Where's the Uproar, City-Data Pittsburgh forum (Beaver: design, car, radio)

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Let's try this one last time, no is arguing that the guy got attacked more than likely because, at least in part, the color of his skin or that the thugs werent racists.

But then you said this, talking out both side of our mouths aren't we?

Originally Posted by UKyank

I don't care about the suburbs or race; I do take issue with throwing the very serious 'racist' label at a public official (or using the current social justice term du jour of 'white privilege'- ironically coming from an upper middle class African American) when there was clearly nothing unique about this case supported by any actual facts which weren't invented by the original poster who is clearly trying to inflame some racial tension where none exists in this case.

The judge could throw all the guy in prison for life for all I care; but the plea deal that we have here is completely normal for anyone that knows anything about the criminal justice system.

Originally Posted by UKyank

The entire point of your thread, however was, given what your first post said, was that the DA agreed to a lenient plea deal based on the skin color of the assailant & outrage that should occur as a result to the point that you hope it f*cks up the DA's career - this most certainly implies Zappala was motivated by race & by definition a racist.

No the OP point of my thread was about how the outcome of this situation was never merely mentioned here on city-data. But yet we have a constant trolls, who love to bring up violence in predominately AA communities.

My basis for wanting Zappala career F*cked up, is because he had show No empathy nor determination in this case. It was like he wasn't even trying. Yes it seems like he was unmotivated by Race.

Again I keep saying this, had the assailants been black he would have done more, and we all damn well know this..

Originally Posted by UKyank

Even though you have never admit to ever being wrong regardless of facts presented to you otherwise, the punishment the men recieved (1 going to jail on a felony count, 3 others doing probation & paying restitution on a misdemeanor) is what one expects from such an incident regardless of skin color & not because of any so called privelage but rather what normally occurs in such plea bargaining to avoid expensive trials that have a great likelihood of the men getting an even lessor, if any punishment. Continuing to say otherwise shows your complete ignorance of how the justice system works & I suggest you spend time educating yourself on the matter rather than spouting off nonsense in the hopes of stirring up racial emotions against a public official.

What facts that's your opinion... You've done a good job ignoring the facts as well, that this was crime committed on the basis of Race.....

You seem to dodge this question at all cost, but I'll ask it again. Do you believe 4 black accomplices would have gotten the same treatment sent home with a 1 yr probation if the victim was White.

The only ignorance shown here is your, and the total lack of awareness that there is disparities in the law between how Whites are treated and how blacks are.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

What facts that's your opinion... You've done a good job ignoring the facts as well, that this was crime committed on the basis of Race.....

You seem to dodge this question at all cost, but I'll ask it again. Do you believe 4 black accomplices would have gotten the same treatment sent home with a 1 yr probation if the victim was White.

Ive always assumed the crime was committed on the basis of race.

And yes, I absolutely believe the punishment would be the same if the men were black primarily because legally, there is no accomplice case to be had given the facts regardless if the people were male, female, white, black, purple or red.

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Ive always assumed the crime was committed on the basis of race.

And yes, I absolutely believe the punishment would be the same if the men were black primarily because legally, there is no accomplice case to be had given the facts regardless if the people were male, female, white, black, purple or red.

Ok - Fine you believe that Black men would have been treated just as equal in these same circumstances, OK, Got it ... That's where we disagree but hey you're on record.

Now explain to me exactly how these 4 other men were NOT complicit in the act, therefore the DA not having a case?

When They -

• Actively followed the Victim on to the "T" with the premeditated intentions of stealing his cooler
• Harassed and tried to provoke the Victim during his "T" ride, causing the Victim to miss his stop
• Engaged in calling the Victim Racial Slurs Before During and after the Beating
• Knew exactly what the attacker was planning to do to the victim once they got him off the train

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Ok - Fine you believe that Black men would have been treated just as equal in these same circumstances, OK, Got it ... That's where we disagree but hey you're on record.

Now explain to me exactly how these 4 other men were NOT complicit in the act, therefore the DA not having a case?

When They -

• Actively followed the Victim on to the "T" with the premeditated intentions of stealing his cooler
• Harassed and tried to provoke the Victim during his "T" ride, causing the Victim to miss his stop
• Engaged in calling the Victim Racial Slurs Before During and after the Beating
• Knew exactly what the attacker was planning to do to the victim once they got him off the train

Following someone to steal their cooler doesn't justify 8 years.

Harassing someone doesn't justify 8 years.

Calling someone names doesn't justify 8 years.

You're assuming they knew exactly what Kyle was going to do. I'd bet even Kyle didn't exactly know.

What do you feel should have been the punishment for all of the men?

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Ok - Fine you believe that Black men would have been treated just as equal in these same circumstances, OK, Got it ... That's where we disagree but hey you're on record.

Now explain to me exactly how these 4 other men were NOT complicit in the act, therefore the DA not having a case?

When They -

• Actively followed the Victim on to the "T" with the premeditated intentions of stealing his cooler
• Harassed and tried to provoke the Victim during his "T" ride, causing the Victim to miss his stop
• Engaged in calling the Victim Racial Slurs Before During and after the Beating
• Knew exactly what the attacker was planning to do to the victim once they got him off the train

Besides the fact that no one goes to jail for just stealing a cooler, if you're the DA you would need up prove beyond a doubt that among group that there was some facilitation, solicitation, or some mens rea among the other four men to carry out the attack which would be impossible to do given the evidence at hand precisely because there is no evidence of such necessary for an accomplice charge. The law is very specific on what is necessary for such a charge. That has nothing to do with them being white.

You seem to think I care about these guys. I don't care if they lose their jobs or never find work again or if God personally smites them for the rest of their days; I do care if anyone of any skin color is charged with a crime they are not guilty of or punished in a way not warranted by their actions or the evidence at hand.

[toosie]

At wesa.fm there's an article titled why would a judge feel compelled to accept a plea deal. It's about this case. Sorry - link issues here.

The article says judge manning was unhappy about accepting the lenient plea deals. IMO the article does a poor job explaining why. Charges are almost exclusively up to the attorneys - the judge can reject a plea deal if he decides a charge is unfair (but not because it's lenient). The judge has more influence when it comes to sentencing. So, again IMO, I'm interpreting that to mean that judge manning thought the men should have more severe charges - and that he did what he could in terms of sentencing within the parameters of the agreed to charges.

I believe 5 white guys who used a public defender because their daddys couldn't afford high profile criminal defense attorneys might have plead to more severe charges and faced more severe sentencing. Justice isn't always free or fair.

[erieguy]

More assumption.

So you're saying a public defender can't adequately do a job properly? If that's the case it sounds like you go to the source and the adequacy of public defenders should be investigated and handled rather than blaming those with the ability to hire a lawyer.

What it really boils down to is that personal feelings get in the way and what one feels the penalty should be rather than what maximum the law says.

[toosie]

No Erie - I'm suggesting that there are lots of factors that can make cases like this shake out different ways. It isn't cut and dry.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by toosie

No Erie - I'm suggesting that there are lots of factors that can make cases like this shake out different ways. It isn't cut and dry.

And that's why it's put in the hands of those who are impartial to ultimately decide rather than those who would let personal feelings get in the way.

[toosie]

I have to remember that you guys go back and edit your posts...

These guys didn't get close to the maximum the law provides. They plead to lesser charges than they would have faced at trial. That's part of plea bargaining and it's been acknowledged in coverage of the case. Had they gone to trial they could have been convicted and sentenced more severely. Or they could have walked. Or two of them could've walked and the others serve stricter sentences. See where I'm going?

Taking page from you guys and editing to add...I've never met an impartial attorney. If you know the law, it's possible to have ethics and agendas.