First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Man Who Killed Transgender Woman Gets 12 Years in Prison
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 4/10/16
This incident happened when I was in high school.

A guy (who was a star football player in our school) beat this girl up after finding out that she is trans. He was telling the class the story like it was a joke and talking about how he got suspended afterwards. Thankfully the girl was only punched, not killed.
16415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 4/10/16
The reason he has such a small sentence is that it was a crime of passion and that he pled guilty.
runec 
28280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/10/16
How grossly insecure do you have to be with your own sexuality to fly into a "blind rage" and beat someone to death? Transgender people aren't out to "fool" you. You "fooled" yourself you stupid, insecure asshole.

As for the sentence: The pertinent question here is why did the judge offer a plea deal over the objections of the prosecution? The prosecutors wanted at least 17 years. It was the judge that offered 12.



27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/16 , edited 4/10/16

lambofgenesis wrote:

Yeah. This is the same as the guy who punched a retarded kid and the kid died. But the guy got like 6 years in prison.

in law it doesn't matter whether the victim dies. What matters is the intent and actions. He beat up this person (doesnt matter if he's Trans or black or Asian or Hispanic or retarded). Did he beat him excessively to the point that you'd expect fatal injuries or was it just a brutal beating you'd expect to get a few bruises or minor sprains? That's what mattered.

The law is like that so you can't end up in prison for life for accidentally giving someone PBJ and them dying from an allergic reaction when you didn't know they had allergies.

if your intention is to beat someone up and not kill them, you should be culpable for battery and not homicide. But states vary on this in regards to criminal law, with the liberal states being less forgiving. In tort law it's even worse with some allowing lots of fault on the defendant no matter what the circumstances


Pretty much this.

Tort law can be pretty silly since the main focus is to make the damage party whole again. Criminal law is more about punishment and rehabilitation of the offender.

What would matter here is how intensely he beat the victim and what he intended to accomplish by doing that. But it's pretty gray since, for instance, you can't say you intended to simply harm someone by shooting them in the arm but you accidentally aimed a toward the center and hit him in the heart and killed him. You might be able to say you intended to incapacitate a person by punching him in the jaw even though he fell over and hit his head on an object you weren't aware of and died. But if you spent two minutes stomping him while he was on the ground and not fighting back, you might be more likely to be charged with first-degree murder.

A bunch of circumstantial factors also matter. Like the obvious difference in physical power between the two people, whether the attacker was aware of a condition that would make the victim weaker and more likely to die, etc.

There was a case where a guy shot his own terminally ill father in the head and killed him since the father didn't want to suffer anymore and didn't want to die a slow and painful death. He got a life sentence. All he did was go to the hospital and shoot his dad in the head. He dropped the gun and stayed there and did not fight the nurser or officers, waiting there until his arrest, during which he offered no resistance.

And another case where someone was convicted of manslaughter when he struck a pregnant woman in the belly repeatedly and caused the death of the fetus as well as the mother. The two cases were compared to make the focus on intent and action more clear, even though the former was obviously less morally blameworthy than the latter.
runec 
28280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/10/16

Morbidhanson wrote:
You might be able to say you intended to incapacitate a person by punching him in the jaw even though he fell over and hit his head on an object you weren't aware of and died. But if you spent two minutes stomping him while he was on the ground and not fighting back, you might be more likely to be charged with first-degree murder.


From the reports the first punch knocked her unconscious straight out. He then continued to pummel her in the head while she was unconscious on the ground. So yeah, she was incapacitated, unable to defend herself and he continued to beat her. He definitely intended to cause death or serious injury.

27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/16

runec wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:
You might be able to say you intended to incapacitate a person by punching him in the jaw even though he fell over and hit his head on an object you weren't aware of and died. But if you spent two minutes stomping him while he was on the ground and not fighting back, you might be more likely to be charged with first-degree murder.


From the reports the first punch knocked her unconscious straight out. He then continued to pummel her in the head while she was unconscious on the ground. So yeah, she was incapacitated, unable to defend herself and he continued to beat her. He definitely intended to cause death or serious injury.



That seems pretty bad to me. I would probably have accepted the jury's recommendation of 17 years if I was judging that case. I don't entirely buy his loss of control defense, but I'd have to read the opinion to figure out why it was accepted.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/10/16

Morbidhanson wrote:


runec wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:
You might be able to say you intended to incapacitate a person by punching him in the jaw even though he fell over and hit his head on an object you weren't aware of and died. But if you spent two minutes stomping him while he was on the ground and not fighting back, you might be more likely to be charged with first-degree murder.


From the reports the first punch knocked her unconscious straight out. He then continued to pummel her in the head while she was unconscious on the ground. So yeah, she was incapacitated, unable to defend herself and he continued to beat her. He definitely intended to cause death or serious injury.



That seems pretty bad to me. I would probably have accepted the jury's recommendation of 17 years if I was judging that case. I don't entirely buy his loss of control defense, but I'd have to read the opinion to figure out why it was accepted.


Yeah I still hate how judges can just throw out the jury verdict and do a directed verdict. It seems unconstitutional given the purpose of juries. They never really explained in school why / how this works. It feels really arbitrary though. Does it apply to questions of fact too? because then judges would have too much power.

I'm glad you can ask for certiorari and get the jury verdicts reinstated
13579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 4/10/16
What is Trans panic defence?
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/16

lambofgenesis wrote:

Yeah I still hate how judges can just throw out the jury verdict and do a directed verdict. It seems unconstitutional given the purpose of juries. They never really explained in school why / how this works. It feels really arbitrary though. Does it apply to questions of fact too? because then judges would have too much power.

I'm glad you can ask for certiorari and get the jury verdicts reinstated


Too bad certs are so rarely granted. Juries decide questions of fact while judges answer questions of law (interpretation, intent of legislature, etc.). Circuit court judges have a lot of power since they have a lot of discretion. There needs to be some sort of showing that he is abusing his discretion or he is meddling with questions of fact or something.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/10/16 , edited 4/10/16

Morbidhanson wrote:


lambofgenesis wrote:

Yeah I still hate how judges can just throw out the jury verdict and do a directed verdict. It seems unconstitutional given the purpose of juries. They never really explained in school why / how this works. It feels really arbitrary though. Does it apply to questions of fact too? because then judges would have too much power.

I'm glad you can ask for certiorari and get the jury verdicts reinstated


Too bad certs are so rarely granted. Juries decide questions of fact while judges answer questions of law (interpretation, intent of legislature, etc.). Circuit court judges have a lot of power since they have a lot of discretion. There needs to be some sort of showing that he is abusing his discretion or he is meddling with questions of fact or something.


Yeah it's pretty much hard to overturn fact findings of the trial court. So you're pretty much screwed unless you can spin a good alternative argument for applying the law for the appellate court.

but then again trial courts can hold bench hearings where the judge is also the fact finder. So juries aren't required per se to answer questions of fact. They're basically almost a false pretense
14763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/10/16 , edited 4/10/16

runec wrote:

How grossly insecure do you have to be with your own sexuality to fly into a "blind rage" and beat someone to death? Transgender people aren't out to "fool" you.


And if they are, the ones I've seen certainly seem to be doing a piss-poor job of it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.