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

[Khajit]

I used the wrong word, I should have broken it down as I did on my previous post. "Consideration" if you will, that's merely a swapped word where I believe the treatment of both is the same.






1st bolded part; I don't see how being short is a huge disadvantage or
inferior physical attribute. And I also can't see the disadvantage with being colour blind, other than possible mixing his race when describing him later?

(Edit - my bf said 'you don't need to see colours to kick someones ass) Size is never a great judge of strength or capability, that is a lesson worth learning early.

But being an age most do not even survive to, if & when they do they're near crippled. Not all, but a large majority. That is definitely far inferior physically.

2nd bolded part;
Depending on the context of course.

Khajit used it like this;

So he basically said the exact opposite of what you said he said ... or meant >.>



I'm going to agree with you here as I have with others, the Hate Crime thing and the charge itself can make an exit. Honestly.

But the punishment should stay.

Yes and no on that. Attempting to punch a person in the face and attempting to beat the shit out of a guy are two different things so they would deserve 2 different degrees of assault charges. It's harder to prove to which degree of assault would occur but if you can prove the guy wanted to beat the shit out of a guy instead then the attempted assault should carry the same sentence as if they had succeeded.
Eg.
Assault A you try to punch a guy in the face.
Assault B you actually manage to punch a guy in the face
AssauA and B should only differ in that assault B gets some medical expenses tackde on if possible due to the intent being the same
Assault C you try to beat the shit out of a person. It's obvious you were trying to do so by having a crowbar,blade or whatever but the victim defended him or herself enough to prevent injury
Assault D Same thing only you succeed.
C and D should have the same sentence since the same crime was attempted which any difference being due to medical expenses as assault C shouldnt get a lighter sentence for being incompetent at the crime.

A and B are thier own degree of assault.
C and D are in thier own degree as well.
How helpless the victim is doesnt matter on that as the attempted crime is exactly the same.
So swap the analogy around a bit for a different crime.
A rich person is robbed. Is this less of a crime simply because the victim was rich? Conversely if a poor person is robbed while it is considered more reprehensible to society the same crime was committed until we make something percentage based on degrees or robbery.

 

[bigbroon]

Yes and no on that. Attempting to punch a person in the face and attempting to beat the shit out of a guy are two different things so they would deserve 2 different degrees of assault charges. It's harder to prove to which degree of assault would occur but if you can prove the guy wanted to beat the shit out of a guy instead then the attempted assault should carry the same sentence as if they had succeeded.
Eg.
Assault A you try to punch a guy in the face.
Assault B you actually manage to punch a guy in the face
AssauA and B should only differ in that assault B gets some medical expenses tackde on if possible due to the intent being the same
Assault C you try to beat the shit out of a person. It's obvious you were trying to do so by having a crowbar,blade or whatever but the victim defended him or herself enough to prevent injury
Assault D Same thing only you succeed.
C and D should have the same sentence since the same crime was attempted which any difference being due to medical expenses as assault C shouldnt get a lighter sentence for being incompetent at the crime.

A and B are thier own degree of assault.
C and D are in thier own degree as well.
How helpless the victim is doesnt matter on that as the attempted crime is exactly the same.
So swap the analogy around a bit for a different crime.
A rich person is robbed. Is this less of a crime simply because the victim was rich? Conversely if a poor person is robbed while it is considered more reprehensible to society the same crime was committed until we make something percentage based on degrees or robbery.

I can't put it any better than this. Who the "assault" is committed on has nothing to do with the motive (in this case, not all cases) and therefore should have no influence over the charge.

To answer the respect/consideration issue, I accept what you said. The whole "respect your elders" thing has never flown with me, as it never made sense why age (something we have no control over) should determine respect. Consideration? Absolutely (though it has nothing to do with this.)

When I concocted the analogy about the 4 foot man with colourblindness, I was trying to come up with a scenario to compare the two. Height, whether or not I'll be called "heightest" for this, very much comes into it. 4 foot man vs. 6 foot man? Assuming they're both relatively normal (ie. no martial arts experience etc.), most would bank on the 6 foot guy. Not always, but a large percentage of the time. The colour blind thing? I'm colour blind, it's the first deficiency that popped into my head.

My point was that age shouldn't come into it unless age was the reason for the crime. The reason for this crime, as far as we can see, was for money, not hate. Therefore, her age has little to do with it. It makes him even more of a waste of space, and it's a more morally reprehensable offense, but it still shouldn't influence the decision.

To answer your boyfriend, he is indeed correct. I wasn't coming up with a real scenario, just trying to analogise. Call him 3 foot tall and blind. At 3 foot tall, you can't even reach a 6 foot tall guy's face (the area most punches are aimed at), and if you're blind, you can't see what you can't reach. Still, my point remains about it having no impact on the charge.

I think we've reached an agreement of disagreement and understanding, though. In the end, as with most things, it comes down to personal beliefs and opinions. At least we agree that the dude is a waste of oxygen.

 

[Linhjah]

From what i've been gathering the main argument/motivation being tossed around by "your side" for it being "ok" to sentence the man to such a ridiculous sentence has been that it's ok because the victim was old and therefore helpless.
My examples pointed out that the same amount of helplessness happens to several different types of victim regardless of age.

Of course some people are stronger and have more combat experience and pose a greater potential threat to the public at large. But if a 19 year old average female with no combat training and no weapon could stomp a mud hole in the ass of most members of a particular demographic, whether they're under 5 or over 100, that is a little different. If the vast majority of healthy citizens could do intense bodily harm to the group (kids, old people, severely disabled, whatever), I think its completely fair to evaluate those cases by a different standard.

I don't think it is a hate crime by any means, however it is most definitely not the same thing as if he'd robbed and assaulted a 25 year old, either gender.

As for the children part. Well children are alot more likely to be fucked up permanently and for a longer time as a result. Hence the actions against children in addition to our paternal/maternal instincts influencing this have much more severe long term effects and trauma making a harsher sentence more justifiable.

I don't disagree with this.

I put children in a category of their own for several reasons

1) They are our future
2) They have their whole life in front of them
3) It is easier to fuck them up for life

The list can go on, but those are the most important ones.

I'm sorry, but a 101 year-old have lived their life, and they don't have much to contribute to society anymore. It may sound harsh, but I weigh children as being more important both for the future of the world, and being worth more than other people.

Answer honestly; If you had to choose between killing a child or killing an elder, whom would you choose? For me, the option is quite obvious.

Its not a simple matter of who is the most fragile. There's a lot of other factors to take in to consideration.

Also, I don't think attempted manslaughter exists. Wouldn't that basically be the exact same thing as aggravated battery/aggravated assault?

This is a slippery slope. You can't really generalize what the elderly contribute to society because it varies greatly. Sure, most don't contribute in the same way as the younger members of society, however that doesn't mean they don't contribute at all. There are a lot of elderly people who have gained a great deal of wisdom they are only too happy to share with those who will listen. I don't think wisdom is something that should be trivialized.

I can't put it any better than this. Who the "assault" is committed on has nothing to do with the motive (in this case, not all cases) and therefore should have no influence over the charge.

...

My point was that age shouldn't come into it unless age was the reason for the crime. The reason for this crime, as far as we can see, was for money, not hate. Therefore, her age has little to do with it. It makes him even more of a waste of space, and it's a more morally reprehensable offense, but it still shouldn't influence the decision.

It has everything to do with the motive in this case. If you think a woman that old is going to be carrying much cash on her, you're fucking kidding yourself. Most old women don't have much cash, period. She probably gets her monthly social security check and that barely covers her living expenses. The elderly are not known for having a significant amount of disposable income.

The reason he selected the old ladies because they were defenseless; the one on video was using a walker ffs. If the "who" had nothing to do with it, I think its unlikely that all three of his victims would have been females that qualify for a senior citizens discount at most places.

 

[Morcheeba]

I can't put it any better than this. Who the "assault" is committed on has nothing to do with the motive (in this case, not all cases) and therefore should have no influence over the charge.

I beg to differ.

To answer the respect/consideration issue, I accept what you said. The whole "respect your elders" thing has never flown with me, as it never made sense why age (something we have no control over) should determine respect. Consideration? Absolutely (though it has nothing to do with this.).

E- and this is for everyone, respect for their AGE not the person.

Why doesn't it? Most Judges will consider ALL factors in a case along with the evidence before making their Judgement. Considering the age of the victim when in a case like this would be a benefit. Assuming there is consideration for stiffer punishments of attacking elders past the age of 85 would possibly help further detour sickos from committing acts like this. For the sickos that don't stop and think twice because when it comes down to it they have NO respect for human life, then fuck them! Who really gives a flying fuck if they spend the rest of their god given years behind bars. That's too bad soo sad scumbag. Really we're going to feel sorry because they're punishment is too stiff? Well guys... shows such little care for the victims and more consideration for the guilty.

When I concocted the analogy about the 4 foot man with colourblindness, I was trying to come up with a scenario to compare the two. Height, whether or not I'll be called "heightest" for this, very much comes into it. 4 foot man vs. 6 foot man? Assuming they're both relatively normal (ie. no martial arts experience etc.), most would bank on the 6 foot guy. Not always, but a large percentage of the time. The colour blind thing? I'm colour blind, it's the first deficiency that popped into my head.

Oh you are so far off on this though. Size really has little to do with it. That's all I'm going to say because I know MOST people will assume the bigger man will always win, but that is so far from the truth. We're not talking about Brock Lesnar here. An average size man (5'10 - 6'1) would not necessarily win over a 4 - 5 ft tall man. Not if they saw him coming, not if they were quick enough on their feet to out wit the attacker. Not if they were a born fighter. No one can assume the bigger guy will always win or always has the advantage because believing so is being naive. That's my opinion.

And being colour blind, well okay you just threw that out there. I still don't see the advantage in the situation.

My point was that age shouldn't come into it unless age was the reason for the crime. The reason for this crime, as far as we can see, was for money, not hate.

If it was just money, why not take the money and run? There was hate, or a need to bash the crap out of something/one living? Who knows, but all and all based on the details, feeble at her age, easily robbed. He could have just taken her money and ran, but instead he decided to stick around and make her pay some horrible price for god only knows what reason. So 75 years, awww muffin is the justice system picking on you.

Sympathy is in the dictionary, between shit and syphilis.

I think we've reached an agreement of disagreement and understanding, though. In the end, as with most things, it comes down to personal beliefs and opinions. At least we agree that the dude is a waste of oxygen.

Fair enough. I still can't understand why anyone would feel sorry for the number of years scum like this are going to spend behind bars.

I can understand the financial drain they have on us all. But I'm confident in one thing. People, rather, pieces of shit like this are not getting 'better', soon after they serve their time, they'll be back in our systems doing the whole thing over again. Only maybe next time they will have beaten someone to death.

But then of course THAT'S worth life.. or.. 15 years maybe.

 

[Uzor]

This isn't true. An easy example would be my Grandmother. She's due to have a hip replacement on Wednesday. She's old. 80. She doesn't have a great deal of time left. She's getting a hip replacement that could potentially last her 2 days. Why? It's one of a couple of reasons:

1) You don't pay for your specific healthcare in this country. This I don't buy, because where the money comes from is irrelevant. A hip replacement costs money, and denying her the hip replacement would save them money.

2) She's a citizen of this country, and has just as much a right to healthcare as everyone else.

Number 2 is certainly more likely for me. I think saying "most people get treated like shit in hospitals" falls under the ever-expanding category of *massive ignorant generalisations*. Do you read the paper, see some old guy who got left in a corridor for 12 hours while they waited for a bed and think "oh snap, old people get treated like shit?" If not, I'd love to know where this comes from. Are you a hospital inspector? I have, or had, 4 grandparents like most other people, and none of them have had anything but pleasant, efficient experiences in hospital.

Quite what this has to do with the issue at hand isn't obvious to me, though. All Khajit said was that you *deserve the same treatment* for your specific illness, regardless of age, and this principle should be carried over.

Perhaps its better in Scotland, but I'm speaking from personal experience.

My grandma on my mother's side died of cancer a few years ago. Her treatment was extremely shitty, and they refused to check her for cancer at first, even though she's had breast cancer twice before then. And it wasn't only 1 doctor, we went to five different doctors, all of whom refused to check her for cancer. After we threatened to sue the hospitals and make a public article in a local newspaper about it, they finally agreed to check for cancer. At this point, however, it had spread to her brain, liver, kidneys and spine, so it was too late to do anything about it. Even then, they gave her shitty treatment, and we didn't even get as much as a "I'm sorry". She was 65 at this point, btw, so she could easily have lived a lot more years, as she didn't even have a single grey hair or wrinkle up until the time the cancer had gone too far.

My grandma on my father's side died from cancer as well earlier this year. She was 82. And again, they refused to even check for cancer until we forced them to, and again, at this point it was too late to do anything for it.

One of my father's friend's wives also got cancer a few years ago. They refused to check for cancer, until they got forced and threatened. They managed to save her, though, but if she had gone any longer, the cancer would be too far gone to do anything about it.

Perhaps Sweden just have the world's worst elder care in the world, but I am utterly disgusted by the way elders are treated in healthcare in this country. Its beyond criminal, since they're pretty much left out to die. They already get taxed the most from their minimal ammount of money they get each month from pensions, and now the state want to raise it even more. Why 65+ people have higher taxes than us in the first place I don't know, but as if that wasn't enough, they pretty much get left to die once they catch a disease.

Because of the shitty elder care we have in Sweden, I've lost three grandparents because they refused to treat them. My last one sits locked up in his appartment all the time due to him being afraid to catch any diseases as he's likely to be ignored by the hospitals.

Ironically, though, elders are first in line to get vaccinations agaisnt the flu. Whoop-de-doo, apparently flu vaccination is all the elderly needs.

Perhaps this is more of a rant, but anyway.

 

[bigbroon]

I beg to differ.



E- and this is for everyone, respect for their AGE not the person.

Why doesn't it? Most Judges will consider ALL factors in a case along with the evidence before making their Judgement. Considering the age of the victim when in a case like this would be a benefit. Assuming there is consideration for stiffer punishments of attacking elders past the age of 85 would possibly help further detour sickos from committing acts like this. For the sickos that don't stop and think twice because when it comes down to it they have NO respect for human life, then fuck them! Who really gives a flying fuck if they spend the rest of their god given years behind bars. That's too bad soo sad scumbag. Really we're going to feel sorry because they're punishment is too stiff? Well guys... shows such little care for the victims and more consideration for the guilty.



Oh you are so far off on this though. Size really has little to do with it. That's all I'm going to say because I know MOST people will assume the bigger man will always win, but that is so far from the truth. We're not talking about Brock Lesnar here. An average size man (5'10 - 6'1) would not necessarily win over a 4 - 5 ft tall man. Not if they saw him coming, not if they were quick enough on their feet to out wit the attacker. Not if they were a born fighter. No one can assume the bigger guy will always win or always has the advantage because believing so is being naive. That's my opinion.

And being colour blind, well okay you just threw that out there. I still don't see the advantage in the situation.



If it was just money, why not take the money and run? There was hate, or a need to bash the crap out of something/one living? Who knows, but all and all based on the details, feeble at her age, easily robbed. He could have just taken her money and ran, but instead he decided to stick around and make her pay some horrible price for god only knows what reason. So 75 years, awww muffin is the justice system picking on you.

Sympathy is in the dictionary, between shit and syphilis.




Fair enough. I still can't understand why anyone would feel sorry for the number of years scum like this are going to spend behind bars.

I can understand the financial drain they have on us all. But I'm confident in one thing. People, rather, pieces of shit like this are not getting 'better', soon after they serve their time, they'll be back in our systems doing the whole thing over again. Only maybe next time they will have beaten someone to death.

But then of course THAT'S worth life.. or.. 15 years maybe.

I'm going to respond to the bolded mainly, as it's the most relevant to the topic. If it was just money, it would be robbery. If it was just him beating her up, it would be assault. It was both, so it's assault and robbery. Where's the hate? If it's hate because she (the victim) is not in the the category of "Black, male, 5'10, 150-200 lbs and a model member of society, then most crimes are hate crimes.

It's a difference of opinion, and you're just going to have to accept it. You think because she's a poor defenseless lady that he deserves 75 years in prison, and there's nothing wrong with the precedent this sets. I think you're being emotionally naive, and looking at the seriously small picture. I want people jailed for the right amount of time for the right crime. This bit doesn't seem to bother you - what the actual charge is - but it's of fundamental importance for justice to be done, which is the whole point of the court of law.

Oh, and the bit rougly 3 people quoted about how the motive has nothing to do with who the crime was committed on? I clearly said in brackets that I was talking about this case alone. I don't see how you can prove that he attacked her because she's old, when he stole from her. The value of the items he stole is irrelevant, as far as can be proven, he attacked her to rob her, and assaulted her along the way. I don't believe this can be labelled as a hate crime and thus demand a 75-year sentence, and I don't see my opinion changing on it purely because you say "he's a piece of shit". All I can say is that I'm glad some of you people have no influence over the justice system.

 

[Morcheeba]

I'm going to respond to the bolded mainly, as it's the most relevant to the topic. If it was just money, it would be robbery. If it was just him beating her up, it would be assault. It was both, so it's assault and robbery. Where's the hate? If it's hate because she (the victim) is not in the the category of "Black, male, 5'10, 150-200 lbs and a model member of society, then most crimes are hate crimes.

It's a difference of opinion, and you're just going to have to accept it. You think because she's a poor defenseless lady that he deserves 75 years in prison, and there's nothing wrong with the precedent this sets. I think you're being emotionally naive, and looking at the seriously small picture. I want people jailed for the right amount of time for the right crime. This bit doesn't seem to bother you - what the actual charge is - but it's of fundamental importance for justice to be done, which is the whole point of the court of law.

1st bolded, THAT'S what I've been saying! No one can prove one way or the other in any case unless the accused admits to it one way or the other. That's that.

2nd bolded, I am not being naive. I fully understand the snowball effect cases like these can create. I KNOW that many in this thread are arguing that the charge of Hate Crime is bogus and unfounded. Here's the thing, the charge exists. The charge leaves way too much room for error and possible 'innocent' to slip through the cracks. Here's another thing, he was found guilty of these charges, there was evidence shown to a group of his peers and the Judge overseeing the case, they all came to the conclusion the man must face a penalty for his actions. The Judge decided based on the sentences provided by the charges he's been found guilty of to throw him in a cold cell to rot.

No I am not bothered by this =)

I do not have all the faith in the world in our Justice System; however that being said, I DO have faith that many Judges out there are capable, competent and reliable enough to make a GOOD Judgement in such cases when the variables differ so dramatically.


It cannot be proven it isn't a hate crime, can't prove that it is. SO seeing as the charge of Hate Crime is not likely to disappear tomorrow because it's been found to harbour too gray a line for proper execution perhaps the officers, Judge & prosecutors involved all felt this charge carrying with it as hefty a sentence as it does IS fitting of the crime.

Why do I feel like I'm going in circles >.>