Gang rape outside school dance - should bystanders be punished (Putin, weapons)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bystanders are not required to intervene or do anything. There's a pretty famous case in New York where the same thing happened to a young woman and no one even went so far as to call the police.
I'm against all "good samaritan" laws - I don't think the bystanders should be legally liable for anything in this case. Nobody should have any legal obligation to endanger their life or safety to help another.
Swagger
This is your quote. You argued these bystanders should be NOT BE LEGALLY liable for this crime. You are trying to backtrack after making an illogical statement. If you want to admit you made a mistake in stating this, that's fine but don't accuse me of misquoting you. Anyone can read the above and clearly see you were arguing these perpetrators should NOT be prosecuted aka not held legally liable. I'm not arguing that you support rape or condone this act. No one has said that but we knew there would be wingnuts that feel these bystanders should not be legally prosecuted because they were not directly involved in this crime regardless of how they morally felt about the situation.
I just don't get kids....I think one of the main problems is that kids aren't afraid of anything anymore. They have these parents that take up for them even when they know they're wrong, the same parents who don't demand their kids respect them or anyone else and then they set these kids loose on the world.
Things like this just can't keep happening...kids should be safe at school.
Girl, as young as you are you have hit the nail on the head. Most of these kids' parents were spoiled and they are spoiling their kids in like manner. They really do believe that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to in the name of fun and need to be punished but their parents just won't do it.
It is certainly respect that you are talking about and they don't have any of it for anyone but their buddies.
Girl, as young as you are you have hit the nail on the head. Most of these kids' parents were spoiled and they are spoiling their kids in like manner. They really do believe that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to in the name of fun and need to be punished but their parents just won't do it.
It is certainly respect that you are talking about and they don't have any of it for anyone but their buddies.
You are right. Natalyjones hit the nail on the head.
I just HATE it when I see my generation really screwing up like this. Will I be strict with my children? Yes but will I allow them to have fun too? Of course!
Problem is that for some reason, most parents do not know how to balance fun and being "friends" with their children versus parent.
I am actually for bringing back disciplining children in school. I know several teachers who got in trouble for talking back to students. I am like "Wow. The student was creating problems first!"
What message does this give to spoiled brats?
And I so agree with your last sentence. No respect for anyone but their thug buddies.
That isn't true. Accessory means abetting or aiding a crime. It doesn't have to be before or after the crime.
A bystander observing a shooting or a robberty and a person who stands for 2 hours observing a rape are different. The latter can be considered a participant. As someone already mentioned, there was a film based on a similar event. It was called the Accused starring Jodie Foster and it was based on a real life event in which the observers were prosecuted and found guilty.
It can be argued they aided the crime by cheering on or supporting the rape.
Leaving the scene and notifying the police is not the same as trying to stop a perpetrator at the scene.
Not really, the only tricky thing is identifying and confirming the people at the scene of the crime. If they can do that, they can argue why the people didn't leave the scene and why the stood for 2 hours observing the crime.
Accessory as in its legal understanding, not literal definition.
As for the rest, my discussion is contingent on legal classifications. If you could point me to a support for your suggestion in the California Penal Code I am willing to concede my point.
Here is the legal definition of Accessory or principal in the California Penal Code:
Quote:
CALIFORNIA CODES PENALCODE
SECTION 30-33
30. The parties to crimes are classified as:
1. Principals; and,
2. Accessories.
31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it
be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all
persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to
commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion
the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit
any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel
another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so
committed.
32. Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors,
conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that
said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or
punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such
felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is
an accessory to such felony.
33. Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed, an accessory is punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars
($5,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county
jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Some seem like you could apply them, but like I said it is a very weak argument and contingent on classification to which are very difficult to establish in a court of law.
My comments were not in response your original quote, try to keep up.
You said he proved my statement wrong
TheLiberalVoice and I argued that some wingnuts would argue these bystanders should not be prosecuted because they were not directly involved in the crime. We didn't say these wingnuts would condone this violent act or defend the bystanders from a moral sense. You responded and said no one either conservative or liberal would do this. We clearly proved you wrong when Swagger responded and said these people should not be legally liable for this act. You need to improve your comprehension skills. You were proven wrong and are trying to desperately recover.
You missed the point. You tried to compare this event to a riot. You argued that similar to a riot, people observe a crime. You implied that people witnessing a riot and people who observed this rape are similar. You implied that we don't prosecute people observing a riot so why should we prosecute the people observing another a crime or a rape in this case. The hole in your argument lies in the fact that in a riot, the authorities have been notified and are trying to stop the crime in progress. The other weakness is that those in a riot are unable to leave because they stuck in their home, car or trying to take cover. In this situation, you had 15 people who stood and observed a rape for 2 hours. They could have left the scene. They could have notified the police away from the scene. Xodox correctly called out these weaknesses in your argument.
no, I do agree with you and my example probably was a bad one, I am simply saying and I won't repeat it again, I really don't think there would be any grounds to charge the bystanders. Of course they could have done a lot and should have, I just don't think you can do anything about this. That was my point and yes, I probably gave a bad example, I was just trying to think of something as a comparison.
# years out of high school? wow, time do fly. I'm ridin' up fast on 30 years out of high school, and NOTHING like this would have gone down without someone having done something to stop it. My senior year, we had a little creep go after a girl with a knife one day. I remember it well. The kid was a relocation type, expelled from every place he had ever been. The girl rejected his advances, he flipped out. I heard her scream, turned around and saw him chasing her across the quad. Didn't see the knife, till I was on him. He went to jail with a broken arm, long story short. Anyone else would have done the same thing. That was 1983, have things changed so much that kids could WATCH something like this rape go down and do NOTHING?! Like I said, I'd rather get hurt or killed myself than live with myself for doing nothing in such a situation. What has happened to our youth? Our society? I flat don't get it, at all.
Practically nothing has changed, because it all depends where you go to high-school. I do not think this sort of thing would happen today in a small town Kansas high school, but big cities are a different story. Having read true-story books such as Run Baby Run about big cities like NYC, these kinds of things have been happening for decades. Run Baby Run story took place in 1950s NYC and rapes, stabbings and gunshots were a part of everyday life, and a snitch would be dead before nightfall.
Apparently not in the same cold world you live in. There are still some people who got moral courage. I bet you find that shocking.
Hey... I'm not saying what they did was right; I'm just facing the reality of the fact that snitching can be deadly. We see that play out frequently here in Chicago. The fear is very real.
You don't like it? DO something about it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.