Where's the Uproar, City-Data Pittsburgh forum (living in, discount, bicycles)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep...but it didn't happen that way...and reasoning for that was explained in an earlier page as it may have been thought that some would've gotte off totally rather than all getting sentenced. See where that went?

[toosie]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Yep...but it didn't happen that way...and reasoning for that was explained in an earlier page as it may have been thought that some would've gotte off totally rather than all getting sentenced. See where that went?

Right - unless I'm missing something, I think we're making similar points. You just have your arguing shoes on.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by toosie

Right - unless I'm missing something, I think we're making similar points. You just have your arguing shoes on.

No arguing shoes, as long as you feel they got what they deserved for the crime they committed.

[toosie]

Oh. Hmmmm. I guess I did miss something.

I don't have feelings about what they deserved - besides the newspaper accounts I don't even know what all happened. From what I understand about this case...

1. I know they plead to lesser charges
2. I do not know if they were sentenced to the maximum the law allows for those charges (though I suspect not)
3. I do not perceive a miscarriage of justice

Very often it's the DA who initiates plea bargaining. My impression is that in this case, the defense drove the plea bargaining. It's improbable that a defense attorney would engage in plea bargaining if he thought there was no evidence to convict his client of the higher charges.

I'm gonna tie your laces together and leave now.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by toosie

Oh. Hmmmm. I guess I did miss something.

I don't have feelings about what they deserved - besides the newspaper accounts I don't even know what all happened. From what I understand about this case...

1. I know they plead to lesser charges
2. I do not know if they were sentenced to the maximum the law allows for those charges (though I suspect not)
3. I do not perceive a miscarriage of justice

Very often it's the DA who initiates plea bargaining. My impression is that in this case, the defense drove the plea bargaining. It's improbable that a defense attorney would engage in plea bargaining if he thought there was no evidence to convict his client of the higher charges.

I'm gonna tie your laces together and leave now.

As I suspected...but the law took its course, the verdict is in, all have been charged, none have gotten off scot free, and they'll serve their sentences.

[Agbor]

The other angle I heard on radio talk show was that everyone in that situation had been drinking and that the victim's testimony in relation to the other 3 was inconsistent, so based on that, the other 3 got lighter charges, but the hard video
evidence was the guy beating him and putting him on the tracks and he got the harshest sentence.

[Salmonburgher]

I'll say it one more time. The standard the State must reach to get a conviction in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is by design a very high standard to reach. Moreover, the State must prove all of the necessary elements of a crime charged, failing which, the defendant must be acquitted.

I did not read anything about the case, other than what was posted here in this thread. The OP continues to post as fact the intentions of all of the men and certain of their actions.

I guess the OP does not understand the difficulty of proving those "facts" and all of the elements of the crimes the OP asserts were committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

I'll say it one more time. The standard the State must reach to get a conviction in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is by design a very high standard to reach. Moreover, the State must prove all of the necessary elements of a crime charged, failing which, the defendant must be acquitted.

I did not read anything about the case, other than what was posted here in this thread. The OP continues to post as fact the intentions of all of the men and certain of their actions.

I guess the OP does not understand the difficulty of proving those "facts" and all of the elements of the crimes the OP asserts were committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

This^^^^^

Facts are not welcome by many. Had it gone to trial and some been had been acquitted, then hindsight would have some wishing it went the way it has. It's near impossible to justify verdicts to those whose feelings are so personally vested.

[Blackbeauty212]

Originally Posted by UKyank

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.

Stealing the cooler alone, no, but all these circumstances tied to together... Makes it pretty clear what their intent was, and they were complicit in the cime. Again not directly but Indirectly.

No one is saying charge them with a Crime they're not guilty of ... but going for a stiffer punishment than simple probation and some community service. Which will probably teach them nothing, was warranted and would have been sought IMO if the victim was white and the assailants were Black.

Originally Posted by erieguy

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?

1 - why are you putting sentencing terms in my mouth, I never declared they all deserved the full 8 years. They do however deserve more harsher punishment than a simple finger pointing and go to your rooms and think about what you did, Leave It to Beaver type consequence.

2 - I see calling someone racial slurs equates to Name Calling in your world ... Check, Got It.

3 - If you bothered to read the reports, Kyle told the entire "T" Car what he was planning to do once they got the victim off the train. So yes they knew exactly what he was planning to carry out.

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

I'll say it one more time. The standard the State must reach to get a conviction in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is by design a very high standard to reach. Moreover, the State must prove all of the necessary elements of a crime charged, failing which, the defendant must be acquitted.

I did not read anything about the case, other than what was posted here in this thread. The OP continues to post as fact the intentions of all of the men and certain of their actions.

I guess the OP does not understand the difficulty of proving those "facts" and all of the elements of the crimes the OP asserts were committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

So how about you actually read the facts around the case, before "Saying it One More Time" .... I posted facts as the media has reported them to be.

[erieguy]

So again, what punishment do you feel they should have received?