NYC man gets 75 years for mugging 101-year-old

[Tomasello]

NEW YORK — A New York City man who mugged a 101-year-old woman on her way to church has been sentenced to 75 years in prison.

Queens resident Jack Rhodes was sentenced Wednesday after being convicted of victimizing three women, including Rose Morat, who's now 103.

Authorities argued the 47-year-old Rhodes targeted two of the women because of their age, a violation of the state Hate Crimes Act. The law provides for harsher sentences.

A surveillance camera recorded the 2007 assault on Morat. It showed her using a walker to leave her apartment building when she was set upon.

Morat suffered a fractured cheekbone and bruises. Her attacker got away with $33.

Defense attorney Paul Montgomery questioned eyewitness accounts at trial and suggested Rhodes was being framed.

WOW.... Finally some justice in this world!

 

[Sevv]

75 years is bull shit he will get it over turned and paid out by the state lawyers dream in court.

 

[Tomasello]

75 years is bull shit he will get it over turned and paid out by the state lawyers dream in court.

He beat up a 101 year old. She's lucky she survived the assault.

Judges can't give sentences higher than the maximum penalty will allow. If the judge decides to "through the book" at him and give him the most he can legally give someone than fine by me. Other than a little baby, I can't think of a more defenseless victim than a 100+ year old person.

If he doesn't deserve the maximum penalty who does?

Feel free to watch the youtube video again where he's punching the old lady in the face.

 

[Hexx]

Wow what a jack ass, seriously, assaulting an old lady, how shitty can you get.

 

[Acutie]

Ha now that is a nice sentence. However, I think Sevv is right, a verdict like that won't last on appeal.

 

[Ravic]

The verdict will stand. He's on film slugging a centenarian, he's not getting out of that. Now, his lawyer could try to get the sentence reduced, but unless I'm mistaken sentencing lies totally within the judge's discretion outside capital crimes.

On a different note, she took those shots pretty well. I'd wager that 50 years ago, she could have taken him.

 

[Tymon]

Hope this guy gets killed in prison to save me the desire of wanting to do so myself, if he got out.

 

[Khajit]

So attacking an easy target when committing a crime constitutes a hate crime?
Does he have some irrational hatred and prejudice against the elderly that I do not know about?
The videotape doesn't even show his face clearly on that video. The only identifying feature on it is the fact that he's one of millions of black men in whatever city it was.
Lazy ass eyewitnesses too since none of em apparently even bothered to help the lady being pummeled possibly to death.

 

[Acutie]

I know right, clearly he's the victim here, poor black dude being picked on again by whitey.

 

[Tomasello]

So attacking an easy target when committing a crime constitutes a hate crime? Does he have some irrational hatred and prejudice against the elderly that I do not know about?

If I can be convicted of a hate crime for beating this guy's ass (had I ever the chance) why can't he be convicted of a hate crime for beating up an old lady? Wouldn't my alleged hatred and prejudice against blacks be considered irrational as well?

In the U.S., unless of course your a heterosexual white christian male between 18-65, you pretty much fall into a protected class of some kind and can invoke hate crime rulings. That's how FUCKED UP political correctness has become.

 

[Khajit]

I know right, clearly he's the victim here, poor black dude being picked on again by whitey.

Well considering that he's getting 70 extra years in jail for a crime when there was no prejudice involved with the act for it to actually be a hate crime, the video doesn't have enough resolution to positively identify him from a man in a rubber mask, and the only other evidence mentioned was eyewitness testimony( which is by far the least accurate testimony as human memory constantly rewrites itself to what you think you remember etc and unless they personally knew the guy it wouldn't be too accurate) then yes he technically is a victim.
And no it's not me insinuating that he's a "poor black dude being picked on again by whitey" it's simply me pointing out the ONLY visible identifiable trait on the guy from the video which happens to be that he could pass as a semi built black man. For all I know he could have been a Mexican with a tan instead.

If I can be convicted of a hate crime for beating this guy's ass (had I ever the chance) why can't he be convicted of a hate crime for beating up an old lady? Wouldn't my alleged hatred and prejudice against blacks be considered irrational as well?

In the U.S., unless of course your a heterosexual white christian male between 18-65, you pretty much fall into a protected class of some kind and can invoke hate crime rulings. That's how FUCKED UP political correctness has become.

The fact that you'd be convicted of a hate crime for attacking him because he was black instead of white when you were attacking him in retaliation for the elderly doesn't show that the court was right for adding seventy years to his sentence. IT shows that the law itself is fucked up and can be used for excessive punishment against those the law itself wasn't meant to apply to.

Then let's add to the fact that he's getting a year in jail for each dollar he's stolen essentially. Where the hell are all those people from Enron right now? Also 3 crimes= 75 years. a life sentence is generally accepted to be 25 years. So the guy got 3 life sentences for targetting people who couldn't hurt him back? If he attacked 3 women instead would he be in there for 75 years? There are murderer's, serial rapists, etc that get out sooner than he will. Does that sound like a fair punishment in ANY way shape or form?
It's ridiculously excessive and the only reason it's getting any support is because you don't give a shit about the attacker due to he nature of the victim. A punishment is supposed to be based on the crime itself. not on how good you think the victim looks.

 

[Tomasello]

What the hell is wrong with you? He PREYED on the elderly. This wasn't the only old person he mugged. You keep saying, "you can't even tell its him in the video". He had a trial and a jury of his piers thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's good enough for me. If he grabbed the old ladies purse and ran then no I wouldn't call that a hate crime but what JUSTIFICATION could he possibly have to kick her ass? He didn't have to assult her, she's 101 years old!!! For no valid reason other than her being old and defenseless he beat her ass. That's a hate crime.

What evidence do you have that he's not the guy? The old people said it was him, witnesses say it was him, obviously no verifiable alibi and there is even video tape which as you say at worst matches his build and description. "I was framed" is his pathetic defense and without being at the trail or seeing all of the evidence your ready to believe the CONVICTED dirtbag criminal.

If you want to throw out eyewitness accounts because of perseved human error then lets just let everyone out of jail now because probably 99% of them were convicted with eye witness accounts and not videotape which we are so lucky to have in this case.

I know its hard to believe but not every cop is out to frame the nearest black guy they can find when they need a fall guy.

 

[Khajit]

Please note yet AGAIN that I'm not playing the race card in here.However YOU are by insinuating that I'm trying to play the race card when I am clearly not.
Please note yet again that whether or not he's guilty and quite frankly it's easier to assume that he is for the sake of the argument since whether he's guilty or not isn't the issue here is the fact that a person is getting 75 years of jail for actions that normally don't even get a person 1/4 of the time served. Yes he's attacking the woman in the video and it's called fucking assault which does not put a person in jail for up to 25 years automatically the last time I checked. It was mentioned right in your original post itself that he was convicted of a hate crime which brings back one of my original point. Going after an easy target is not a hate crime.
Doing something that you don't agree with does not mean an action should receive extra years of punishment. If a person murders a guy or girl a person you hate should said person receive a lessened punishment? No, so therefore the fact that you find his choice of victim repugnant does not mean he should get extra time added on his
sentence.
No matter how much you dislike that he attacked old people his crimes were the assaulting and robbing 3 people which would have given him a much smaller sentence. The hate criime conviction seems tacked on simply to exact extra punishment for the same crime he was already being convicted of.
If a criminal mugs tourist because they're easy victims does that make it a hate crime for the criminal to target the "safest" choice of victim? Any assault on the tourists is merely that. Assault, not some nefarious inner hatred and rage against the evil foreigners that must be punished.

In addition this sets a wonderful precedent of being able to classify an illegal action as a hate crime if your crimes have any sort of pattern to them.

Or are you arguing that any violent attack is a hate crime when by nature assault and various violent crimes involve violent attacks? That falls under double jeopardy as you're convicting a person of the same crime twice and is quite illegal.
What group of people were you expecting the guy to prey upon? Well built men in their 20's? Marines? Any number of people whom could turn out to be fully capable of beating him? Does the fact that he chose not go to with the possible bad end of an asskicking option when he acted like a douche constitute a deep seated bigotry in his character that means it was a hate crime?

 

[Thelona]

Please note yet AGAIN that I'm not playing the race card in here.However YOU are by insinuating that I'm trying to play the race card when I am clearly not.
Please note yet again that whether or not he's guilty and quite frankly it's easier to assume that he is for the sake of the argument since whether he's guilty or not isn't the issue here is the fact that a person is getting 75 years of jail for actions that normally don't even get a person 1/4 of the time served. Yes he's attacking the woman in the video and it's called fucking assault which does not put a person in jail for up to 25 years automatically the last time I checked. It was mentioned right in your original post itself that he was convicted of a hate crime which brings back one of my original point. Going after an easy target is not a hate crime.
Doing something that you don't agree with does not mean an action should receive extra years of punishment. If a person murders a guy or girl a person you hate should said person receive a lessened punishment? No, so therefore the fact that you find his choice of victim repugnant does not mean he should get extra time added on his
sentence.
No matter how much you dislike that he attacked old people his crimes were the assaulting and robbing 3 people which would have given him a much smaller sentence. The hate criime conviction seems tacked on simply to exact extra punishment for the same crime he was already being convicted of.
If a criminal mugs tourist because they're easy victims does that make it a hate crime for the criminal to target the "safest" choice of victim? Any assault on the tourists is merely that. Assault, not some nefarious inner hatred and rage against the evil foreigners that must be punished.

In addition this sets a wonderful precedent of being able to classify an illegal action as a hate crime if your crimes have any sort of pattern to them.

Or are you arguing that any violent attack is a hate crime when by nature assault and various violent crimes involve violent attacks? That falls under double jeopardy as you're convicting a person of the same crime twice and is quite illegal.
What group of people were you expecting the guy to prey upon? Well built men in their 20's? Marines? Any number of people whom could turn out to be fully capable of beating him? Does the fact that he chose not go to with the possible bad end of an asskicking option when he acted like a douche constitute a deep seated bigotry in his character that means it was a hate crime?

You raise valid points, and basically point out there overall fault with hate crime legislation.

But in this case I could care less, let the dirtbag rot.

 

[Acutie]

Like I said before, everyone here knows that he won't serve 75 years, even if he could live that long. It will be appealed to an extremely shorter sentence. Hell, murderers and rapists and child molesters get reduced sentences all the time and even paroled in some cases.

 

[Khajit]

You raise valid points, and basically point out there overall fault with hate crime legislation.

But in this case I could care less, let the dirtbag rot.

Equal treatment under the law etc. If it's ok to send him to jail for 75 years thenanyone with the tiniest bit of power in the legal system can do the same to a person who you don't find to be as horrible.
When a person does something that barely counts as a blip on the radar(compared to other crimes) and gets 75+ years because they accidentally targeted Hispanics,Irish,Jews, Asians in a bar brawl it will matter alot more as this current case is proving that tacking on nearly a century of extra time is perfectly fine and legal for the judges to do by making it a hate crime. It may sound extreme but that's exactly what this case can set the precedent for if anyone wishes to abuse it in a legal manner.

 

[bigbroon]

Equal treatment under the law etc. If it's ok to send him to jail for 75 years thenanyone with the tiniest bit of power in the legal system can do the same to a person who you don't find to be as horrible.
When a person does something that barely counts as a blip on the radar(compared to other crimes) and gets 75+ years because they accidentally targeted Hispanics,Irish,Jews, Asians in a bar brawl it will matter alot more as this current case is proving that tacking on nearly a century of extra time is perfectly fine and legal for the judges to do by making it a hate crime. It may sound extreme but that's exactly what this case can set the precedent for if anyone wishes to abuse it in a legal manner.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on this.

It's a disgusting crime, a healthy young man preying on an elderly near-defenseless woman, not being content with just robbing her, but assaulting her too. How disgusting the crime is, however, doesn't alter what the sentence he should receive. He's guilty of what he's guilty of, you can't just accuse him of something which *nearly fits* into what he did, just because it'll give him a massive sentence.

I don't feel this way through pity for the man, though I do pity him; if this kind of thing starts happening, it's who it'll influence in the future that is worrying. Justice is a 2-way thing. There's justice for the victim, family, and anyone connected to them. But there's also justice for the perpetrator, his/her family, and anyone connected to them. 75 years for 3 assaults/robberies is ridiculous. This man won't be missed from society, but what about the guy who robs $100 (3 times as much as this guy got) to feed his family and gets 50 years in prison?

It'll seem like a stupid analogy, but that's where it could go if this thing continues. When decisions like this are made, it's not just the people involved who feel the influence. Now that the benchmark has been laid down, there'll likely be a fair few judges across the land who'll take crimes against minorities, religions or races, and call it "hate crime", when not all crimes on these groups have anything to do with hate.

 

[bigbroon]

He beat up a 101 year old. She's lucky she survived the assault.

Judges can't give sentences higher than the maximum penalty will allow. If the judge decides to "through the book" at him and give him the most he can legally give someone than fine by me. Other than a little baby, I can't think of a more defenseless victim than a 100+ year old person.

If he doesn't deserve tha maximum penalty who does?

Feel free to watch the youtube video again where he's punching the old lady in the face.

To the bolded:

Al Megrahi (Lockerbie Bomber, killed 270+ people)
Louise Woodward (Murdered baby, served "time served")
Ted Bundy (Serial Killer)
Saddam Hussein (Don't really need to explain)
Amanda Knox (26 she got for murder, last night)
Jack the Ripper
Hitler
Pontius Pilate (lol)

Basically, the list is endless. Next list: who shouldn't get 75 years in prison:

some black dude who robs a 101-year-old woman for $33.

 

[Thelona]

I agree with you, that this sets a precedent that's not good for this country, I've never liked hate crime legislation for this very reason, your right i don't think we should be in the business of punishing people for the whats going on in their head at the time of the crime.

but when someone victimizes an elderly woman, let em fry. What if that had been an 8 year old kid instead? say he broke the face of some 8 year old for his lunch money. should he still get the same punishment as "simple assault"?

this guy definitely deserves what he got. Hell he could have killed that woman, would it have made you guys happier if he had just been charged with attempted murder instead?

Are you guys just playing devil's advocate? or do you legitimately feel sorry for this scumbag? Personally i hope he gets murdered in prison in the most horrific way possible

I realize what your trying to do, your pointing out our hypocrisy for condemning hate crime legislation normally and then smiling with glee that it was used to put this scumbag away. and yeah, i guess that makes me a hypocrite in this situation.

but I could care less, noones with the power to change anything is actually gonna listen to me bitch about hate crimes, so yeah, when i see it have a good outcome, I'm not gonna waste my breath.

 

[Raesvelg]

This case serves as a perfect example of what's wrong with hate crime legislation, and why we should strike it from the books as soon as we can. :/

Do you really think that the defendant "hated" old people? No, of course not. He's an opportunist. Old people frequently have at least some cash or jewelry, are functionally incapable of fighting back effectively, and may not even live long enough to give testimony against you if you get caught years down the road.

It's like saying that lions hate the sick and old gazelles.

So what we have here is an abuse of hate crime laws.

I've also maintained for years that hate crime laws are fundamentally unconstitutional.