all the crazy crap we did. I really feel for these kids and the families, no they were not saints, that is why I am so torn up by this one. I could never relate to a bunch of saints, these kids they could have been me….

7. Raoul, Roman, prego,:

   Are you all crazy?? It seems the three of you would have absolutely no problem if I came over to your house and set off fireworks inside your bedroom. Because none of you seem to find any inherent danger in that activity. Just because they believed the prank to be harmless doesn’t mean it was (it obviously wasn not), I am sure that the 15 year old brick thrower believed his prank to be hamrless and would only cause property damage but obviously it did not. This incident involved some innocent college kids who were just trying to have fun like we all did in college, whereas the brick thrower was some middle of the night under privelaged vandal who we need to get off the streets.

   I say all of them should be locked up as long as they can be. But that’s just my opinion. Sure they’ve performed the prank before and no one was hurt, but I can play Russian roulette with a revolver and not cause any harm the first 5 times either. It’s still inherently dangerous.

8. As CJ asks, how do you all know that Rakeim Campbell intended to do “catastrophic damage” to a vehicle? Was that in the newspaper? Did someone quote young Mr. Campbell? I don’t recall this. Or is this something Kevin Lyons said – and as a prosecutor, he’s prone (as they all are) to making statements to support his case/charges.

   I am about 16 years older than Messers Cox, Crady, Johnson and Metgen – and since I am able to remember, fireworks have come with warnings not to use them indoors. Every year at July 4th or Halloween, the local news carried pieces about the dangers of fireworks. I’d heard firecrackers yesterday, which I thought, wow, how did those set the room on fire. But roman candles – for pete’s sake, how stupid do you have to be?

   I’m not casting stones, no way. I drove while almost blind drunk a few times, and before I was 21. By the time I was 21, I knew a hell of a lot better. I was very lucky (blessed) to have grown up in a small town and escaped any serious consequences and also to never have injured anyone.

   Mr. Campbell is only 15. Do we know for sure that he was thinking – “Woo hoo, this’ll go through a windshield!” Or might he have thought it would crack the windshield, but that the windshield would hold? Or that it would just sort of land making a big dent? Scaring the shit out of the driver, in the same way Messers Johnson, Cox, Crady and Metgen were trying to scare the shit out of Danny Dahlquist?

   SO indeed, what is the difference? Did Campbell INTEND to KILL someone? Doesn’t sound like it. Did Johnson, Cox, Crady and Metgen INTEND to KILL Danny? Doesn’t sound like it.

   The big difference IMHO is that Campbell is even younger than the four friends. The younger you are, the less likely you are to have sound reasoning. And teenagers are proven to be “unstable” because of the big hormone shifts going on in their bodies. I certainly was.

   So, by my logic, Mr. Campbell is due more leniency, due to his younger age, than are the other four. Rap sheets be damned.

9. Another big difference will be at trial, Kevin Lyons will surely know that the odds of a jury member recalling throwing bricks off an overpass into traffic in their youth are pretty slim. The odds of a jury member recalling pranks involving fireworks well that will be a different story. Kevin will not go to trial unless he is sure that he will win, he has a track record to protect, this will not go to trial. And no at this point in my life fireworks in the house does not come into play. In the past yes. We have more than once this summer shot fireworks outside, a few boumcing off the trees and coming very close to the house, we will not do that again.

10. And it’s only a matter of time until the race card is played on this one.

11. CJ,

    Sorry, your comparison is completely off. About the only way I would come close to agreeing it is a “prank” to toss something off of an overpass onto a vehicle traveling at 55 mph would be if the knucklehead was using an egg or something like that.

    Using a paving block is not a “prank”.

12. The difference between these cases SHOULD BE that Campbell should be charged as a juvenile and the Bradley students as adults.

    There is no magical age at which one becomes capable of full responsibility, but we as a society have generally decided that that occurs at 18 or 21, depending on the issue. Charging juveniles as adults is a political stunt to prove you’re “tough on crime” at the expense of the life of a misguided child. And it BOTHERS me that prosecutors are allowed to bypass this societal consensus of when one becomes an adult. Because it’s not like anybody’s going to have a lot of sympathy for you when you say, “Well, I was really very aware of all the consequences of my actions when I was having a beer with my friends at age 15, so I should be treated as an adult, not a minor, regardless of my age.”

    (And the nationwide “age creep” on charging juveniles as adults has just gotten ridiculous. It’s one thing for a 17-year-old. 10- and 13-year-olds being charged as adults is ABSURD.)

13. Purely in my opinion all of these “pranks” were equally stupid and negligent, and had the kids been brought up to understand right from wrong, responsible vs. irresponsible, safe vs. unsafe, stupid vs. not stupid, neither of these deaths would have occurred. Think about it.. what seems to be the more stupid act 1. pushing a brick off an overpass 2. setting off fireworks inside a house. Duh! Stupid is as stupid does. All of these kids should be treated equally.

14. state law requires juveniles charged with murder to stand trial as adults

15. A simple google search may answer your question as to what is a common or uncommon type of prank here:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=+firecrackers+dorm&btnG=Search
    Or even youtube:
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fireworks+dorm&search=Search

    Now search for bricks from an overpass and post your results. Dumb yes, uncommon … no.

16. There’s one point that everyone appears to be overlooking with the BU tragedy:

    All five people in the house had been drinking. By my accounts, that’s two legal adults and three minors. And I think it’s a fair guess as to how the minors obtained the alcohol.

    EM, you would know this better than I, but if an adult had provided a minor with alcohol and the minor either died or killed someone while under the influence, wouldn’t that person be guilty of negligence/negligent homicide? Where, exactly, are the alcohol related charges here? Or is this something that’s being written off as a youthful indiscretion that happens to everyone?

17. “state law requires juveniles charged with murder to stand trial as adults”

    I should have been more clear. I was indulging in a more generalized rant than a specific comment. Juveniles charged as adults, whether at prosecutorial discretion or required by law, bugs the heck out of me. (Also, in point of fact, Illinois treats 17-year-olds as adults for purposes of criminal law, whereas I spoke more generally about the privileges of adulthood attained at 18 and 21.)

    However, even though transfer is automatic in first-degree murder cases in Illinois if the perp is 15 years old, there is still prosecutorial discretion in choice of charge. I can’t see any justification for charging this as 2nd degree murder, but I COULD see a prosecutor constructing a ninvoluntary manslaughter/reckless homicide charge. (“A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly”)

    The question (in terms of choice of charge) is really whether we think Campbell INTENDED to kill someone or was simply criminally reckless. And as a matter of policy, I object to the idea that juveniles are capable of the (legal) intent to commit murder.

    (Although honestly, with Campbell’s past charges — is he up to three total now? — I’m not sure he still qualifies as “misguided kid.” But matters of policy shouldn’t hinge on individual cases but on what’s best as a general rule.)

18. I am not a fan of Mr. Lyons, but I think he made the right call on these. There is a difference between throwing a concrete block over an overpass in the middle of the night and a really stupid prank. BUT, what does this “prank” say about the schools these people attended? Didn’t do a very good job of educating them, did they? Maybe they play soccer well, but they certainly lack judgment. NOT excusing them for what they apparently did, just saying maybe schools, parents, etc., need to spend a little more time teaching good judgment, and a little less empasis on, say, playing soccer.

19. We are all also missing the point with the 15 year-old that he did know right from wrong. He was already on probation for previous offenses. That should have been enough to scare him away from trying any pranks, but evidently it didn’t.

20. Fact: Dropping a brick or big stone from an overpass is very likely going to do great harm to someone unless the brick or stone hits the trunk of the vehicle. The dumb-arse 15 year old likely was not aiming for the trunk. Brick hits head or chest… brick normally wins. Even a 15 year old (unless he/she is mentally challenged, i.e. retarded) can figure this out. If you ask him now, I’m sure he’d say, “Dude, I was aiming for the trunk.” FACT: He clearly was not. Once in a while, common sense should take hold.

    Stupid soccer players playing with roman candles clearly were NOT aiming to do bodily harm to their fellow player. Dumb-arse 15 year old was not aiming a block at the car his mom was travelling in, was he? Or the one his brother was a passenger in? Again, sometimes it’s good to use common sense, and not just knee-jerk namby-pamby 15 year old dumb-arse coddling crapola.

    Are the soccer kids stupid? They sure were in this case. But,anyone who thinks they wanted their soccer bud to incur anything more than a sprained ankle is dead wrong (no pun intended). Use your noggins, C.J., CGiselle, and the other few who want to whip the crowd up into a furor. Take a deep breath… exhale… and use the grey matter the Good Lawd pumped into your craniums.

    Next, please…

21. I hit my friends house with about 8 rolls of TP the other day. While cleaning the disgusting material from the top of his tallest tree, he fell off the ladder, his limp body rolled onto the street, where a car, which swerved to avoid hitting what was left of him, struck a house. The house, home to Ma, Pa, twelve kids, etc, blew-up………
    Do we have a judge sitting the bench anywhere that is capable of deciding when a prank is no longer a prank? Ignorant, stupid, outrageous! Describes both of these incidents. If a prank is OBVIOUSLY dangerous [throwing ANYTHING from an overpass], society is owed a major debt.

    Does anyone know if there is a law on the books about throwing ‘materials’ over highway overpasses?

22. I’m not trying to whip up any furor. And I think I am using my grey matter quite well, in that I try really hard to view each case individually, especially when children are involved. And Campbell is, I agree with Eyebrows, still a child (unless he’s been getting hormone injections or something, and even then, that would just mess his brain up even farther).

    Campbell is a lot younger than the BU soccer players, and $10 bucks said that his gray matter didn’t get much help along the way, not nearly as much as the BU soccer players got.

    Social status and color aside, 15 is still 15 no matter how you slice it. And I like Eyebrows think that still qualifies solidly in the “juvenile” camp. What the state law says about juveniles being tried as adults be damned. ALL KIDS DESERVE A SECOND CHANCE – and on this I shall never waver. Just because their parents or social situation may suck doesn’t matter. They are still a kid.

    Not that I think the BU soccer players should be strung up – no way, that was a tragic, horrible accident that per the news article, they tried to save Danny. It still doesn’t give anyone, Lyons especially, the right to treat Campbell as an adult anyway.

    Another $10 says that the state requirement to try juveniles as adults in the case of murder was written and passed by conservatives trying to appear tough on crime. It’s an easy out and campaign time blather, IMHO.

23. About the brick tosser: He has a second and third and most likely a tenth chance, this ain’t the brick droppers first rodeo by any means and certainly he is no stranger to felonious behavior.
    About the B.U. tragedy: Special K will have to prove that these guys intended to start a fire, they didn’t so he can’t period. K-rod will not have to break out the patent leather pumps for this one because it will never see a courtroom.

24. Raoul, here are a few results:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=throwing+rocks+at+cars
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5noUokuv0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR18rDB7JQI

    And, on a personal note, my own brother went through a phase where he and a friend of his thought it would be funny to throw rocks over the hedge at passing cars. They never killed anyone, and they got caught, and they had to pay for the damage done to the person’s car. Don’t tell me it’s not a common prank that kids sometimes do.

    I’ve never personally known anyone stupid enough to shoot off fireworks inside a house, let alone while someone is sleeping.

25. Prego Man — I would be very surprised if I found out the 15-year-old was aiming for anything more specific than “the car.” I doubt he was aiming at “the hood” or “the windshield” or whatever. He probably just wanted to hit “the car.”

26. Funny, I have spoken with quite a few people today that have been a party to many a firework prank, usually involving bottle rockets and firecrackers. I have on the other hand never known anyone stupid enough to chuck a brick at a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. I guess we ran in different circles.

27. How do incidents like this happen? I’m going to say it’s because society at large (and the educational system specifically) does not see value in teaching the following:

    (1) Words and actions have consequences.
    (2) There are standards of right and wrong.
    (3) Respect for others is infinitely more important than self-esteem.
    (4) Everyone has been endowed with the right to live.
    (5) Youth does not equal immortality. And,
    (6) Crimes deserve appropriate punishment.

    Lyons was as equally wrong to throw the book at Campbell as he was to let the BU players off on “winnable” charges. For justice to work best it should be objective, not political. Unfortunately, the ideal does not come close to reality.

    Would a different SA have prosecuted these cases differently? Maybe, maybe not. But don’t these two instances give us enough reason to explore other options in that office?

28. Here is a youtube video taken by some Bradley kids doing something reckless and dangerous and irresponsible. The video turned out cool but had one of the kids been killed or injured perhaps this thread would be about them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hboHfr6j8Jw

29. What a shame! It is truly hard for me to understand how any of these incidents happened.

30. Martha: “EM, you would know this better than I, but if an adult had provided a minor with alcohol and the minor either died or killed someone while under the influence, wouldn’t that person be guilty of negligence/negligent homicide?”

    There was actually just such a case in Deerfield. Or similar, rather — they knew drinking was occurring in their basement and let it continue. Several kids left the party drunk and wrapped their car around a tree; two died.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-hutsell_22jul22,0,2821547.story

    They were found guilty but all charges were misdemeanors (IIRC). The article above notes that: “Partially in response to the Hutsell case, Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest) in January introduced legislation that could make it a felony for adults to allow minors to drink in their home if someone is injured as a result. The bill has passed the Senate and the House and is before Gov. Rod Blagojevich.”

    What made me SICK about that case was the number of people who wrote to the Tribune to say the Hutsells were great parents and OF COURSE you should let your kids have drinking parties in your basement! (And I say this as someone who thinks families *should* be allowed to decide at what age to begin exposing their children to social amounts of alcohol in the family home. HUGE difference between your kids and someone else’s; HUGE difference between “glass of wine at family Christmas dinner” and “unsupervised teenaged basement alcohol party.”)

    IIRC, there were also charges of providing alcohol to minors in the Glenbrook North hazing case, but I think those charges were pled out rather than tried.

    Prego: “Even a 15 year old (unless he/she is mentally challenged, i.e. retarded) can figure this out.”

    Except we as a society have decided that 15-year-olds are NOT legally competent to understand all the consequences of their actions. If you think they ARE, then the LAW AS A WHOLE needs to be changed, not just the criminal law and not just in particular cases or for particular crimes. Doing it any other way is simply unfair.

    @all, on the stupid pranks note, I never knew anybody with fireworks (it’s one of the things that seriously annoys me about Peoria — WHY MUST ALL THESE NEIGHBORHOOD TEENAGERS CONSTANTLY SET OFF FIREWORKS????? Nobody did that where I grew up) but I did know morons who pitched rocks at cars. But from the same level, not overpasses. But then, we didn’t really have any overpasses. They did it from behind those metal road barriers that keep you from running off, what are those called?

    I also find appalling (and I did when I was in college, too) the amount of stupid and downright criminal behavior society excuses in college students because they’re college students.

31. one man’s opinion:

    paving block thrower: overcharged.
    soccer players: correct.

    everyone rants about the soccer players getting a break, but the real issue is that campbell was likely overcharged. he was because the incident put a panic in all of us, like terrorism. it could happen to ‘us’; random. not the same feeling when seeing the fire case.
    first: not to defend lyons, but charging decisions are tricky. one isn’t entirely stuck with a charging decision, but uncharged offenses that could be charged, have a limited time frame to be added. so the soccer players could still face murder. but speedy-trial and compulsory joinder interplay mean that even if the defendant agrees to continuances, or the defendant asks for one, the clock keeps ticking on uncharged offenses as they are not before the court. also, bond is often set based on class of offense. nobody should think agg arson is some sort of cop-out. it’s a class X and only murder is a higher class offense. agg arson is a higher class offense than involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide (i know those sound worse but they aren’t at law). and agg arson carries mandatory PRISON time of at least 6 and up to 30 years. no probation. manslaughter/reckless hom can be given probation. and until some lobbying from MADD (as most reck hom’s are fatal dui’s), probation was the default position for reck hom (not anymore).
    i think neither campbell nor the soccer players were true flight risks; all got bonds too high. bond is to secure appearance in court, not make sure one sits in jail (thus increasing the desire to plead guilty), and by law it is supposed to take into account the ability to post (ie, wealth). a mil is unfathomable to campbell (unless he’s got some unreported rich uncle) and even 50K probably means a second mortgage or withdrawl of retirement) to the parents of the bradley kids. they might have dough but anyone who thinks there are lots of people with that much in checking or savings is fooling themselves. PR bonds, no. campbell: 20,000 (so 2,000); soccer guys 100,000 (so 10,000). no one will agree with me on that.

    second: is it about race? maybe. but race is passe, an old issue. everything now is about money. if one of the soccer players had been a well-to-do black kid, the scenario would’ve been the same. fact is, there are many ‘crimes’ committed everyday. on occassion, there is a horrible consequence. often there are none. sometimes and intermediate one. estimates are that only 10-20% of drunk drivers are arrested. think about that. but when someone gets caught or when something goes horribly bad (blame it on the moon, god, luck or circumstance) who has the resources to dig themselves out from the rubble they’ve brought down on their head? public defenders are like any other group. i think the best defense attorney i’ve ever met is a full time PD. and i’ve met some pd’s that might as well work for the SA office. but money can make sure you don’t get one of the bad ones.
    finally: despite all the talk about charging, let’s see how this all pans out in plea deals. the bradley kids: plea to arson (not agg arson); fines, probation, restitution, community service, ‘treatment’ (for what i don’t know) and probably some additional jail time.
    probably a just result, as all might face wrongful death civil suits, at least the mentgen family as owner of the property.
    campell: plea to murder; prison time. a bad outcome in my estimation, but i am a believer in the ability of people to change (though i have never changed much), but i have to believe, else there is no reason to continue, that people want to change and some might. if everything is plotted out from birth, or before birth, then where’s the suprise? it’s just watching a movie full of predictable events and long forseen endings. and those are the type of movies i turn off.

32. “Treatment” would be for substance abuse. That’s what they usually cite in cases such as this. The minors shouldn’t have been drinking at all, and the adults shouldn’t have supplied it. Forget the fact that these were college students (*wink wink*). And forget the fact that most of us (myself included) did it. We knew, just as much as these students did, that it was wrong. We did it anyway, just to see what we could get away with. But it was still wrong.

    I’ve heard MANY a story of Greeks who forced members to drink well past excess and the consequences that arose. Or even if they weren’t forced, they were allowed to and then abandoned — which is how kids fall out of windows or get hit by cars walking back from parties. How many cases go to trial for intentional (read tradition/ritual) fraternity/sorority alcohol poisoning? Or in these cases is it all publicity during the investigation and arrest, followed by a quiet plea bargain?

    Much of what I’ve heard today has been the “I can’t tell you what you did was wrong because I’ve done dumb things too. I just got lucky.” Yes, you can! First, you admit what you did was dumb. And risky. And it’s only by the grace of God that nothing happened to you or someone else. Second, you CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR. You learn your lesson. You don’t put yourself in a position where you don’t have control over your faculties and your judgment and, therefore, don’t do something stupid. THEN you tell people that dumb things can have tragic consequences.

    We’re so willing to tell people their ideas are wrong. Since when, especially in matters of life and death, did we become so afraid to tell people what they’re doing is wrong?

33. Raoul,

    The kids snowboarding were not forced onto the snowboard. No one is tied down. Danny didn’t have a choice. Nor did the lady on I-74 have much of choice. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    Not comparable.

34. I just can’t feel sorry for college students who are supposedly intelligent people who killed someone through such a thoroughly stupid prank. The kid is dead, he is not injured or in the hospital. They had no idea shooting roman candles off inside towards a person just MIGHT cause harm?? Anyone that irresponsible who should know better and takes the risk anyway should pay the price

35. Well done on 25 @ 10 p.m., CJ!

36. sorry, raoul duke, I think what the students did was reckless enough to get a conviction on the arson charge. They will probably cut a plea bargain, but don’t expect it to be cheap. And sorry, Martha, part of the judgment of the SA IS to file “winnable” charges. Filing charges that are inappropriate (ie: not “winnable”) wastes taxpayer resources, and serves no purpose other than, what? politics? Ask that former DA in North Carolina about filing charges for political gain.

37. Thanks, Eyebrows.

38. I don’t think the crux of the question is whether arson charges are appropriate for the 4 college students but rather whether the charge of 1st degree murder is excessive in the case of the rock tosser and… whether Lyons is unfairly exploiting the instance of a poor defendant versus better off defendants.

39. Cj, you’re on point. White college kids without records get better treatment in the judicial system than black kids with records.

40. The words “with records” is a significant distinction..

41. Is there a state or fed law on the books that makes throwing ANYTHING off an overpass a crime?

    Isn’t fireworks [Roman Candles] against the law in Illinois? Under age drinking is definitely against the law.

    Drinking [+21] is not a crime. Being drunk is not a crime. Driving drunk is a crime. Killing someone while driving drunk is an even worse crime. The punishment under the law usually fits the crime. What are the charges/punishment for someone who is drunk [21 or not], drives and kills someone?

42. Yes, “with records” is a distintion but how often do people “do wrong” without getting caught? Do you think it was the first time any of these boys drank? Played a really dangerous prank? No, they just didn’t previously get caught.
    Another distinction between the two tragedies, is the number of participants. There were 4 boys involved in the Bradley case, anyone of them could have said “Hey, this is wrong, this is dangerous.” But not one of the four spoke up and called a halt to the prank.
    I also agree with Eyebrows’ comments, fifteen is young, too young to be tried as an adult. A 15 year old is capable of knowing right from wrong but not always capable of predicting consequences to actions.

43. How many of you have tossed bricks off buildings?

    What happens? Does it bounce? Does the brick shatter into a thousand pieces? What really happens when it strikes metal? Have any of you done this? Doesn’t it tease your curiosity just a little? Wouldn’t it tease the curiosity of a 15 year old, a lot?

    How many of you could hit, with certainty, a passing car, let alone strike a bullseye on your first try?

    Wouldn’t it be a lot of fun to watch a brick crash into a car? Bet it makes a neat crunchy sound.

    If I tossed a quarter off a very high building what would happen on the ground? Think you know?

    Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlMwJPoDhsE

    How about a brick off a bridge over the river? Ever done that? Bet it makes one hella of a splash! You know… if we dropped one right next to a boat and splashed someone it would be a funny. You could miss the moving boat right? And still splash it?

    Of course lots of people talk about intent with that teenager. Yeah… I guess that 15 year old was thinking along the lines: “Ima gonna crush dat ho down there… watch !” Of course he is immensely skillful tossing bricks. They do it all the time in the hood. Yeah.. because anything less would interfere with our preconceived notions.

    There is a lot of talk about intent to do harm on the part of the Bradley students. I knew some guys in high school who thought it was hella funny to give people severe wedgies. You know, the kind where they literally tear the under wear from out of your pants, by the waste band. You probably grimaced a little reading that. It would hurt a great deal. Funny prank eh? Ever watch the movies Jackass 1 and Jackass 2? No pain there right? Wrong… Some people get their jollies out of pulling pranks that do intend to harm. Is it a lasting harm? I suppose not but then again one kid did have to go to the hospital from one of those wedgies. Real funny eh? I don’t think it is such a stretch that the 4 BU kids meant to do harm on some level. But then that too, would interfere with out preconceived notions.

    What I think both of these cases have in common is that all the defendants seems to find ‘fun’ in reckless and dangerous actions.

44. I think the 15 year old was overcharged. He had committed previous offenses, but he was a child and has some mental issues, according to the PJS. The college students should also be charged with providing alcohol to minors and possession of illegal fireworks.

    I think both of these incidents should be charged was manslaughter.

45. Both of these cases are very similar yet very different. On one hand you have people that are definitely old enough to know better (the fifteen year old and Bradly students) and that should have been thinking ahead before they acted.
    On the other hand you do have the intent to do harm. At 1am traffic along I74 slow enough that one would have to be aiming to hit a vehicle. And the 15 year old didn’t go on down to help out or even call an ambulance, while the Bradly students used fireworks they didn’t know of the towel stuffed under the door, and they were trying to get the guy out of there. One was on the roof trying to open the window when the fire department arrived. All in all I think both cases should be tried under man-slaughter.

Comments are closed.