Pitchfork and torches anyone? [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:04 PM

Angry mob beats rape suspect (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/us_child_raped;_ylt=An7o5acFwKT6tnqmTbrSP9VvzwcF;_ ylu=X3oDMTJmMTZ2NHFoBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjA0L3VzX2 NoaWxkX3JhcGVkBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0 b3J5BHNsawNuZWlnaGJvcnN3aG8-)

Neighbors who beat man over rape won't be charged

PHILADELPHIA – The police commissioner said Thursday he will not pursue criminal charges against a group of angry neighbors who beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl.

Commissioner Charles Ramsey said he made the decision based on the fact that the man's head and face injuries were not life-threatening, his determination that the neighbors' intent was to bring the man to police and the high level of emotion in the community after the girl's brutal attack.

About a dozen residents of the city's West Kensington neighborhood pummeled 26-year-old Jose Carrasquillo for several minutes on Tuesday. Officers arrived and took him into custody on an outstanding warrant; Carrasquillo was released from the hospital Thursday and is in police custody, but has not been charged in the rape, police said.

"From what I've seen so far, we have one victim and that's an 11-year-old girl," Ramsey said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Before making his decision, Ramsey said, he monitored Carrasquillo's condition and reviewed surveillance video of the assault. As soon as officers arrived at the scene, he said, the group stopped the beating.

"These people saw him, he attempted to run and they caught up with him," Ramsey said. "If the injuries had been severe, maybe we'd have to rethink it."

The Philadelphia chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police had offered a reward in the rape case. FOP president John McNesby said two people who helped apprehend Carrasquillo will split the $11,500 reward. While saying he doesn't condone violence, McNesby said they should be commended.

Ramsey said investigators have very strong forensic evidence and witness identification placing Carrasquillo at the scene of the rape. He is also under investigation in connection with two other sexual assaults, Ramsey said.

"I think you have to take into account the emotion. I think you have to take into account the severity of the injuries," Ramsey said, adding that he does not condone vigilante justice. "It's unfortunate that we didn't find him first."

But an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said she thought the commissioner's decision not to file charges against the neighbors sent the wrong message to the community.

"It's shocking that the police are not going to do anything in response to what is essentially mob violence against this guy," said ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper. "This went beyond apprehending the guy."

The girl had just dropped off a sibling at day care and was walking to school Monday when a man approached her, investigators said. He started to walk with her, threatened her and said he had a gun. He took her to a nearby backyard and raped her repeatedly, authorities said.

A day later, after police had handed out photos identifying Carrasquillo as a "person of interest," neighbors spotted him on the street.

Surveillance video shows a man being chased by at least three people, one of whom hits him several times with what appears to be a bat or large stick. As they chase the man, a crowd gathers. The video cuts off after a police officer arrives.

Ramsey said he had to walk a fine line in deciding whether to charge the man's attackers.

"There is something called a citizen's arrest," Ramsey said. "These are people that aren't trained. They are holding people for police to arrive."

Yay for mob violence. Just wish I could find the video.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:09 PM

Wow, what bullshit. I dunno what's worse, mob mentality, or that how far that commissioner has his head up his own ass.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:15 PM

I'd have been part of the mob.

CrystalTears

06-06-2009, 07:17 PM

I'd have been part of the mob.

Over a suspect?

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:18 PM

Yes.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:21 PM

A little premature, I think. Maybe if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But to run after some guy and beat him with bats, and to have 12 people pummel him until cops arrive, just because they knew he was a person of interest is fucking ridiculous.

CrystalTears

06-06-2009, 07:22 PM

thefarmer

06-06-2009, 07:23 PM

If you're accused of rape, 99.9% of the time people think you're guilty.

It's one of those crimes where 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't matter to the general public.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:25 PM

If you're accused of rape, 99.9% of the time people think you're guilty.

It's one of those crimes where 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't matter to the general public.

And? Doesn't give people the right to do what they did. And it most certainly doesn't give that douchebag cop the right to make excuses for them rather than doing his job.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:26 PM

I'd not waste a single second boohooing for the guy:

Ramsey said investigators have very strong forensic evidence and witness identification placing Carrasquillo at the scene of the rape. He is also under investigation in connection with two other sexual assaults, Ramsey said

CrystalTears

06-06-2009, 07:28 PM

Well then if he's guilty, have him arrested. I don't see the point of leaving him out and letting people kick his ass and not doing anything about it.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:29 PM

Who's boohooing for the guy? I'm boohooing for society. This mob didn't know what evidence the cops had - they only knew he was a person of interest. If the cops let people do this with every person of interest out there, how long will it take until they do it to someone innocent? And what will happen then? Nothing.

thefarmer

06-06-2009, 07:30 PM

And? Doesn't give people the right to do what they did. And it most certainly doesn't give that douchebag cop the right to make excuses for them rather than doing his job.

I wasn't excusing the mob, I was only pointing out why I think they would have done it in this case, versus say someone who was being investigated for another crime.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:31 PM

Well then if he's guilty, have him arrested. I don't see the point of leaving him out and letting people kick his ass and not doing anything about it.

The mob disbanded as soon as the police arrived to take him into custody.

Who's boohooing for the guy? I'm boohooing for society. This mob didn't know what evidence the cops had - they only knew he was a person of interest. If the cops let people do this with every person of interest out there, how long will it take until they do it to someone innocent? And what will happen then? Nothing.

Got a rash of rapes and subsequent mobs in your neighborhood?

MrTastyHead

06-06-2009, 07:32 PM

Got a rash of rapes and subsequent mobs in your neighborhood?

People didn't know they could get away with it before.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:33 PM

People didn't know they could get away with it before.

Oh noes, civilization will now fall. Need to work on my bunker I guess.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:34 PM

Got a rash of rapes and subsequent mobs in your neighborhood?

No, thankfully. Although I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's not hard to imagine that once negative behavior is praised and reinforced as something that's okay to do, it will be done with more frequency... and that's exactly what these cops are doing. Some kid get raped in your neighborhood? Think this person might have done it or had something to do with it? Don't call the police to alert them to his location - chase him down and beat him with a bat! Don't worry, everyone thinks he's guilty anyway. And the cops won't do shit. Have fun.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:35 PM

Yes, the sky will fall. Heard you the first time.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:37 PM

Heard you the first time.

Sure you did.

Liberi Fatali

06-06-2009, 07:37 PM

And? Doesn't give people the right to do what they did. And it most certainly doesn't give that douchebag cop the right to make excuses for them rather than doing his job.

WHAT THE FUCK.

I hope you and Crystaltears have 11-year-old daughters that get raped. Then you'll see how the mob felt.

I don't think they would have ganged up on someone unless they were more than 99% sure he did it.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:37 PM

Said I heard you, not that I agreed.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:38 PM

Said I heard you, not that I agreed.

Considering no one said the sky would fall or that civilization would fall, I don't think you did.

diethx

06-06-2009, 07:39 PM

WHAT THE FUCK.

I hope you and Crystaltears have 11-year-old daughters that get raped. Then you'll see how the mob felt.

I don't think they would have ganged up on someone unless they were more than 99% sure he did it.

lol, funniest cause it's so dumb post of the week.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:41 PM

Considering no one said the sky would fall or that civilization would fall, I don't think you did.

I guess the tears over society that you mentioned earlier were tears of joy?

Liberi Fatali

06-06-2009, 07:42 PM

lol, funniest cause it's so dumb post of the week.

Stef, don't make me post the fucking PIMP COAT STEF picture. I WILL.

In all seriousness, though, you can't say you would not condone this mob attack unless you were actually there, in the community. DO YOU KNOW WHAT RAPE DOES TO SOMEONE, LET ALONE AN 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL?

If some nig-nog or spic raped someone I knew, I would be furious.

I suppose, however, that if they get convicted and jailed they would be in enough hurt anyway. Those people get FUCKED up in prison themselves. I saw documentaries where some of them don't even come out of their cell and STILL get murdered.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:43 PM

Stef, don't make me post the fucking PIMP COAT STEF picture. I WILL.

In all seriousness, though, you can't say you would not condone this mob attack unless you were actually there, in the community. DO YOU KNOW WHAT RAPE DOES TO SOMEONE, LET ALONE AN 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL?

If some nig-nog or spic raped someone I knew, I would be furious.

I suppose, however, that if they get convicted and jailed they would be in enough hurt anyway. Those people get FUCKED up in prison themselves. I saw documentaries where some of them don't even come out of their cell and STILL get murdered.

And people still doubt you are Clyde...

Methais

06-06-2009, 07:56 PM

Yes.

How would you feel if the guy was found not guilty after?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/ObamaHillary-RAPED-1.jpg

Tisket

06-06-2009, 07:59 PM

How would you feel if the guy was found not guilty after?

Not even a little bit bad. I'm evil that way.

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:24 PM

Not even a little bit bad. I'm evil that way.

I :heart: you regardless.

Let's make babies.

Proxy

06-06-2009, 08:25 PM

wow, I come back from a three week sail and the boards are teaming with winners like this. neat & props to the mob

Kuyuk

06-06-2009, 08:28 PM

<<If some nig-nog or spic raped someone I knew, I would be furious.>>

Holy racist batman.

What if it was a fine upstanding white man? Would just say OK?

Douchenozzle.

Liberi Fatali

06-06-2009, 08:34 PM

<<If some nig-nog or spic raped someone I knew, I would be furious.>>

Holy racist batman.

What if it was a fine upstanding white man? Would just say OK?

Douchenozzle.

It wasn't some "find upstanding white man", was it now? It was a SPICulated lesion on society that deserved to get the crap beat out of him.

Even if it WAS some "upstanding white man", I would STILL liked to have seen him get beat down and sent to prison.

There are plenty of wiggers out there that I deem equally as disgusting as many black and Spanish/Mexican folks.

ElvenFury

06-06-2009, 08:34 PM

I turn and run whenever mobs come for me as well. Pitchforks fucking HURT.

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:36 PM

Lol @ nig-nog. Never heard that one before.

Is that a Christmas thing?

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:37 PM

This is how you handle mobs btw:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/MassiveAoE.jpg

Liberi Fatali

06-06-2009, 08:39 PM

Lol @ nig-nog. Never heard that one before.

Is that a Christmas thing?

That's what my mum used to call black people -- well, she called them nogs. She called little black kids "nig-nogs". So, technically, a nig-nog is actually a black child.

Wiggers, conversely, are called wig-wogs (see also: Sean the actor and star of Gemstone).

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:41 PM

Speaking of wiggers....is it just me or do the most wiggerish wiggers all have massive frog eyes?

Like this fag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzwibcbV4A

thefarmer

06-06-2009, 08:43 PM

It wasn't some "find upstanding white man", was it now? It was a SPICulated lesion on society that deserved to get the crap beat out of him.

Even if it WAS some "upstanding white man", I would STILL liked to have seen him get beat down and sent to prison.

There are plenty of wiggers out there that I deem equally as disgusting as many black and Spanish/Mexican folks.

I know plenty of "upstanding white men" that are disgusting...

ElvenFury

06-06-2009, 08:44 PM

That's almost as bad as my dad's "Mo'Nig" expression (I don't think he invented it, but he's the only person I've ever heard use it).

Kuyuk

06-06-2009, 08:45 PM

nignog is also from clerks 2 if you havent seen it.

K.

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:45 PM

I know plenty of "upstanding white men" that are disgusting...

He's not very upstanding then is he?

up⋅stand⋅ing
/ʌpˈstændɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhp-stan-ding] Show IPA
–adjective
1. upright; honorable; straightforward.
2. of a fine, vigorous type.
3. erect; erect and tall.

Actually I guess it could apply to #3, with rape anyway. BOIOIOIOIOIOIOIONNNNNG!!!!!!1

Tisket

06-06-2009, 08:46 PM

I sure am glad that Kuyuk signs his posts. I'd be in danger of forgetting his handle starts with a "K" otherwise.

NocturnalRob

06-06-2009, 08:46 PM

That's what my mum used to call black people -- well, she called them nogs. She called little black kids "nig-nogs". So, technically, a nig-nog is actually a black child.

Wiggers, conversely, are called wig-wogs (see also: Sean the actor and star of Gemstone).
it makes me sad that people like you (and your mother) are allowed to breed. keep fighting the good fight, my man!

NocturnalRob

06-06-2009, 08:49 PM

The mob disbanded as soon as the police arrived to take him into custody.
because they knew what they were doing was wrong and were afraid of punitive recourse on their own party...

the mob mentality breaks apart pretty quickly when confronted by actual authority. what they were doing--within the confines of the US justice system and the socially accepted norm--is wrong. there's a reason vigilante justice isn't tolerated.

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:49 PM

it makes me sad that people like you (and your mother) are allowed to breed. keep fighting the good fight, my man!

http://www.alphahousemusic.com/music/NIGER-PLEASE.jpg

NocturnalRob

06-06-2009, 08:50 PM

of course, if and when this guy is convicted, he should get butt-raped repeatedly by some large, angry men. that's just my opinion.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 08:54 PM

I've always wanted to be part of an angry mob. I've joined mobs on internet forums to gang up on some poor slob who posts stupid shit but I doubt it would be as much fun as actually chasing someone down a street while waving a torch.

Liberi Fatali

06-06-2009, 08:55 PM

it makes me sad that people like you (and your mother) are allowed to breed. keep fighting the good fight, my man!

Don't be fucking obtuse, seriously.

By your most keen statement above, you should also be disgusted at half of the United States (if not more). In fact, I bet your parents were racist when they were growing up. If not them, then your grandparents.

What about back when slavery was acceptable and the social norm? Everyone regarded nogs, EVEN the ones that acted appropriate, in derogatory terms.

I'm not racist by any means. I just do not particularly like the way a majority of black people act. It's not just black people, mind. I hate it the way some white people act -- for instance, teenagers that beat up old people (for robbery, perhaps). It's just that black people tend to act out a lot more (or get recognized more for it).

And to be relevant, if a black person raped you or your family members, you would HATE them as well. You would despise ALL black people; I guarantee it.

Ergo, don't throw your judgmental bullshit towards me unless you know me. Who's to say I didn't have a son, daughter or dog raped by a negro? Maybe even killed by one?

I would hate white people, even the most "upstanding" sort, if such a scenario described above happened to me as well.

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:55 PM

Tisket

06-06-2009, 08:56 PM

I think the more I learn about you the more I love you.
/stalker

BYOB!

Methais

06-06-2009, 08:59 PM

Bring my own boobs?

Kuyuk

06-06-2009, 08:59 PM

Bring your own boner?

Tisket

06-06-2009, 09:00 PM

Bring my own boobs?

lol the jokes that came and went through my mind left me a little dizzy just now. What a rush.

NocturnalRob

06-06-2009, 09:00 PM

I would hate white people, even the most "upstanding" sort, if such a scenario described above happened to me as well.
you would hate an entire race of people if someone from that race killed/raped someone in your family?

you are a fucking moron.

Maybe even killed by one?
i can only hope. one less child raised by a racist idiot. that poor dog though.

get your head out of your ass.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 09:01 PM

Man, I think I start threads only because I enjoy watching them veer off course.

ElvenFury

06-06-2009, 09:02 PM

Tisket's Threads:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/M-V_with_ASTRO-E_veering_off_course.jpeg

Methais

06-06-2009, 09:03 PM

Bring your own boner?

Well I'd hope she's not bringing her own boner. That'd just be uh....ughhh..uhhhhhh...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_TVVDdbRQQfg/SCxojrN7wpI/AAAAAAAABLc/O_T3U9ZmJ6M/1196537975760.jpg

EDIT: O YOU MEAN BABIES! THAT'S OK I DON'T WANNA MAKE BABIES, I JUST WANNA PRACTICE MAKING THEM!!!!!2

thefarmer

06-06-2009, 09:03 PM

Well I'd hope she's not bringing her own boner. That'd just be uh....ughhh..uhhhhhh...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_TVVDdbRQQfg/SCxojrN7wpI/AAAAAAAABLc/O_T3U9ZmJ6M/1196537975760.jpg

Ultimate trap?

NocturnalRob

06-06-2009, 09:03 PM

Man, I think I start threads only because I enjoy watching them veer off course.
i think i only enjoy your posts as a result of your avatar.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 09:10 PM

i think i only enjoy your posts as a result of your avatar.

Burrrrn, it burrrrrrrrnnns.

NocturnalRob

06-06-2009, 09:10 PM

yes...keep responding...almost there...

Methais

06-06-2009, 09:13 PM

yes...keep responding...almost there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLuq0lW50k

Tisket

06-06-2009, 09:14 PM

Was going to leave a rep comment guaranteed to give you a happy ending but I can't for 24 hours. Sorry dude.

radamanthys

06-06-2009, 09:17 PM

Heh, as much fun as it would be to go all 'medieval witch hunt' on someone, it's wholeheartedly against the rules. The rules of a civilized society, that is.

We have courts (and a constitution, for that matter) for a reason. Hell, we have people trained and employed by the government to mete out justice as fairly as possible. Might as well utilize that system rather than, say, pitchfork justice.

It doesn't matter if they killed my parents, raped my daughter, and stole all my brother's money. They are to be afforded due process, regardless of my emotional reaction to their crime. Unless, of course, I want to get revenge- but then I should then be at the mercy of the courts, as well.

That's the fun thing about this country- everyone is (should be) afforded the same rights, no matter who or what they are. Be they rapist, preacher or hell, even both.

Regardless of the predilection towards violent crime, you can't classify and condemn an entire group of people for the crimes of one man. It's like hating all Germans today, just because of Hitler. Or cannibalistic pedophiles just cuz of Jeffrey Dahmer.

(Sorry for being so on-topic, thread derailed as I was writin')

Methais

06-06-2009, 09:28 PM

diethx

06-06-2009, 09:43 PM

I guess the tears over society that you mentioned earlier were tears of joy?

There's a big difference between tears of joy and wailing that the world is going to end.

Because the majority of society today will still see such actions as wrong, I have no worries that civilization or the sky will fall. But that doesn't mean incidents like this won't become more prevalent, because there are people out there who share your feelings and are going to be more willing to act on them once they see others do it with no consequence. There's no fucking room in our society for idiot vigilante justice. That cop even made it clear in the last sentence of the article - these are people that aren't trained to handle situations like this, and who's to say next time they won't get so out of hand that they end up killing the suspect? And what if that suspect turned out to be innocent?

In all seriousness, though, you can't say you would not condone this mob attack unless you were actually there, in the community. DO YOU KNOW WHAT RAPE DOES TO SOMEONE, LET ALONE AN 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL?

Yes I can. And yes I do.

If some nig-nog or spic raped someone I knew, I would be furious.

/facepalm

Back

06-06-2009, 10:19 PM

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v142097938YzdAx6a

Are you one of the monsters?

Ker_Thwap

06-06-2009, 10:51 PM

The guy lived. They must have been doing it wrong.

droit

06-06-2009, 11:06 PM

I hope the guy is innocent and you people saying it was okay for the mob to beat him wake the fuck up.

Tisket

06-06-2009, 11:36 PM

There's a big difference between tears of joy and wailing that the world is going to end.

Because the majority of society today will still see such actions as wrong, I have no worries that civilization or the sky will fall. But that doesn't mean incidents like this won't become more prevalent, because there are people out there who share your feelings and are going to be more willing to act on them once they see others do it with no consequence. There's no fucking room in our society for idiot vigilante justice. That cop even made it clear in the last sentence of the article - these are people that aren't trained to handle situations like this, and who's to say next time they won't get so out of hand that they end up killing the suspect? And what if that suspect turned out to be innocent?

I enjoy baiting you. You are so predictable. In a slack jawed kind of way.

thefarmer

06-06-2009, 11:42 PM

I enjoy baiting you.

Bait Diethx with a tub of jello. And bikinis. And a webcam.

Jayvn

06-06-2009, 11:52 PM

Not even a little bit bad. I'm evil that way.

Apparently I can't give you rep again yet ... SADFAYS... however I would gladly join you in the mob to beat the shit out of someone who may possibly deserve it.

I'm gonna fight methais for you now....

paper rock scissors?

diethx

06-06-2009, 11:59 PM

I enjoy baiting you. You are so predictable. In a slack jawed kind of way.

lol, how are you baiting me? Did I come off as angry or something in my posts? I'd figure if anything it should have been the opposite. Shit, I barely even cursed! But hey, if disagreeing with mob mentality makes me predictable, then predictable i'm happy to be, slack-jaw and all.

You have fun dragging your knuckles on the ground though as you run after the next criminal who has the bad enough luck to be a person of interest!

Tisket

06-07-2009, 12:09 AM

You have fun dragging your knuckles on the ground

I do have abnormally long arms. I can almost touch my toes with my elbows. Why do you hate people with long arms?!

diethx

06-07-2009, 12:09 AM

BECUZ UR A FREAK OKAYY!!!!!!!111

thefarmer

06-07-2009, 12:26 AM

http://image.orientaltrading.com/otcimg/32_586.jpg

CrystalTears

06-07-2009, 06:47 AM

I'm not racist by any means. I just do not particularly like the way a majority of black people act...It's just that black people tend to act out a lot more (or get recognized more for it).
You're a fuckhead too. Get in line with Yollia for your dumbasshat award.

ElanthianSiren

06-07-2009, 09:52 AM

Sorry if somebody already mentioned this, but it's Kensington; cops are probably happy that:
1. they could get in.
2. the dude wasn't beaten to death.
3. nobody shot at them.

There's a likely reason the police don't want to go back and conduct a house by house "excuse me, were you involved in or do you know anyone involved in a mob beating last week." Same reason they probably wouldn't do it in part of oak lane or other parts of north philly.

Asha

06-07-2009, 09:58 AM

See the difference between the people who'd beat the living shit out of someone who was a suspect and people who wouldn't is those who've seen The Green Mile.
I'd feel like a right cock end if I'd smacked John Coffee about only to find that he could literally cure cancer and was actually a pretty fair guy.

Gan

06-07-2009, 10:52 AM

of course, if and when this guy is convicted, he should get butt-raped repeatedly by some large, angry men. that's just my opinion.

The probability is high that this will happen if he's convicted and sentenced to state jail time, providing the mob didnt incapacitate him to the point of being assigned to a medical prison unit (wheelchair bound).

Mighty Nikkisaurus

06-07-2009, 11:02 AM

The probability is high that this will happen if he's convicted and sentenced to state jail time, providing the mob didnt incapacitate him to the point of being assigned to a medical prison unit (wheelchair bound).

Ha, I was thinking this.

Rapists and Child Molesters don't do too well in prison.

4a6c1

06-07-2009, 12:20 PM

Awesome. I HART mobviolence. It makes me feel cavelady in the best kind of way. What better to keep people from being stupid than knowing the whole town is going to baseball-bat your face.

radamanthys

06-07-2009, 01:21 PM

Awesome. I HART mobviolence. It makes me feel cavelady in the best kind of way. What better to keep people from being stupid than knowing the whole town is going to baseball-bat your face.

Ideally, if the legal system worked 100% correctly, this would be unnecessary. But it makes sense; I'm inclined to agree, to a certain extent. I may be libertarian, but I'm no anarchist.

But, as they say, an armed society is a peaceful society.

Gan

06-07-2009, 11:10 PM

Ha, I was thinking this.

Rapists and Child Molesters don't do too well in prison.

Crimes against women arent that big of a deal in prison, considering the mindset of your average male criminal (bitches and ho's, yo).

However, child molesters are a different animal and if classification sets them in GP in a medium/maximum security unit - then word gets out and they get punked pretty quick, sent to the infirmary, or stuck in ad-seg. I'm just glad its not a general rule in Texas to stick all convicted pedofiles in protective custody. They deserve the treatment they get from their incarcerated peers.

Stanley Burrell

06-07-2009, 11:24 PM

I'd feel like a right cock end

I'm just quoting this because it is awesome.

Bye.

Fallen

06-08-2009, 12:26 AM

Sounds like the fuck had a few bumps and bruises. Boo frickedy hoo.

MrTastyHead

06-08-2009, 09:56 AM

Suspected fuck.

Lumi

06-08-2009, 04:01 PM

I love how quickly "innocent until proven guilty" falls apart around here.

Back

06-08-2009, 04:55 PM

That old paradigm went out the window with the Bush administration.

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 05:08 PM

It's really not quite so cut and dried.

There's a generally accepted principle that vigilante justice thrives when the populace doesn't trust the authorities to bring perpetrators to justice.

Now you have to consider why the justice system isn't trusted and ask who caused this lack of trust. Liberal laws that let criminals free on technicalities. Liberal laws that prevent the death penalty in certain states. Liberal protesters who disparage law enforcement and authority in general and make it difficult for them to do their jobs.

I'm really not bashing liberals in general, just pointing out that when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it has unintended consequences.

thefarmer

06-08-2009, 05:12 PM

I'm really not bashing liberals in general, just pointing out that when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it has unintended consequences.

And yet you didn't mention a single problem with conservative actions...

No, not bashing liberals at all.

Goretawn

06-08-2009, 05:17 PM

Oh man, now you ruined a perfectly good thread by bringing in presidential politics.

/wrist

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 05:18 PM

Well, I have certain liberal views myself. Just not so much with law enforcement. Liberal is a pretty broad term, covering diverse social and economic realms.

If it makes you feel better I can also argue that overly conservative policies by a small percentage of law enforcement also cause a distrust of law enforcement by minorities. I just don't think this particular problem causes vigilante justice in this circumstance.

droit

06-08-2009, 05:36 PM

While I agree that the justice system has some serious flaws, you can't just bypass it entirely. If the suspect had been charged with compelling evidence but the trial got thrown out on a technicality, I wouldn't have said a word if a mob bashed his face in. But the fact that the police merely labeled the guy a "person of interest" is in no way, shape or form license to take matters into your own hands. Honestly, what would you say if the man was found incontrovertibly innocent? "Oops. Our bad. Sorry about the broken ribs and tarnished reputation."

I don't mind vengeance, but I hate mindless reactionism.

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 06:23 PM

I don't really know the specifics in this situation.

Was it a mindless mob only acting on a vague tip from police, or was it a group of family members and friends of the victims family who might know first or second hand that the child identified this person? Why didn't this person of interest turn himself into the police?

There's a big difference from joining in the mob itself and just applauding a mob on an internet forum of little account. If the guy is innocent, I won't really feel badly, because I'm not emotionally invested. Of course I'm just a barbarian when it comes to protecting my family, so I tend to project those tendencies in my public views.

diethx

06-08-2009, 06:36 PM

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 07:01 PM

diethx

06-08-2009, 07:52 PM

Nope, won't change my gut reaction. Maybe you should sit on the jury before commenting?

Fact is that none of us will be on the jury and know every single detail, that doesn't preclude us from offering opinions. Your opinion is equally valid as mine is at this point.

Jesus you're retarded. I said maybe you should read before commenting so you don't have to say you don't know the specifics. They are laid out for you quite easily, so that your last post would have been wholly unnecessary. I don't care what your opinion is, and you can have it as much as you want. But to say you don't know the specifics because you're too fucking lazy to read them, makes you a dumbshit.

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 08:05 PM

Funny how that works, I think you're the dumb shit for putting words in my mouth. Now go bake me a pie.

diethx

06-08-2009, 08:06 PM

Funny how that works, I think your the dumb shit for putting words in my mouth. Now go bake me a pie.

I don't really know the specifics in this situation.

Oh, right.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/john_stewart_facepalm.jpg

Back

06-08-2009, 08:20 PM

Oh, right.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/john_stewart_facepalm.jpg

I have newfound respect for diethx.

<3s

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 08:58 PM

Latrinsorm

06-08-2009, 09:12 PM

There's a generally accepted principle that vigilante justice thrives when the populace doesn't trust the authorities to bring perpetrators to justice.

Now you have to consider why the justice system isn't trusted and ask who caused this lack of trust.I think a close examination of mob behavior reveals a lack of individual rumination and more of a... "mob" mentality. For all our faculties and talents, humans are still animals, and at times it is not particularly difficult to elicit animal behavior from an animal.

diethx

06-08-2009, 11:02 PM

I said I don't know the specifics. That's a far cry from I was too lazy to read about it as you suggested.

I did read about it, but since I wasn't there, and the article didn't really post the specifics, I don't know about the specifics.

If you can't understand the difference then we have nothing further to discuss.

Hmmmm.... the article states the following: a man raped the little girl. The cops handed out photos of the suspect as a "person of interest". Afterwards, neighbors spotted him on the street. Neighbors proceeded to beat him up. Neighbors didn't focus on said guy until cops handed out photos of him. Looks like that answers that question:

Was it a mindless mob only acting on a vague tip from police, or was it a group of family members and friends of the victims family who might know first or second hand that the child identified this person?

As far as why the suspect didn't turn himself in, who knows? But what the fuck does it matter? It has nothing to do with why the mob beat him up.

So yep, looks like if you had just read the article, you would have known the specifics. I know it was really long, though. :/

Ker_Thwap

06-08-2009, 11:32 PM

I love it when peaceniks get themselves all wound up and start being hateful. You condemn the mob, yet you can't even remain civil in a friendly conversation with a faceless person on the internet.

I hope you aren't attributing the "why the suspect didn't turn himself in" argument to me. I don't recall anyone at all making that argument, you seem to have raised that strawman yourself. I'm too lazy to review the thread, it's too long.

Neighbors. Who's neighbors, the man's neighbors, or the girl's neighbors? Does it make a difference? There are countless little questions I'd want answered to before I presumed to judge anyone. Does the reporter or their editor have an agenda? Did the reporter interview the crowd, or just the authorites? Is it a legitimate Rodney King style beating, or is it more along the line of him fighting to get free and getting roughed up? Details.

I agree with Latrinsorm about mob mentality being a big factor in what happened. The veneer of civilization is pretty thin at times for mankind. I don't think that's always a good or a bad thing, it's just something we should recognize. It's not pretty when we see parents screaming at the ump at a kid's baseball game, but when dealing with rapists, murderers and terrorists, we need to show a bit more of our uncivilized side.

Danical

06-08-2009, 11:37 PM

I hope you aren't attributing the "why the suspect didn't turn himself in" argument to me.

Why didn't this person of interest turn himself into the police?

:confused:

thefarmer

06-09-2009, 12:11 AM

Junk

A mob beat up a dude who's a "person of interest" in a rape case. That's it. That's all the details you need to know to decide if you agree or disagree with the mob.

Danical

06-09-2009, 12:13 AM

Neighbors. Who's neighbors, the man's neighbors, or the girl's neighbors? Does it make a difference? There are countless little questions I'd want answered to before I presumed to judge anyone. Does the reporter or their editor have an agenda? Did the reporter interview the crowd, or just the authorites? Is it a legitimate Rodney King style beating, or is it more along the line of him fighting to get free and getting roughed up? Details.

I agree with Latrinsorm about mob mentality being a big factor in what happened. The veneer of civilization is pretty thin at times for mankind. I don't think that's always a good or a bad thing, it's just something we should recognize. It's not pretty when we see parents screaming at the ump at a kid's baseball game, but when dealing with rapists, murderers and terrorists, we need to show a bit more of our uncivilized side.

Here's the problem. You detailed how you think it's acceptable to circumvent the judicial system entirely before a verdict was handed down and the necessary consequent of punishment being doled out based on whatever the mod decides. If you can't see how that violates the Rule of Law of persons in American society, then you'll probably need to take a civics course (again).

You, as a person in American society, give up that power as part of the social contract. Now, your claims about the justified nature of vigilante justice are absurd for a variety of reasons but most notably because he was, at the time of the mob attack, only a person of interest. It absolutely does not matter how much evidence you have or even if someone pointed at him and said, "he's the guy (a la Adrian Monk)." Essentially, the details you want don't matter in the slightest. This person of interest has the right to due process. To come full circle, your opinion that it's perfectly acceptable to circumvent the judicial system before any verdict was assigned is wrong as it is defined by the American society you live in today. That's correct, your opinion is wrong.

Also, lol @ all the liberal bashing. Totally ridiculous.

Ker_Thwap

06-09-2009, 08:36 AM

Holy crap, I did post the "why didn't he turn himself in" argument! That was dumb and I admit it. I thought I'd taken that out. My apologies.

Overall, I do believe that laws are the price we pay to live in a civilized society, and if we don't like the laws that we have ways of changing them.

However, I can also see the other side of the coin. At the core of human nature we're not civilized, we want more than an "eye for an eye" to satisfy our sense of justice. When we hear about a child being deliberately hurt by an adult, we see red. Should we then trust in a justice system that we perceive to be weak on crime? We lash out. It doesn't make us any less human.

radamanthys

06-09-2009, 11:49 AM

Crimes against women arent that big of a deal in prison, considering the mindset of your average male criminal (bitches and ho's, yo).

However, child molesters are a different animal and if classification sets them in GP in a medium/maximum security unit - then word gets out and they get punked pretty quick, sent to the infirmary, or stuck in ad-seg. I'm just glad its not a general rule in Texas to stick all convicted pedofiles in protective custody. They deserve the treatment they get from their incarcerated peers.

Rapists are the bottom of the food chain. The only ones with less respect are the pedos.

Interestingly enough, the ones at the top are the Bank Robbers.

diethx

06-09-2009, 04:48 PM

I hope you aren't attributing the "why the suspect didn't turn himself in" argument to me. I don't recall anyone at all making that argument, you seem to have raised that strawman yourself. I'm too lazy to review the thread, it's too long.

lolololol, and yep, do believe I already said that. But wait!!!! I thought....

I said I don't know the specifics. That's a far cry from I was too lazy to read about it as you suggested.

You change your story more than Sean2 drinks.

A mob beat up a dude who's a "person of interest" in a rape case. That's it. That's all the details you need to know to decide if you agree or disagree with the mob.

OMG BUT WHAT IF THE JOURNALIST HAD A FRIEND WHO KNEW A GUY WHO WAS THE STEP BROTHER OF THE LITTLE GIRL'S SECOND COUSIN'S GRANDMA? OMG WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE!!!!1111

Here's the problem. You detailed how you think it's
acceptable to circumvent the judicial system entirely before a verdict was handed down and the necessary consequent of punishment being doled out based on whatever the mod decides. If you can't see how that violates the Rule of Law of persons in American society, then you'll probably need to take a civics course (again).

You, as a person in American society, give up that power as part of the social contract. Now, your claims about the justified nature of vigilante justice are absurd for a variety of reasons but most notably because he was, at the time of the mob attack, only a person of interest. It absolutely does not matter how much evidence you have or even if someone pointed at him and said, "he's the guy (a la Adrian Monk)." Essentially, the details you want don't matter in the slightest. This person of interest has the right to due process. To come full circle, your opinion that it's perfectly acceptable to circumvent the judicial system before any verdict was assigned is wrong as it is defined by the American society you live in today. That's correct, your opinion is wrong.

Also, lol @ all the liberal bashing. Totally ridiculous.

:yeahthat:

Holy crap, I did post the "why didn't he turn himself in" argument! That was dumb and I admit it. I thought I'd taken that out. My apologies.

And once more for the lols. Fucking idiot.

Slider

06-09-2009, 05:37 PM

Speaking of reading comprehension, maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones...

Surveillance video shows a man being chased by at least three people, one of whom hits him several times with what appears to be a bat or large stick. As they chase the man, a crowd gathers. The video cuts off after a police officer arrives.

So, we do not have a "mob of 12" beating this guy to a pulp, we have ONE guy, clearly caught on video, hitting him.

As far as the person of interest thing goes, the cops don't usually issue these unless they have a pretty strong reason to want to get the guy off the streets, and at least interveiw him. Did that ONE guy overeact? Maybe, it is a bit much IMHO that he was using a bat, or whatever it was. But then again, I wasn't there. Might have been a good reason for it, I don't know. And neither do you. On the other hand, the police DO have a video of the incident, and they decided not to press charges against that person. So who am I going to go with? Someone who wasn't there, and just posted their personal opinion on the incident on a BB, or the police, who have the incident on video, and where actually on the scene. Hmmm...tough one.

diethx

06-09-2009, 05:40 PM

Slider

06-09-2009, 05:53 PM

Jayvn

06-09-2009, 05:55 PM

I can't wait to hear the final results of this story..to see if i would have beat down a guilty pedophile or a mexican

diethx

06-09-2009, 05:58 PM

I can't wait to hear the final results of this story..to see if i would have beat down a guilty pedophile or a mexican

I think I read somewhere that they matched his DNA and are charging him.

Jayvn

06-09-2009, 06:03 PM

so will you join forced with us diethx and beat down the guilty rapist? or are you going to stand back and let JUSTICE GO UNANSWERED... <3

Miscast

06-09-2009, 06:07 PM

so will you join forced with us diethx and beat down the guilty rapist? or are you going to stand back and let JUSTICE GO UNANSWERED... <3
http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2005/images/BatmanBegins_1.jpg

diethx

06-09-2009, 06:11 PM

If that is true, and if it is not just journalistic hyperbole, then why is that NOT on the video? The article specifically states that the video shows 3 people where chasing him, while one was hitting him, and a crowd gathered while this was going on. And when the police arrived, the people assaulting him immediatly stopped, and backed off.

First of all, LOL at journalistic hyperbole. Because it makes sense to say a dozen people pummeled him when it was one guy with a bat. /facepalm

Also, where does it say it wasn't on the video? You do know that a crowd has to gather around someone before they can beat them up, right? I just don't understand how you're having so much trouble putting 2 and 2 together to make 4, when the article clearly states that about a dozen people were beating on him. 3 people initially ran, one hitting him with a bat. The slower ~9 caught up, gathered, and started pummeling. It's not fucking rocket science.

Again, we have a case of video evidence showing one thing, and the writer of the story saying something that is clearly not backed up by the videotaped evidence that was reveiwed by the police.

So wait, let me get this right. In one breath, you're saying that the video evidence DESCRIBED BY THE WRITER OF THE STORY showed one thing, and in the next breath you're saying that THAT SAME WRITER OF THAT SAME STORY was making up shit in order to purposely, what you see as, contradict himself.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? LOL... so what you're really saying is, you like the way the writer worded the description of the video tape but not the way he worded the rest of the story, because the latter blatantly points out the fact that you have zero fucking reading comprehension. Got it.

diethx

06-09-2009, 06:12 PM

so will you join forced with us diethx and beat down the guilty rapist? or are you going to stand back and let JUSTICE GO UNANSWERED... <3

That's what his daddy in prison will be for. Which is the way it SHOULD be. :)

diethx

06-09-2009, 06:30 PM

Oh and just because you’ve spouted so many wrong interpretations for me to respond to…

Nowhere does it say that the video shows that at some point the entire crowd doggy piled this guy and beat him to a pulp. And if it was on video, do you honestly beleive that the entire video wouldn't have been all over the news by now?

And if he did get doggy piled, why are his injuries not consistent with this type of assault? The article said he had head and face injuries, but nothing else. How exactly do you get doggy piled by 12 people and only get hit in the head?

The writer doesn’t say anything about the extent of his injuries – ONLY that his head and face injuries weren’t life-threatening (according to that genius cop).

Commissioner Charles Ramsey said he made the decision based on the fact that the man's head and face injuries were not life-threatening

But since you’re having so much trouble reading this one doozy of an article (lawls), let me see if I can make things more clear for you:

Police canvassed the neighborhood with a sketch of Carrasquillo the next day and within half an hour, a group of guys spotted him. The suspect was taken down in a fit of street justice. He was beaten so badly he spent two days in the hospital before he was released, still in his hospital gown, into police custody Thursday.

That can be found here: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/DNA-Match-in-11-Year-Old-Girls-Rape-Case.html (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/DNA-Match-in-11-Year-Old-Girls-Rape-Case.html)

At a news conference, police officials said the ex-con - who was arrested in Kensington last Tuesday after a mob pounced on him as he walked on the street - will be charged in the case.

Now, I know this one says “pounced” and not “doggy piled” on him, so you might still have trouble with this one. (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20090609_Police__Carrasquillo_to_be_charged_in_bru tal_rape_of_schoolgirl.html)

And one more…

Police say about a dozen people pummeled 26-year-old Jose Carrasquillo (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jose+Carrasquillo) (kayr-uhs-KEE'-oh) for several minutes with their fists, feet and wooden sticks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/04/2009-06-04_man_suspected_of_raping_11yearold_girl_stable_a fter_neighborhood_mob_takes_justi.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/04/2009-06-04_man_suspected_of_raping_11yearold_girl_stable_a fter_neighborhood_mob_takes_justi.html)

That better?

This probably didn't turn out quite like you'd imagined it, huh. :(

Slider

06-09-2009, 06:33 PM

And I have a real problem with the idea that you can't, or don't seem to want to, get the facts straight before leaping to what may well be a faulty conclusion.

Starting right off the bat with your moronic statement that boils down to "No journalist would ever exagerate to sell a newspaper, or allow personall bias to show in an article" /Facepalm yourself dumbfuck.

My problem is that while yes, the journalist writing this article does indeed say that 12 people where pummeling him, he also specifically states that the video tape that the police have shows something entirely different. Never once does he say the video clearly shows 12 people beating this guy. Maybe I am missing it, perhaps you could post that part, maybe bold it so those of us with poor reading comprehension can see it.

My problem with the article is the same thing that we are arguing about here, it is unclear as to what exactly happened. On the one hand we have the reporter saying one thing, and on the other we have him saying something completely different. So wich one is it? Neither one of us knows, because neither one of us has seen that videa, and nowhere does it say that the reporter has either. He only repeats what the police who reveiwed the video told him was on the tape. Wich was ONE guy hitting him.

Now if the video gets aired, and clearly shows 12 people beating him up, fine, I was wrong. But that point cannot be made from the article as written, because it does NOT state that.

diethx

06-09-2009, 06:38 PM

My problem is that while yes, the journalist writing this article does indeed say that 12 people where pummeling him, he also specifically states that the video tape that the police have shows something entirely different. Never once does he say the video clearly shows 12 people beating this guy. Maybe I am missing it, perhaps you could post that part, maybe bold it so those of us with poor reading comprehension can see it.

...maybe because he didn't need to repeat himself sixteen thousand times. For most of us to get it, once is enough. Man, life must be hard for you. But since your reading comprehension is so fucking piss poor, see my other examples from my last post, bolded and all!

My problem with the article is the same thing that we are arguing about here, it is unclear as to what exactly happened. On the one hand we have the reporter saying one thing, and on the other we have him saying something completely different. So wich one is it?

I vote for the fact that the article actually says one thing, and you can't seem to wrap your head around it.

Neither one of us knows, because neither one of us has seen that videa, and nowhere does it say that the reporter has either. He only repeats what the police who reveiwed the video told him was on the tape. Wich was ONE guy hitting him.

Now if the video gets aired, and clearly shows 12 people beating him up, fine, I was wrong. But that point cannot be made from the article as written, because it does NOT state that.

Jesus fuck... you've earned the king...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2313356652_f2b27826c4.jpg

Slider

06-09-2009, 06:49 PM

Lumi

06-09-2009, 06:53 PM

Actually, I think it is you that is being the idiot, so I guess that makes us even. Difference is, I never stated that my opinion of this was right, you however did. All I ever said was that it was unclear, from the information in the article posted, as to what had actually happened.

And from the websight YOU posted, maybe you might want to watch the video in question, which clearly shows 3, count 'em, 3 people chasing him, and one hitting him with a stick of some kind.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/DNA-Match-in-11-Year-Old-Girls-Rape-Case.html

So, once again, we have a report that says 12 or 13 people, and a video that shows something else entirely.

See her earlier links in the post she oh-so-thoughtfully did all the work for you in, you dumb fuck. The POLICE said that a mob, a dozen, MORE THAN THREE people beat this guy.

Unless you're going to claim the conspiracy goes so far as to lead the reporter to deliberately misquote the police. Which would be pretty fucking stupid.

This isn't a matter of paraphrasing, it isn't misspelling. You're saying that the guy blatantly lied by way of a police quote.

STFU, please. Due process exists for a reason, but apparently the cockmonkey mob in this thread would rather rape him with a pitchfork REGARDLESS of whether he's guilty or not.

diethx

06-09-2009, 06:56 PM

Actually, I think it is you that is being the idiot, so I guess that makes us even. Difference is, I never stated that my opinion of this was right, you however did. All I ever said was that it was unclear, from the information in the article posted, as to what had actually happened.

And from the websight YOU posted, maybe you might want to watch the video in question, which clearly shows 3, count 'em, 3 people chasing him, and one hitting him with a stick of some kind.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/DNA-Match-in-11-Year-Old-Girls-Rape-Case.html

So, once again, we have a report that says 12 or 13 people, and a video that shows something else entirely.

I did watch the video. It showed approximately 3 seconds of surveillance video from when they first started chasing him, mixed in with news video taken after the fact. It never even showed the crowd "gather". And because they only spliced 3 seconds of that video into this video, clearly a crowd never even gathered around the suspect.

Anyway, i'd keep on pwning you but i've got something a little more challenging to do... like sleeping.

Slider

06-09-2009, 07:10 PM

PHILADELPHIA – The police commissioner said Thursday he will not pursue criminal charges against a group of angry neighbors who beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl.

Commissioner Charles Ramsey said he made the decision based on the fact that the man's head and face injuries were not life-threatening, his determination that the neighbors' intent was to bring the man to police and the high level of emotion in the community after the girl's brutal attack.

"These people saw him, he attempted to run and they caught up with him," Ramsey said. "If the injuries had been severe, maybe we'd have to rethink it."

I am not saying the reporter lied you idiot, I said he MAY have been exaggerating to sell a story. And nowhere does it say in the article that the police said 13 people beat him up. It says a group of angry neighbors. Far as I know, 3 people can be a group. And again, the video clearly shows 3 people chasing him, and one person hitting him.

The article also says;

Surveillance video shows a man being chased by at least three people, one of whom hits him several times with what appears to be a bat or large stick. As they chase the man, a crowd gathers. The video cuts off after a police officer arrives.

Before making his decision, Ramsey said, he monitored Carrasquillo's condition and reviewed surveillance video of the assault. As soon as officers arrived at the scene, he said, the group stopped the beating.

So, we have a video that cuts off when police arrive at the scene, and the 3 people on that video stopping as soon as the police show up. Where exactly do you see 13 people beating this guy on the video?

Miscast

06-10-2009, 12:37 AM

So.. Wait, what happened again?

Tisket

06-10-2009, 01:50 AM

So.. Wait, what happened again?

I missed out on a perfectly good opportunity to join a mob. That's what happened.

Fallen

06-10-2009, 05:59 AM

So.. Wait, what happened again?

Sounds like a rape suspect got hit with a bat while a few people watched. Or, you could read it like all twelve people had bats and beat him while chanting in unison.

Hulkein

06-10-2009, 06:28 AM

Over a suspect?

I know I'm wayyyy late to this thread (surprising since it's in my hood!) but from what I have heard, they knew he did it. He is well known in the neighborhood. I normally would agree, but here they were about as certain as an angry mob can be. I'm glad he got pummeled.

Hmmmm.... the article states the following: a man raped the little girl. The cops handed out photos of the suspect as a "person of interest". Afterwards, neighbors spotted him on the street. Neighbors proceeded to beat him up. Neighbors didn't focus on said guy until cops handed out photos of him. Looks like that answers that question:

That's not completely accurate. They knew who he was from the neighborhood and knew he was a dirtbag who has put himself in similar situations in the past. This time they knew for sure.

Hulkein

06-10-2009, 06:35 AM

That old paradigm went out the window with the Bush administration.

HAHAHAHAHA

Fallen

06-10-2009, 06:46 AM

I know I'm wayyyy late to this thread (surprising since it's in my hood!) but from what I have heard, they knew he did it. He is well known in the neighborhood. I normally would agree, but here they were about as certain as an angry mob can be. I'm glad he got pummeled.

Yeah. I figured if the cops are willing to put your picture up on TV as a "person of interest" in a 11-year-old rape case, you're probaby 1. All but guilty, and 2. A fuck who isn't new to being a person of interest.

Ker_Thwap

06-10-2009, 08:36 AM

diethx

06-10-2009, 05:52 PM

Just to clarify for Diethx. When I said I was too lazy to re-read the thread, I was purposefully messing with you. I hate it when I have to explain obvious sarcasm.

The apology for the the strawman comment was sincere. I stand by the rest of my arguments.

It's not sarcasm when it's actually true.

And Hulkein, how did they know for sure this time? Did the neighborhood do DNA tests before the cops did theirs? I'm really curious to know how they knew for sure, beyond a doubt enough to start beating him up.

Hulkein

06-10-2009, 05:58 PM

diethx

06-10-2009, 05:59 PM

Lumi

06-10-2009, 07:12 PM

They knew it was him because he had been suspected of doing it in the past, and this time the girl explicitly identified him. I know it is a big city but this is a guy who was known by that specific section of the city.

I understand your point, I do. I normally would agree. This case, however, was so straight forward that the people literally knew it was him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Emphasis mine.

Wouldn't that sort of open the door to the possibility that she was more inclined to name this guy in the first place?

I am NOT saying she lied, I'm absolutely open to the possibility that he did it, or that she BELIEVES this is the guy who did it.

But "beyond reasonable doubt"? No, I don't think so.

Edit: You know, even if they DID know BRD, that still doesn't make it right or legal to beat the guy. We have a justice system, penal code and all, for a reason.

Hulkein

06-10-2009, 08:30 PM

It's not legal. Right is up for debate. They didn't seriously injure him.

Lumi

06-10-2009, 09:15 PM

It's not legal. Right is up for debate. They didn't seriously injure him.

Hospitalized for two days sounds like some kind of serious injury, especially since they were waiting to take him into custody (and did).

Also, if it's not legal, as you pointed out, why is anyone supporting the police commissioner's decision to not press charges against his assailants?

Whether or not he raped this girl (which still hadn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt, no matter how likely it is) is completely immaterial when considering whether or not the people who assaulted him committed a crime.

Edit: Also, this same guy who said "his head injuries weren't serious"...is the same guy who's deciding not to press charges against the people who GAVE him those injuries. Biased, maybe?

Hulkein

06-11-2009, 10:02 AM

My point is they could have killed him if they wanted to. It wasn't like they stomped him until his brains came out of his head. They stopped him so he could be arrested and took a few liberties in the process. I don't mind it.

I wouldn't press charges either. Prosecutorial discretion. You don't need to prosecute everyone who breaks a law. There are other factors to take into account.

Lumi

06-12-2009, 03:06 AM

I wouldn't press charges either. Prosecutorial discretion. You don't need to prosecute everyone who breaks a law. There are other factors to take into account.

Not unless one of those factors is "every last one of them was legally insane at the time".

There's no reason NOT to prosecute, except police bias. They didn't like the victim, so they're not bothering to charge his attackers.

The guy is probably guilty, he probably raped that girl, probably is a waste of skin and air. Doesn't change the fact that it was illegal to assault him. You don't need a bat to detain one guy with a mob at your back, and you certainly don't need to hit him more than once.

Not pressing charges sends the message that vigilante justice will go unpunished in that area. So what happens next time when the mob takes the law into their own hands? Each prior incident sets a precedent for that mode of thinking, and people push the boundary a little more, a little more, a little more, until someone gets killed, or someone completely innocent gets attacked, or worse.

We don't get to ignore the laws we don't like when it's convenient, or they lose all integrity.

ElanthianSiren

06-12-2009, 09:56 AM

Tisket

06-12-2009, 11:10 AM

There's no reason NOT to prosecute, except police bias. They didn't like the victim, so they're not bothering to charge his attackers.

Don't be retarded. If they only used the force necessary to apprehend him and hold him, they're heroes. But even if they used a little more force than really necessary no jury would convict them anyway. Charges would be a waste of tax dollars.

Lumi

06-12-2009, 01:12 PM

christ... again, it's part of NORTH philly essentially (Kensington having its own special murder rate).

The risk of doing a house by house and then any subsequent violence that would ensue against officers and citizens based on rumor was probably weighed and found to be not worth it.

Justice should be blind, but sometimes it can't afford to be.

It's not a rumor. No one is even disputing that this guy got beaten down. They have at least three of them on tape, and it sounds to me like the people in question aren't even disputing what they did. They just feel it was justified, and the cops feel the same way. No one involved has even brought up the notion that they need to "track these people down" or go "door to door". They know at the very least who the guy(s) with the bat(s) was(were).

Don't be retarded. If they only used the force necessary to apprehend him and hold him, they're heroes. But even if they used a little more force than really necessary no jury would convict them anyway. Charges would be a waste of tax dollars.

I love how you know how everyone in the world would vote on this. But then again, I should have realized from your previous comments that you're completely convinced you deserve to be judge, jury, and executioner here.

Tisket

06-12-2009, 01:18 PM

you're completely convinced you deserve to be judge, jury, and executioner here.

The world would be a better place were I in charge.

Hulkein

06-12-2009, 01:19 PM

Insanity is a defense, not necessarily a reason not to bring charges at all. There are other reasons. First, who is going to testify? Honestly? Why would anyone in that neighborhood say anything other than "I don't know." Are you going to hold the other citizen's in contempt for not answering? Why would you punish citizen's in a city that already has problems getting its residents to cooperate with police for cooperating with police in this case? If you don't live here or understand the police/citizen interaction in a big city, you really can't see the whole picture.

Not unless one of those factors is "every last one of them was legally insane at the time".

There's no reason NOT to prosecute, except police bias. They didn't like the victim, so they're not bothering to charge his attackers.

The guy is probably guilty, he probably raped that girl, probably is a waste of skin and air. Doesn't change the fact that it was illegal to assault him. You don't need a bat to detain one guy with a mob at your back, and you certainly don't need to hit him more than once.

Not pressing charges sends the message that vigilante justice will go unpunished in that area. So what happens next time when the mob takes the law into their own hands? Each prior incident sets a precedent for that mode of thinking, and people push the boundary a little more, a little more, a little more, until someone gets killed, or someone completely innocent gets attacked, or worse.

We don't get to ignore the laws we don't like when it's convenient, or they lose all integrity.

Landrion

06-12-2009, 01:20 PM

As much as Im disgusted by rape, the fact is, there are women out there that are fucked up enough to lie about it. So as much as it might be viscerally pleasing to imagine a filthy rapist getting a good beating, its not pleasing to imagine some poor schmuck who didnt do anything getting one.

diethx

06-12-2009, 02:34 PM

First, who is going to testify?

The news interview footage taken afterwards. These men didn't hide what they did.

ElanthianSiren

06-12-2009, 02:34 PM

First, who is going to testify? Honestly? Why would anyone in that neighborhood say anything other than "I don't know." Are you going to hold the other citizen's in contempt for not answering? Why would you punish citizen's in a city that already has problems getting its residents to cooperate with police for cooperating with police in this case? If you don't live here or understand the police/citizen interaction in a big city, you really can't see the whole picture.

This; thanks Hulk.

N philly/Kensington/Oak Lane and probably a few other neighborhoods I'm forgetting have a problem with witnesses/snitches/whatever being shot/run over, in a not nonfatal way. You really want to go house to house asking for witnesses to prosecute a mob of citizens holding a guy for the cops... meanwhile rumor gets out that Ben down the street said blah blah blah. Ben is suddenly dead. But before Ben is shot, he tells said people that it was really Reggie down the street, but now they have to kill Ben because he knows who they are. Then, they go after Reggie, who tells them it was really Ben's little sister, Margret who snitched. Etc etc etc.

Then the cops have to go after people who have shot other people. See original post of, "Happy they didn't get shot at."

There's a reason for the R sign that welcomes people to Killadelphia.

Hulkein

06-12-2009, 03:30 PM

The news interview footage taken afterwards. These men didn't hide what they did.

News footage after the fact is going to convict anyone.

Edit: I admit I didn't see the footage so if they said "Yeah we beat his ass for no reason, my name is John Doe" then yeah, it would work. I still don't think a jury would even convict them, though.

Hulkein

06-12-2009, 04:46 PM

So I was thinking about whether or not that footage would be enough to convict anyone and have come to the conclusion that it wouldn't. I completely overlooked the fact that in a criminal trial there needs to be evidence of corpus delicti. Basically, an admission isn't enough to prove guilt in a criminal matter without testimony of someone who either witnessed the act or was the victim (ie: testimony that there was a crime in the first place).

In order for the footage to be used the police would have to either find someone who would be willing to testify that the defendants beat the rapist, or they would have to put the rapist on the stand to testify as to what happened. I don't think any witness would testify so you would be left with about the most unsympathetic victim there is, a man being prosecuted himself for raping a child.

Good luck. I think I'll pass on prosecuting that.

diethx

06-12-2009, 06:52 PM

Basically, an admission isn't enough to prove guilt in a criminal matter without testimony of someone who either witnessed the act or was the victim (ie: testimony that there was a crime in the first place).

So you're saying there has to be a witness in order to get a confession to be enough to prove guilt? Granted, i'm not a lawyer or a law student, but that sounds like some big fat bullshit to me. Don't DA's convict on confessions all the time? And not every one of those crimes has a witness. So a murderer can confess their guilt and they still can't get a conviction because there were no witnesses? Uh huh....

Hulkein

06-13-2009, 09:10 AM

So you're saying there has to be a witness in order to get a confession to be enough to prove guilt? Granted, i'm not a lawyer or a law student, but that sounds like some big fat bullshit to me. Don't DA's convict on confessions all the time? And not every one of those crimes has a witness. So a murderer can confess their guilt and they still can't get a conviction because there were no witnesses? Uh huh....

Well the corpus in a murder would be the testimony of there being a dead body.

There needs to be an identifiable victim (in a theft case, you need the person to testify that they in fact had valuables stolen) or witness to testify to the corpus of the crime (in murder, it would be the coroner or whoever does the medical exam of the body). If someone went into the police station and admitted and signed a confession that they stole a million dollars worth of jewelry, they wouldn't be able to get convicted unless the police found someone who said they had the valuables stolen.

You can't convict someone on a confession alone. It's not big fat bullshit :)

diethx

06-13-2009, 12:41 PM

Well the corpus in a murder would be the testimony of there being a dead body.

There needs to be an identifiable victim (in a theft case, you need the person to testify that they in fact had valuables stolen) or witness to testify to the corpus of the crime (in murder, it would be the coroner or whoever does the medical exam of the body). If someone went into the police station and admitted and signed a confession that they stole a million dollars worth of jewelry, they wouldn't be able to get convicted unless the police found someone who said they had the valuables stolen.

You can't convict someone on a confession alone. It's not big fat bullshit :)

Um, there is a person to testify he got his face beat in. It's called the suspect who got his face beat in. And the jury wouldn't be allowed to consider anything he may or may not have done (and you don't think the judge would enforce this if there's enough irrefutable evidence presented against the mob who beat him?)

I also love how you're all.. omg you so don't get it cuz you don't live here, it's too unsafe for the cops to do door-to-doors in that neighborhood looking for the people who beat this guy up, blah blah blah. All the while, ignoring the fact that not only do they know who these men are, they gave two of them a cash reward after the fact FOR what they did. Yeah, the cops didn't arrest them because they were worried about their own safety. In fact they were SO worried for their own safety, the cops gave them each like 6 grand. Your excuse really makes sense, lol.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 01:47 PM

It's unsafe for the cops, from a viewpoint of whackjob with a gun. It's more unsafe for anyone who decides to be a witness and more importantly, costly for the DA, who is likely trying to protect witnesses in murder/rape cases. It seems also like the context of the beating might be admissable. However, the DA deciding not to prosecute people who ultimately helped officers in a not so great part of town doesn't really shock or even upset me.

Additionally, the guy still has the option of a civil suit. If you feel that strongly about defending a probable child molester, it might be a trial to attend.

Lumi

06-13-2009, 04:10 PM

If you don't live here or understand the police/citizen interaction in a big city, you really can't see the whole picture.

My little sister lives there, actually, and I've been there to visit plenty. Also, I'm from New York, so ya...I'm familiar with the "big city" interaction of citizens and law enforcement.

It's unsafe for the cops, from a viewpoint of whackjob with a gun. It's more unsafe for anyone who decides to be a witness and more importantly, costly for the DA, who is likely trying to protect witnesses in murder/rape cases. It seems also like the context of the beating might be admissable.

The DA isn't protecting any witnesses. There were no witnesses to the rape, except for the victim, who was not part of this mob.

And how do you figure the context of the beating might be admissable? It sure as hell wasn't self-defense, so I don't see how the fact that the guy is a piece of scum really enters into the fact that they beat him down because they were angry.

Additionally, the guy still has the option of a civil suit. If you feel that strongly about defending a probable child molester, it might be a trial to attend.

It's NOT about defending a probably child molester. It's about defending the integrity of the system we live under, the rule of law. So many people here seem to be blinded to that fact by the unsavory character of the victim in this case.

YES, he's probably a guilty asshole. NO, that doesn't make it right for the mob to take the law into their own hands. YES, it sets a bad precedent that other "civilian heroes" may follow later, with a less cut-and-dry case, and a less guilty victim.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 04:21 PM

The DA isn't protecting any witnesses. There were no witnesses to the rape, except for the victim, who was not part of this mob.

And how do you figure the context of the beating might be admissable?

It's NOT about defending a probably child molester. It's about defending the integrity of the system we live under, the rule of law.

I'm not talking about rape witnesses. I'm talking about witnesses to him being beaten. The guys who did it aren't going to admit that on the stand; any lawyer is going to advise them not to. Then, like Hulk mentioned, all you have is a guy, (even if the rape charge isn't admissiable), attempting to evade good public servants who only want to take him to the police for questioning. "Ooops... we got out of hand."

Simply put, the guy was being detained while people waited for the cops to show up then tried to run. That doesn't seem that crazy.

The rule of law also gives the DA the right to choose what to and what not to pursue, so where are you going with this? Nobody's denying him his right to have his case taken up by the ACLU or hire an attorney.

Lumi

06-13-2009, 04:26 PM

I'm not talking about rape witnesses. I'm talking about witnesses to him being beaten.

Well in that case I have no idea why you brought up the DA wanting to protect witnesses in a rape/murder case.

The guys who did it aren't going to admit that on the stand; any lawyer is going to advise them not to. Then, like Hulk mentioned, all you have is a guy, (even if the rape charge isn't admissiable), attempting to evade good public servants who only want to take him to the police for questioning. "Ooops... we got out of hand."

Simply put, the guy was being detained while people waited for the cops to show up then tried to run. That doesn't seem that crazy.

The amount of twisting you have to do to get THIS version out of the reported facts is astounding. You realize how hard you're trying, right?

The rule of law also gives the DA the right to choose what to and what not to pursue, so where are you going with this? Nobody's denying him his right to have his case taken up by the ACLU or hire an attorney.

It's completely disingenuous of the DA to exercise that right here simply because the victim is unlikeable. You can't possibly claim that there is ANY other reason for this. If this guy hadn't been a rape suspect, this would have been an open and shut case.

Or, it wouldn't have been a case at all because he wouldn't have been assaulted in the first place.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 04:38 PM

Well in that case I have no idea why you brought up the DA wanting to protect witnesses in a rape/murder case.

The amount of twisting you have to do to get THIS version out of the reported facts is astounding. You realize how hard you're trying, right?

It's completely disingenuous of the DA to exercise that right here simply because the victim is unlikeable. You can't possibly claim that there is ANY other reason for this. If this guy hadn't been a rape suspect, this would have been an open and shut case.

My point is the DA has better things to do than protect witnesses who witnessed the beating of some guy with a long enough rap sheet to be picked up on a prior charge to raping an 11 year old kid.

All they have on video is what transpired at a set point in the confrontation. To say the mob was beating him the whole time is an equal amount of twisting. To say they didn't approach him and say, "Hey, there's a warrant for you. Let's go," is an equal amount of twisting. To say he didn't try to run prior to the apprehension is an equal amount of twisting.

I was more pointing out how silly it is to invoke the rule of law to attack what the rule of law chooses to do within its rights. Plenty of people have been beaten inside Philadelphia, and I guaranteed the case is never picked up. One of my neighbors was mugged at Temple N. while walking home from pharmacy school. I'm a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the cops using their limited resources to catch the person who beat the crap out of him than to prosecute a mob bringing in a suspect wanted for multiple crimes, including raping an 11 year old.

RSR

06-13-2009, 04:44 PM

Lumi

06-13-2009, 05:23 PM

I think it bears pointing out that a different man was also beaten and hospitalized by a mob and was proven not to be the suspected rapist.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090605_Beaten_man_leaves_hospital.html

-Richard.

Doesn't matter, he was a person of interest! That's enough evidence to beat him down!

Edit: So do all of the people here supporting the mob who beat Carasquillo (the probably-guilty guy) think that no charges should be filed against the people who beat up Zenquis (the proven-innocent guy)?

droit

06-13-2009, 05:30 PM

I think it bears pointing out that a different man was also beaten and hospitalized by a mob and was proven not to be the suspected rapist.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090605_Beaten_man_leaves_hospital.html

-Richard.

Jesus. I hope he sues his assailants for everything they have, and I hope this puts things in perspective for those of you arguing that mob justice is a good thing. This is why we have due process.

diethx

06-13-2009, 05:33 PM

It's NOT about defending a probably child molester. It's about defending the integrity of the system we live under, the rule of law. So many people here seem to be blinded to that fact by the unsavory character of the victim in this case.

YES, he's probably a guilty asshole. NO, that doesn't make it right for the mob to take the law into their own hands. YES, it sets a bad precedent that other "civilian heroes" may follow later, with a less cut-and-dry case, and a less guilty victim.

You're wasting your breath, some people just don't get it.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 05:37 PM

Doesn't matter, he was a person of interest! That's enough evidence to beat him down!

Edit: So do all of the people here supporting the mob who beat Carasquillo (the probably-guilty guy) think that no charges should be filed against the people who beat up Zenquis (the proven-innocent guy)?

You'll also note the end of the article, where it mentions that the man plans to sue. I wish him luck. He could even sue the city for not pressing charges as far as I'm concerned. That's a very good point, however, since I didn't see the Philadelphia DA pressing charges against the mob in that case either.

So again, what's your point?

Maybe it really is just a case of Philadelphia not prosecuting people trying to help law enforcement. ...or maybe it's a big conspiracy to undermine the rule of law (that allows the DA to choose to file or not file based on social and economic concerns and interests anyway).

diethx

06-13-2009, 05:40 PM

I wish him luck

Yeah but as far as you're concerned, "Simply put, the guy was being detained while people waited for the cops to show up then tried to run. That doesn't seem that crazy."

Why should anyone win a settlement when all they were was being detained until the cops showed up?!?!?!

Oh and don't forget... "Oops... we got out of hand!"

Lumi

06-13-2009, 05:42 PM

You'll also note the end of the article, where it mentions that the man plans to sue. I wish him luck. He could even sue the city for not pressing charges as far as I'm concerned. That's a very good point, however, since I didn't see the Philadelphia DA pressing charges against the mob in that case either.

So again, what's your point?

Maybe it really is just a case of Philadelphia not prosecuting people trying to help law enforcement. ...or maybe it's a big conspiracy to undermine the rule of law (that allows the DA to choose to file or not file based on social and economic concerns and interests anyway).

"Philadelphia not prosecuting people trying to help law enforcement"...seriously?

How is that even a question? They're not authorized in any way, shape, or form to "help law enforcement" with excessive force. If they'd shot the guy in the leg to keep him from getting away before police arrived, in the name of "helping law enforcement", would we still be having this debate?

They exceeded their authority. It's not a conspiracy, it's a simple fact. And the Philly PD is ignoring that fact because they don't like this guy. He's unlikeable, that's great. You still swore an oath to do a job: upholding the law. The law does NOT give civilians the right to assault someone until the cops arrive.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 05:45 PM

Oh.... I missed the part where I said that the most likely guilty guy who was beaten by the other mob shouldn't get a civil suit or get the ACLU involved. Goddamn, where was that again?

Lumi

06-13-2009, 06:03 PM

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 06:10 PM

How is it not relevent when the city isn't pressing charges against either mob again?

Or are you off your administration of law tangent and asking me my opinion?

Lumi

06-13-2009, 06:51 PM

How is it not relevent when the city isn't pressing charges against either mob again?

Or are you off your administration of law tangent and asking me my opinion?

The point is that the city SHOULD be pressing charges against BOTH mobs. But people here are crying that "the rapist deserves what he got", and so no one should be charged.

Now we have someone who WAS innocent, beaten for the SAME suspicion. I want to know where all the people who were so quick to defend one mob stand in relation to the other.

As for your question, the victim pressing a civil suit is completely irrelevant to whether or not the city SHOULD be pressing criminal charges against either mob, which is clearly not the same as what they ARE doing.

diethx

06-13-2009, 07:18 PM

Oh.... I missed the part where I said that the most likely guilty guy who was beaten by the other mob shouldn't get a civil suit or get the ACLU involved. Goddamn, where was that again?

You're right. TOTALLY right. Because this guy who illegally got the shit beat out of him should have to front the money he almost certainly doesn't have in order to hire a lawyer to push the DA to do their fucking job, which is charge those who break the law no matter whether their victim is a criminal or not (or to sue his attackers, which most likely will do NOTHING as i'm willing to bet the most money they have is the 12 grand reward they got from the cops for beating the shit out of the guy in the first place).

Seriously though, you made it perfectly clear that you don't think anyone should give a fuck if the DA doesn't charge the attackers of
some guy with a long enough rap sheet to be picked up on a prior charge to raping an 11 year old kid

Tisket

06-13-2009, 07:43 PM

So let me get this straight...I missed out on participating in TWO fucking mobs? Jesus, I need to move to Philly.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 07:51 PM

The point is that the city SHOULD be pressing charges against BOTH mobs.

Based on what? Your judgement doesn't usurp the DA's authority to choose who they charge based on the evidence they have and the circumstances around it. You want to change the law to make sure there's a stipulation that every single possible violation is ticketed and processed, then fine. Until you do that, you have to live with the system the way it is.

Seriously though, you made it perfectly clear that you don't think anyone should give a fuck if the DA doesn't charge

See above.

Lumi

06-13-2009, 08:49 PM

Based on what? Your judgement doesn't usurp the DA's authority to choose who they charge based on the evidence they have and the circumstances around it. You want to change the law to make sure there's a stipulation that every single possible violation is ticketed and processed, then fine. Until you do that, you have to live with the system the way it is.

See above.

My judgment is that you have your head so far up your ass you can't tell what time of day it is if you think that there's any reasonable stance the DA could take to NOT prosecute here. This "lack of evidence" you keep alluding to is bullshit.

THE POLICE AREN'T DENYING THAT THE MOB BEAT THIS MAN. THE FUCKING POLICE.

The police are simply saying it was justified. That his injuries, which he was hospitalized over for two days, simply weren't serious enough to warrant pressing charges. The DA should be fucking charging the cops as well as the mob.

Back

06-13-2009, 08:53 PM

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 08:57 PM

THE POLICE AREN'T DENYING THAT THE MOB BEAT THIS MAN. THE FUCKING POLICE.

The police are simply saying it was justified. That his injuries, which he was hospitalized over for two days, simply weren't serious enough to warrant pressing charges. The DA should be fucking charging the cops as well as the mob.

Right, and the DA's saying that they've chosen not to press charges. That's the DA's perogative. If you don't like it, change the system or become the DA.

Back

06-13-2009, 09:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

Lumi

06-13-2009, 09:35 PM

Right, and the DA's saying that they've chosen not to press charges. That's the DA's perogative. If you don't like it, change the system or become the DA.

I'll get right on that, after breakfast tomorrow. The first step is expressing disapproval of the current system, which I've done.

You're saying you're totally fine with the DA not pressing charges.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 09:48 PM

No, I'm saying I'm fine with letting the DA do his or her job, which includes choosing when he or she feels there's evidence and cause to press charges. You clearly don't feel the DA should have the same discretion; that's fine.

Not so sadly, I'm not involved in government, so ranting to me about your displeasure over an internet forum really isn't accomplishing much for your protest. Finally, I suggest boning up on your persuasion techniques before breakfast tomorrow. Good luck.

diethx

06-13-2009, 09:49 PM

Your judgement doesn't usurp the DA's authority to choose who they charge based on the evidence they have and the circumstances around it.

No one said it did, otherwise i'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because I would have been sure those mobs would have been charged. We're just saying you should stop trying to come up with stupid, bullshit excuses as to why it's inappropriate for the mobs to be charged. Because they just sound like stupid, bullshit excuses.

ElanthianSiren

06-13-2009, 09:57 PM

So far, I believe I've said that the DA obviously didn't want to press charges for whatever reason and hasn't. Could be many reasons for that, and I listed a few. In the end, bofrickityhoo, it's still the DA's perogative.

Tisket

06-13-2009, 10:01 PM

I'll get right on that, after breakfast tomorrow. The first step is expressing disapproval of the current system, which I've done.

You're saying you're totally fine with the DA not pressing charges.

Jesus, you are one smarmy cunt. You joined this discussion not because you were intrigued by the possibility of a genuine adult level of discourse. No you were intrigued by a chance to take the moral high ground and post about how silly everyone else was and splooge about self-importantly stating things that are obvious to an embryo.

Well you seem to be laboring under a misconception here. Let me clear things up for you. Most of us do not care, at all, what you think of things. Nor will most of us put any effort or concern into changing your mind when you're wrong.

Besides your kind never last long here. And by "your kind" I mean indignant, self-righteous, patronizing, and arrogant morons. Yes, you.

But I guess it's all moot anyway since no one will even remember you exist if you stop posting. You're just that memorable and original.

LMingrone

06-13-2009, 10:11 PM

<"You're saying you're totally fine with the DA not pressing charges.">

Maybe the DA has reasons we don't know about for not pressing charges? Maybe?

Back

06-13-2009, 10:51 PM

Jesus, you are one smarmy cunt. You joined this discussion not because you were intrigued by the possibility of a genuine adult level of discourse. No you were intrigued by a chance to take the moral high ground and post about how silly everyone else was and splooge about self-importantly stating things that are obvious to an embryo.

Well you seem to be laboring under a misconception here. Let me clear things up for you. Most of us do not care, at all, what you think of things. Nor will most of us put any effort or concern into changing your mind when you're wrong.

Besides your kind never last long here. And by "your kind" I mean indignant, self-righteous, patronizing, and arrogant morons. Yes, you.

But I guess it's all moot anyway since no one will even remember you exist if you stop posting. You're just that memorable and original.

Wow. Have a bad day?

Oh, and you do not speak for everyone on the PC.

Tisket

06-13-2009, 10:53 PM

Oh, and you do not speak for everyone on the PC.

I'm extremely relieved that I don't speak for you. Because let's face it, your debating ability is horrendous. Besides you usually have no idea what you're arguing against so you just create arbitrary nonexistent arguments with no logical sequence to them.

Hulkein

06-14-2009, 11:58 AM

Um, there is a person to testify he got his face beat in. It's called the suspect who got his face beat in.

I understand there is someone to testify. As I explicitly stated beforehand, I don't want to put someone I am prosecuting for rape on the stand to testify that he was assaulted. The other option is witnesses. These witnesses are neighbors with the raped girl and her family. They know the rapist was the one assaulted. Very unlikely any of them would testify.

And the jury wouldn't be allowed to consider anything he may or may not have done (and you don't think the judge would enforce this if there's enough irrefutable evidence presented against the mob who beat him?)

A smart defense attorney would put his client on the stand and ask what started the fight. It's pretty relevant information in an assault case.

I doubt the judge would issue a directed verdict but you're right, he could. They usually stray away from doing that in criminal jury trials, though.

4a6c1

06-14-2009, 11:58 AM

Tisket talks dirty when she's mad.

Tisket

06-14-2009, 12:01 PM

Tisket talks dirty when she's mad.

I wasn't mad!

Hulkein

06-14-2009, 12:29 PM

Lumi, we appreciate the lecturing. We really do. We never even would have realized that there needs to be rule of law and justice in the land! Wow, how nice of you to point that out. Obviously there is nothing else to consider when you are the one responsible with making the decision on whether or not to prosecute.

The fact that prosecuting will engender more bad blood between the police and the residents of that particular part of the city is not a big deal at all! Let's not worry about the fact that this particular city has a huge problem with the residents distrusting police which is directly responsible for more crime and violence in the city every day.

The only realistic way you can put on a trial is to put someone you are prosecuting for rape on the stand to testify that he was beaten up while the citizen's were waiting for the police to arrive and arrest him for said rape. That's no problem either! And the fact that there is a good chance the jury would not convict even if you ran a satisfactory trial? Who cares?! We have unlimited resources in Philadelphia! The city is not bankrupt and the DA's have light workloads! It's so clear now! Thank you Lumi!