Man killed over pastrami sandwich

[Vic311]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Your niece married this 56yr old guy?
Besides this is why you shouldn't be a dick, because you don't know when some confused individual will get rage beyond death..
So basically the 26yr old beat a guy to death for laughing at him? The only mitigating factor was that the victim retaliated in response to the first punch.
10yrs is fair, anything less is not ..
Glad I'm not an Asian in white man's world.

add: needless to say if the attacker was black its many many more years

Wow..really?

[Templar]

Originally Posted by Vic311

Wow..really?

He should just stick to posting bad memes...

[ybbiz34]

I don't think you could pay me any sum of money to live in California.

[MadDog]

Originally Posted by Wolf

SHIT!! Sorry for your loss man.. Why the fuck did he get a maximum of 11 years?? Man your system is broken... unlike ours we either go kill the guy or he has so many connections that he'll probably never get one night in jail.. ok enough joking, seriously, 11 years are not fair for a guy that killed someone over a sammich

The murderer hasn't been sentenced yet. That's set for March 4th.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

I don't think you could pay me any sum of money to live in California.

No doubt. If you want to live near water the gulf coast is your best bet.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

No doubt. If you want to live near water the gulf coast is your best bet.

hehehe - Florida you mean? What, so one can get mowed down by a senior who can barely see over the steering wheel?

No thanks. I'll pass on that geriatric state.

[SES_D]

maybe Northern California is fucked up.

I remember a guy that a lot of my friends personally know got shot and killed over a slice of pizza here in San Francisco.

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Your niece married this 56yr old guy?
Besides this is why you shouldn't be a dick, because you don't know when some confused individual will get rage beyond death..
So basically the 26yr old beat a guy to death for laughing at him? The only mitigating factor was that the victim retaliated in response to the first punch.
10yrs is fair, anything less is not ..
Glad I'm not an Asian in white man's world.

add: needless to say if the attacker was black its many many more years

Your a fucking idiot plain and simple.... a HUGE fucking idiot... clinging to a victim mentality that is almost almost negligible in today's world, meanwhile mocking a dead man and his relatives.

[Inspired]

Not to add fire to the debate. I wouldn't say that 10 years was a fair sentence, but I can understand why the DA and the jury agreed on manslaughter charges.

To me, it seems more like a voluntary manslaughter since he had no intention to killing the man. Definition of voluntary manslaughter:

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

What the fuck is wrong with you?

See the definition of manslaughter Inspired offered.
Good thing you are not a judge, anyone who pissed you off enough you would sentence to die ten times over.

Originally Posted by Vic311

Wow..really?

Juries are biased, it's proven fact the more representation you can afford the lighter your sentence is.. failure of the judical system.

Originally Posted by Templar

He should just stick to posting bad memes...

Yeah maybe, but you don't understand those either.

Originally Posted by M3Denver

Your a fucking idiot plain and simple.... a HUGE fucking idiot... clinging to a victim mentality that is almost almost negligible in today's world, meanwhile mocking a dead man and his relatives.

I looked up victim mentality - I think you may be reading too much/misunderstood my statement, or you are projecting yourself on what you think I said.
I am not mocking, but I admit I did not offer any sympathies - other people did already. If everybody just gathered together and say "fuck this guy to hell lets kill his family three steps removed" what would be the good in that? I prefer to offer some reality rather than comfort. If something bad happens and you are just bitching about the wrong done unto you, you fail to see not the other side, but objective reality which is somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by Inspired

Not to add fire to the debate. I wouldn't say that 10 years was a fair sentence, but I can understand why the DA and the jury agreed on manslaughter charges.

To me, it seems more like a voluntary manslaughter since he had no intention to killing the man. Definition of voluntary manslaughter:

Quote: Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

Quote: Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Thank you. Thats the way society and laws work. There are two sides to every dispute, you just want one side, jerk yourself off.

What PROBABLY happened was, 'victim' laughed at accused, accused got angry and punched victim, victim relatiated, 'fight' ensued. Victim died from injuries. What differs in the accounts is whether the victim stood over the accused thus giving accused reason to feel threatened hence perpetuating the fight etc.
Its not murder, its manslaughter. Not a lawyer, but those are the facts folks.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by grimlock

See the definition of manslaughter Inspired offered.
Good thing you are not a judge, anyone who pissed you off enough you would sentence to die ten times over.

Do you have any ethics? This guy beat a man to death who was 30 years older than him, simply because he laughed; and you think it's justified that he gets a maximum sentence of 11 years. Are you fucking mental?

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Do you have any ethics? This guy beat a man to death who was 30 years older than him, simply because he laughed; and you think it's justified that he gets a maximum sentence of 11 years. Are you fucking mental?

It is not accurate to say he decided he was going to kill the guy to punish him for laughing at him. What is more likely is he was so enraged he kept beating him in a craze, and the man died from his injuries. Now some would say it's the same thing, but under the law it is not. If there is evidence for 'murder' which is the intent to kill, rather than the lesser administering of a beating, then that is how he would be charged. In this way, if the accused had left, came back a few hours later, and beat him to death, I think that would be more 'murder' than manslaughter (again, not a lawyer) because he would have had time to cool down and thus 'planned' the assault and the 'result' of death could have been more foreseen and less attributable to emotion or self-defense.

The more you scream at me that I am mental the more I get the idea you have rage issues..

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by grimlock

It is not accurate to say he decided he was going to kill the guy to punish him for laughing at him. What is more likely is he was so enraged he kept beating him in a craze, and the man died from his injuries. Now some would say it's the same thing, but under the law it is not. If there is evidence for 'murder' which is the intent to kill, rather than the lesser administering of a beating, then that is how he would be charged. In this way, if the accused had left, came back a few hours later, and beat him to death, I think that would be more 'murder' than manslaughter (again, not a lawyer) because he would have had time to cool down and thus 'planned' the assault and the 'result' of death could have been more foreseen and less attributable to emotion or self-defense.

The more you scream at me that I am mental the more I get the idea you have rage issues..

Maybe it wasn't his intent to kill but one could reasonably assume that multiple blows to the head, especially kicking when the victim is on the ground, could result in death.

This wasn't some freak accident that caused this mans death. The perp attacked the victim with the intent to do harm which resulted in death.

[MediaArtist]

Yeah, you never know when someone is going to snap. Better to be safe than sorry when deciding on whether to troll someone in real life.

[Nate2046]

Originally Posted by grimlock

It is not accurate to say he decided he was going to kill the guy to punish him for laughing at him. What is more likely is he was so enraged he kept beating him in a craze, and the man died from his injuries...

Exactly why he should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder. It may not have been premeditated, which would have been 1st degree, but it was definitely done with intent to harm. If you intend to hurt somebody and they die, its murder. Manslaughter should be reserved for strictly accidental events.

[Fresh Face]

To anyone trying to defend this clown, saying 11 years in prison is justified, just stop. This dude is a f**king un-evolved ape that is unfit for society. People like him should be put down old-yeller style.

I'm not gonna condone it, but if I were OP in this situation, I would make sure this animal's 11 years in prison would be his last. Failure of the justice system means its time to take matters into your own hands.

[Vic311]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Juries are biased, it's proven fact the more representation you can afford the lighter your sentence is.. failure of the judical system.

Maybe you are not aware of how the justice system works in the US.

Juries don't determine sentence they only determine guilt. Sentencing is at the sole discretion of the judge and even then he/she has to follow sentencing guidelines prescribed by law.

The only time the jury is involved in sentencing is during a capital case where there is a sentencing phase and they vote death penalty vs life in prision.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by grimlock

It is not accurate to say he decided he was going to kill the guy to punish him for laughing at him. What is more likely is he was so enraged he kept beating him in a craze, and the man died from his injuries. Now some would say it's the same thing, but under the law it is not. If there is evidence for 'murder' which is the intent to kill, rather than the lesser administering of a beating, then that is how he would be charged. In this way, if the accused had left, came back a few hours later, and beat him to death, I think that would be more 'murder' than manslaughter (again, not a lawyer) because he would have had time to cool down and thus 'planned' the assault and the 'result' of death could have been more foreseen and less attributable to emotion or self-defense.

The more you scream at me that I am mental the more I get the idea you have rage issues..

Anyone with a higher IQ than a chimp, could tell you that stomping and kicking on a 56 year old's head who is on the floor could kill them! And you say this man deserves no more than 11 years, that is sick.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Do you have any ethics? This guy beat a man to death who was 30 years older than him, simply because he laughed; and you think it's justified that he gets a maximum sentence of 11 years. Are you fucking mental?

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Maybe it wasn't his intent to kill but one could reasonably assume that multiple blows to the head, especially kicking when the victim is on the ground, could result in death.

This wasn't some freak accident that caused this mans death. The perp attacked the victim with the intent to do harm which resulted in death.

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Anyone with a higher IQ than a chimp, could tell you that stomping and kicking on a 56 year old's head who is on the floor could kill them! And you say this man deserves no more than 11 years, that is sick.

I think you guys need to understand the law between manslaughter and murder.

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

Voluntary manslaughter. This is often called a "heat of passion" crime. Voluntary manslaughter arises when a person is suddenly provoked (in circumstances which are likely to provoke many reasonable people) and kills in the heat of passion aroused by that provocation. That the killing is not considered first or second degree murder is a concession to human weakness. Killers who act in the heat of passion may kill intentionally, but the emotional context prevents them from having the ability to fully control their behavior. As a result, the heat of passion reduces their moral blameworthiness.
The common example of voluntary manslaughter involves a husband who comes home unexpectedly to find his wife committing adultery. If the husband is provoked into such a heat of passion that he kills the paramour right then and there, a judge or jury might very well consider the killing to be voluntary manslaughter.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"


Facts: Standing next to each other in a bookstore a few feet away from the top of a flight of stairs, Marks and Spencer argue over the proper interpretation of free will in Hobbes's philosophy. The argument becomes increasingly animated and culminates when Spencer points a finger at Marks and Marks pushes Spencer backwards. The push is hard enough to cause Spencer to fall backwards and down the stairs. Spencer dies from the resulting injuries.
Verdict: Marks would probably be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It was criminally negligent of Marks to shove a person standing near the top of a stairway. But circumstances don't suggest that Marks's behavior was so reckless as to demonstrate extreme indifference to human life, which would have elevated the crime to second degree murder.

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Yeah, you never know when someone is going to snap. Better to be safe than sorry when deciding on whether to troll someone in real life.

Seriously. I gotta consider trolling someone in real life now after this incident.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by Inspired

I think you guys need to understand the law between manslaughter and murder.

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

Voluntary manslaughter. This is often called a "heat of passion" crime. Voluntary manslaughter arises when a person is suddenly provoked (in circumstances which are likely to provoke many reasonable people) and kills in the heat of passion aroused by that provocation. That the killing is not considered first or second degree murder is a concession to human weakness. Killers who act in the heat of passion may kill intentionally, but the emotional context prevents them from having the ability to fully control their behavior. As a result, the heat of passion reduces their moral blameworthiness.
The common example of voluntary manslaughter involves a husband who comes home unexpectedly to find his wife committing adultery. If the husband is provoked into such a heat of passion that he kills the paramour right then and there, a judge or jury might very well consider the killing to be voluntary manslaughter.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"


Facts: Standing next to each other in a bookstore a few feet away from the top of a flight of stairs, Marks and Spencer argue over the proper interpretation of free will in Hobbes's philosophy. The argument becomes increasingly animated and culminates when Spencer points a finger at Marks and Marks pushes Spencer backwards. The push is hard enough to cause Spencer to fall backwards and down the stairs. Spencer dies from the resulting injuries.
Verdict: Marks would probably be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It was criminally negligent of Marks to shove a person standing near the top of a stairway. But circumstances don't suggest that Marks's behavior was so reckless as to demonstrate extreme indifference to human life, which would have elevated the crime to second degree murder.




Seriously. I gotta consider trolling someone in real life now after this incident.

I still think this should qualify as second degree murder, I think it's reasonable to conclude that his intent was to cause profound physical injury, which could (and did) lead to the mans death, therefore I believe second degree murder should have been the charge.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Vic311

Maybe you are not aware of how the justice system works in the US.

Juries don't determine sentence they only determine guilt. Sentencing is at the sole discretion of the judge and even then he/she has to follow sentencing guidelines prescribed by law.

The only time the jury is involved in sentencing is during a capital case where there is a sentencing phase and they vote death penalty vs life in prision.

You know it better than I do. I thought you were asking me if I thought race matters in treatment and I said yeah I thought its not entirely fair, that's all.

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Anyone with a higher IQ than a chimp, could tell you that stomping and kicking on a 56 year old's head who is on the floor could kill them! And you say this man deserves no more than 11 years, that is sick.

I did not say what I thought anyone DESERVED. I was trying to make an estimation from 'society's point of view - not just YOURS which is the viewpoint of the aggrieved party.
We differ in that you only consider what YOU think and couldn't give a damn what the other side thinks, I (try to) abandon any personal opinions and try to see it from the point of view of the supposedly unbiased judge.

That said, I am probably biased against dicks that troll in real life, I can imagine how annoying a 56yr old asian guy laughing in my face can be. This does not deserve his death, but you are overstating the facts by saying he killed him outright from such a little thing.

Since it is the 3rd time you have called me mental, here is a meme for you.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by grimlock

That said, I am probably biased against dicks that troll in real life, I can imagine how annoying a 56yr old asian guy laughing in my face can be.

Wow the fact you would even go there in a thread like this- where the victims family member is among us is shocking to me, that is just disturbing, and far beyond poor taste.