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

[Morcheeba]

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.

Wrong. Well at least I think. He is a piece of shit, waste of oxygen just like the ones you mention.

I really disagree. If we are going to continue to make examples of criminals to try to detour others from doing the same what better person to choose.

If a healthy black, white, hispanic, indian, asian man wants to beat the living shit out of an elderly woman BECAUSE HE CAN after or before robbing her of all of $33, let the fucker pay the ultimate price the crime can be punishable for.

Much different if it were a 30 yr old fit woman and a man, she would be much more likely to survive an attack like that, and the man would probably have more thought process to just rob and jet than use her as a punching bag because she'd be more likely to cause him damage in turn.

If the sentence doesn't stand that's an incredible shame. Fine. Let him lose in a room full of elderly women armed with canes that just finished watching that video.

 

[bigbroon]

Wrong. Well at least I think. He is a piece of shit, waste of oxygen just like the ones you mention.

I really disagree. If we are going to continue to make examples of criminals to try to detour others from doing the same what better person to choose.

If a healthy black, white, hispanic, indian, asian man wants to beat the living shit out of an elderly woman BECAUSE HE CAN after or before robbing her of all of $33, let the fucker pay the ultimate price the crime can be punishable for.

Much different if it were a 30 yr old fit woman and a man, she would be much more likely to survive an attack like that, and the man would probably have more thought process to just rob and jet than use her as a punching bag because she'd be more likely to cause him damage in turn.

If the sentence doesn't stand that's an incredible shame. Fine. Let him lose in a room full of elderly women armed with canes that just finished watching that video.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, let me explain a little further.

This guy is a piece of shit. The world wouldn't be any worse off without him on the planet. He's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, and I'm happy about that. However, what this means for the law system in the future is not such a hunky-dory issue, and that's my problem.

Firstly, this wasn't a hate crime. She happened to be an easy target, so he's guilty of robbing and assaulting someone who couldn't fight back as opposed to robbing and assaulting a 23-year-old kick boxing champion. That's, as Raes said, oppurtunistic, not hateful. He attacked her in particular because she was there, she was old, and he couldn't lose. You can't say he attacked her because she was old, he attacked her for her money. That's robbery, not a hate crime. Can you prove that he wouldn't have attacked someone else had they been there instead of her?

If you look hard enough, any crime can be described as a hate crime. Man rapes a woman, that's hatred of women. He wouldn't have done it to a man, so it flies. If you rob someone's house on Decemeber 23rd, you're guilty of hating the Asian man and his family in the house, Christians because it's the time of year when they're celebrating their most important festival, and guilty of hating the Mexican man who built the house. However, this shouldn't be the case. Yes, rape and crimes along the same lines should have FAR stronger sentences, but for me that's not a reason to start labelling crimes *hate crimes* just to get a tougher sentence. What's wrong with overturning the judicial system and actually handing out sentences appropriate to the crime?

I'd far rather see a rapist jailed for 100 years because that's the maximum sentence for this crime(my opinion of what life should mean, LIFE) than a rapist be jailed for 100 years because the judge managed to wangle the case into a hate crime. To me, a hate crime is committing a criminal offense against someone purely because of a hatred for one or more of said persons characteristics, be it race, height, weight, or anything else like that. This man was guilty of assault and robbery, nothing more.

Judges are now having to find other ways of jailing the people who need jailed for longer times because of the *maximum allowed sentence*. Why not *increase* the maximum allowed sentence for certain, or all, crimes? Surely we can all agree that someone serving 10-15 years as a "life sentence" is a joke, and is something that has needed changed for years?

As much of a piece of shit as this man is, in my opinion, he has been wrongfully brought to court and found guilty, and been handed an exceedingly harsh sentence for reasons not relevant to the case. Yes, he should have been found guilty, but not of a hate crime. As I said before, he's no loss to society, and I couldn't care less that he'll be in prison for the rest of his life, but in future cases, this will be looked at as the solution to a flawed judicial system and a way to hand out hyper-harsh sentences, when there's a simpler, more sensible resolution.

I guess hate-crime is on of those new buzz-words that actually encompass 99% of possible crimes to commit. About the only example of a crime I can think of that couldn't possibly be classified as a hate crime is a motor-related crime, and even then I'd imagine there'll be someone who could twist it into a hate issue.

 

[Khajit]

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?

part 1. If there aren't any special laws against specifically endangering children then technically yes.

Part 2. Actually yes. attempted murder could at least be a plausible charge although given the fact that if he really wanted to kill her he could have snapped her neck in an instant it would probably be downgraded to attempted manslaughter if anything.( they would have to prove that he intended to try and kill her instead of "merely" attacking her with the outcome standing a chance at killing her by a lack of forethought)

 

[Morcheeba]

A whole lot

I can agree with it not being a classified 'Hate Crime' based on the variables required for such classification.

But I merely responded to your list based on Tom's bolded question.

I agree sentencing needs to be revisited if Judges are feeling harsher sentences are required but currently lacking. All and all this man rightly deserves the the punishment. It's too bad the means of which handing out such a punishment is practically non-existent unless you bend.

The punishment fits the crime imo.

*has anyone caught on just how much of an idealist I am? lol

 

[Khajit]

The instant that guy gets a decent lawyer and/or the lawmakers realize how fucked up the law is the charges for the "hate crime" will be probably striken from his record.
In addition the guy will be able to sue the state at minimum for allowing such a blatant abuse of power by the prosecutors and judges to happen.
So the guy gets out of jail possibly in less time than he would originally been convicted of, manages to sue the government for thousands if not millions of dollars that YOU will be paying for with taxes,and to boot he might not even have the criminal act on his official record.
Congratulations are in order, no?

 

[Morcheeba]

The instant that guy gets a decent lawyer and/or the lawmakers realize how fucked up the law is the charges for the "hate crime" will be probably striken from his record.
In addition the guy will be able to sue the state at minimum for allowing such a blatant abuse of power by the prosecutors and judges to happen.
So the guy gets out of jail possibly in less time than he would originally been convicted of, manages to sue the government for thousands if not millions of dollars that YOU will be paying for with taxes,and to boot he might not even have the criminal act on his official record.
Congratulations are in order, no?

If this was meant for me, I won't be paying for shit. My opinion stands. He deserves it, wrongfully charged or not.

 

[Tyrath]

If this was meant for me, I won't be paying for shit. My opinion stands. He deserves it, wrongfully charged or not.

Bolded is prime example of why the justice system should be free of emotional judgments. No one deserves to be wrongfully charged, no matter how shitty a human being they are.

 

[Morcheeba]

Bolded is prime example of why the justice system should be free of emotional judgments. No one deserves to be wrongfully charged, no matter how shitty a human being they are.

No this is just the truth. It's not an emotional statement. It's opinion. A judge uses his or her best judgment to decide a fitting punishment. 90% of the time there will be a judgment made with personal opinion involved. The Judge feels this is fitting. I wouldn't be surprised that more than 90% of judgments made are based off personal opinion. Within given laws being the exception. They need to work within the guidelines set.

The whole 'hate-crime' thing to me is unimportant. All I see is a man proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of beating a defenseless old woman close to death. The law that is currently in place would only have him serve X number of years and the judge felt it was not a stiff enough punishment.
I guess what is fair is that we all sit back and defend this fuck because there isn't a suitable punishment currently in place so he's been pinned with something a little less suitable (which cannot be proven) so he gets what he deserves.

right, oh well, sorry granny. Maybe next time you could play dead and he might walk away

 

[Thelona]

The instant that guy gets a decent lawyer and/or the lawmakers realize how fucked up the law is the charges for the "hate crime" will be probably striken from his record.
In addition the guy will be able to sue the state at minimum for allowing such a blatant abuse of power by the prosecutors and judges to happen.
So the guy gets out of jail possibly in less time than he would originally been convicted of, manages to sue the government for thousands if not millions of dollars that YOU will be paying for with taxes,and to boot he might not even have the criminal act on his official record.
Congratulations are in order, no?

unfortunately your right, this is a likely outcome.

 

[Tomasello]

I've been waiting to post because I wanted to see which way this thread would unfold.

Deep down something tells me he probably was just a dirtbag stealing from old people because they were easy targets. But something bothers me. Why kick the crap out of them? Why? It's completely unessasarily and I think that's where these anti-hate crime arguements fail.

No one here knows his true motivation. We can speculate. Maybe he's an angry disturbed person who likes to kick the shit out of helpless people. Maybe because they're elderly, maybe because she was a woman, maybe because she was white. Maybe stealing from them is just another way for him to hurt them and he could care less about the $33.

In the end, like some of the other posters have said. I still thinks he deserves 75 years in jail. I don't think a person as sick as this will ever be able to be "reabilitated". If they need to use hate crime legislation, and it fits the criteria, to lock him up then fine by me.

A piece of shit like this shouldn't be roaming the streets. Bleeding hearts get so god damn rapped up in the rights of the criminals that there oblivious to the fact that more likely than not as soon as a person as fucked in the head as him gets out of prison he's going to go right back to preying on innocent victims.

This wasn't just a mugging imo.... this was something horribly worse.

 

[bigbroon]

I've been waiting to post because I wanted to see which way this thread would unfold.

Deep down something tells me he probably was just a dirtbag stealing from old people because they were easy targets. But something bothers me. Why kick the crap out of them? Why? It's completely unessasarily and I think that's where these anti-hate crime arguements fail.

No one here knows his true motivation. We can speculate. Maybe he's an angry disturbed person who likes to kick the shit out of helpless people. Maybe because they're elderly, maybe because she was a woman, maybe because she was white. Maybe stealing from them is just another way for him to hurt them and he could care less about the $33.

In the end, like some of the other posters have said. I still thinks he deserves 75 years in jail. I don't think a person as sick as this will ever be able to be "reabilitated". If they need to use hate crime legislation, and it fits the criteria, to lock him up then fine by me.

A piece of shit like this shouldn't be roaming the streets. Bleeding hearts get so god damn rapped up in the rights of the criminals that there oblivious to the fact that more likely than not as soon as a person as fucked in the head as him gets out of prison he's going to go right back to preying on innocent victims.

This wasn't just a mugging imo.... this was something horribly worse.

I for one am not defending this man's rights, or arguing the fact he should go to prison. What doesn't sit right with me is this mentality of "he's a criminal, who cares if his sentence is harsh?" If you speed, you're a criminal. Should you get 30 years for it? No. By your logic, you're a criminal, and most people who get caught speeding won't slow down, they'll just be extra perceptive when looking for cops or speed cameras. This means you can't be rehabilitated. So should you spend the rest of your life in prison? You're a danger to the rest of the world because you drive recklessly.

As much as I can understand people's views that what he did was despicable so the punishment can't be too harsh, you need to be careful where you go with this. If you tar all criminals with the "you're one fucked up dude, you can go down for the rest of your life" brush, the justice system has no justice left in it. As I said before, it's a two-way thing. Punishing someone too harshly isn't any more correct than a leniant sentence, it just sits better to people because it only affects the criminal. They still have rights, like it or not, and I seriously doubt that this 75 year sentence will stick, I certainly hope not.

 

[Khajit]

Religion X has religious icon Y accidentally or purposefully blasphemed.
To these people you have become the scum of the universe.
Enjoy your decapitation, castration,stoning,execution, or lifetime imprisonment.

 

[Mirewen]

The guy beat up women who were too feeble to defend themselves. That's it. No religion. No racial profiling. A disgusting human being who would do the same to you if given the chance and you were unable to properly defend yourself.

Stop acting like this was anything other than someone being made to pay for their crime.

 

[Khajit]

Missing the point. The point was that disliking a person is no reason to kill or imprison them for life. The proper sentence for the actual crime committed is STILL lower than the sentence given out.

Take the comic artist who drew a picture of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban.
He pissed off millions of Muslims around the world on purpose and they were at least just as angry as you and others are about the man in the op attacking an old lady. Does that make it justifiable for the Islamic people to do something like oh send the cartoonist to rot in a prison or kill him? He pissed off an exponentially larger amount of people so the scumbag argument being chucked around makes their retribution valid. Why you might even say the death penalty was nothing more than being forced to pay for his crime.

 

[Morcheeba]

I agree with Tom in saying NO ONE knows this pigs true motivations.

Sure you can all say he was an opportunist, but you'd be speculating.

We can say he is a sexist and hates women, we're now speculating.

We can all agree he picked on this women because she's old, we're ALL now speculating.

No one but the pig himself knows the true reason behind picking out this individual for his sick game of speedbag.

Long and short of it is, without fully ever knowing the real reasons, and plainly seeing the true SICKNESS of the individual, why even fucking argue how sever his punishment is??

Honestly people. No lawyer or Judge will even know the real reason, but in true form lawyers will play the system and use red tape where they can to get the criminally sick in the head off with as much as they can to make a nice $$.

He has rights as a human, but I think it's been proven he is as far from human as possible.

And I'll say again;

I guess what is fair is that we all sit back and defend this fuck because there isn't a suitable punishment currently in place so he's been pinned with something a little less suitable (which cannot be proven) so he gets what he deserves.

**bolded meaning no one can prove it isn't a hate crime and fits the crime or not

 

[Tyrath]

If we're all just speculating, then the 75 year sentence sounds even dumber than it does right now. Speculation =/= proof of intent. Speculation is exactly why he shouldn't be receiving such a huge sentence. We don't know for a fact what is wrong with him.

The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. I can't even believe you'd say we cant prove its not hate crime so he should get the sentence. What?

 

[Morcheeba]

If we're all just speculating, then the 75 year sentence sounds even dumber than it does right now. Speculation =/= proof of intent. Speculation is exactly why he shouldn't be receiving such a huge sentence. We don't know for a fact what is wrong with him.

The motivation is speculated. The video proof and eye witness accounts of seeing this man brutally beat the living fuck out of a 100+ yr old woman is not speculation. The punishment fits the crime w/o knowledge of true motivation.

Who gives a shit??

If there was some mental retardation or limitations that caused this behavior it'll be sourced out. Otherwise let him rot for his true evil.

The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. I can't even believe you'd say we cant prove its not hate crime so he should get the sentence. What?

IT can't be proven either way so which punishment is more suitable? Assuming it's not hate and letting him off with a slap on the wrist regardless of the proof available showing the mere danger this man poses on the public? Or assuming it is hate and laying punishment fit for the crime and having him sentenced so that he can never again do this sort of damage or god forbid kill a grandmother?

Fuck it, if we're so bent you decide.

The whole issue is, none of us get to decide, it's the legal system, and it's shown to be unjust and undependable.

 

[Tyrath]

The motivation is speculated. The video proof and eye witness accounts of seeing this man brutally beat the living fuck out of a 100+ yr old woman is not speculation. The punishment fits the crime w/o knowledge of true motivation.

Who gives a shit??

If there was some mental retardation or limitations that caused this behavior it'll be sourced out. Otherwise let him rot for his true evil.

Bullshit. The punishment is BASED on what they are claiming is the true motivation of the crime. If its just speculation then it has no place playing a part in the punishment.

Who gives a shit? People who can look towards the future give a shit. Like BB has been saying, this creates a precedent that anything can be tacked on with a hate crime and exponentially increase a person's sentence, even if its not deserved.

I don't care about this guy. He's going to go to jail and rot there either way.

 

[Morcheeba]

Bullshit. The punishment is BASED on what they are claiming is the true motivation of the crime. If its just speculation then it has no place playing a part in the punishment.

Who gives a shit? People who can look towards the future give a shit. Like BB has been saying, this creates a precedent that anything can be tacked on with a hate crime and exponentially increase a person's sentence, even if its not deserved.

I don't care about this guy. He's going to go to jail and rot there either way.

Then perhaps what needs to happen is they drop the word 'Hate' in the crime itself and hand out the punishment (just as severe) for the blantant actions.

The punishment suits the crime. The punishment suits the crime. The punishement suits the crime.

Honest to god. The CHARGE may not, but the punishment suits the crime lol.

Things need to change in the justice system, MUCH needs to change. I'm not opposed to saying that calling this a Hate crime MAY be inaccurate, but not calling it one can be just as inaccurate.

Do away with 'Hate Crime' altogether and balls up with the sentences period.

Question time- if we're unsure whether this is a hate crime or not.. how does this man get punished?

My opinion is simple, I don't give a shit if he rots. Depending on the actions of an individual who commits a crime this haneous, why do we care so much if they're slapped with a 'Hate Crime' charge if it hands out a suitable punishment? Why are we coming to the resue of criminals who have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

'Oh he does't really HATE women, he just rapes them for fun, so technically it's only fair he should only serve a couple years and get out on good behavior so he can get back to raping them women.'

I'm all for fair treatment. Prove to me you deserve it.

 

[Tyrath]

That I can agree with. :|