|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 5, 2010 19:28:32 GMT -5
That's crap. I have no idea how close you are to the edge, and you have no idea how close I am to the edge. We can't be held accountable for the actions of other people. They are being charged with what they actually did, which is fine. But charging them with the death of this other kid would be ridiculous. If you are a car driver, WAITING OUTSIDE when others kill someone, say in a botched robery, under the law you are guilty of murder. It doesn't matter that you didn't pull the trigger or that you weren't even present, you are still guilty. Yeah, I know. That's why the girl in the room is just as guilty as the guy who actually was operating the webcam. And if you rob a bank and your partner shoots and kills a guard, in most states you are subject to a "felony murder" charge. But if you rob a bank, and then a few days later a guy who lost all his money in the robbery jumps off a bridge, you aren't legally guilty of killing him. Morally guilty? That's perhaps a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 6, 2010 8:28:10 GMT -5
I hope the 2 students are tried for manslaughter. I'm not defending them, but they didn't kill the guy. It sounds like they are going to be charged for what they actually did do, which is the correct decision. I agree with Mike on this issue. The two defendants didn't kill Tyler Clementi. What killed Tyler Clementi was: 1) Tyler Clementi, and 2) A society in which being caught having male-male sex is much more likely to damage one's social standing than being caught in male-female sex or flying solo.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Oct 6, 2010 11:31:42 GMT -5
We can't be held accountable for the actions of other people. But charging them with the death of this other kid would be ridiculous. If you see someone being bullied do you turn the other way and laugh or do try to stop it? If you see someone being screwed with for no reason do you feel amusement? Do you feel empowered when you see people being humiliated? One of the major reasons Israel was established after WWII was because of the shame and quilt that the world felt over the HOLOCAUST. The English carried the ball on this and the rest of the world fell in line.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 6, 2010 12:15:02 GMT -5
... The two defendants didn't kill Tyler Clementi. What killed Tyler Clementi was: 1) Tyler Clementi, and 2) A society in which being caught having male-male sex is much more likely to damage one's social standing than being caught in male-female sex or flying solo. Gives new meaning to the name "Han Solo."
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 6, 2010 13:16:17 GMT -5
We can't be held accountable for the actions of other people. But charging them with the death of this other kid would be ridiculous. If you see someone being bullied do you turn the other way and laugh or do try to stop it? If you see someone being screwed with for no reason do you feel amusement? Do you feel empowered when you see people being humiliated? One of the major reasons Israel was established after WWII was because of the shame and quilt that the world felt over the HOLOCAUST. The English carried the ball on this and the rest of the world fell in line. Except that the English dropped the ball on the actual political subtleties of the Middle East, and the rest of the world has been suffering for 60 years. If you see someone being bullied and you don't try to stop it, it might mean you are a coward. It doesn't mean you are yourself a bully, much less a murderer if the recipient decides to commit suicide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2010 13:19:58 GMT -5
If you are a car driver, WAITING OUTSIDE when others kill someone, say in a botched robery, under the law you are guilty of murder. It doesn't matter that you didn't pull the trigger or that you weren't even present, you are still guilty. Yeah, I know. That's why the girl in the room is just as guilty as the guy who actually was operating the webcam. And if you rob a bank and your partner shoots and kills a guard, in most states you are subject to a "felony murder" charge. But if you rob a bank, and then a few days later a guy who lost all his money in the robbery jumps off a bridge, you aren't legally guilty of killing him. Morally guilty? That's perhaps a different matter. The scenario you're using to attempt to compare the two situations is so off the mark, it's not even funny... Not even close to making sense or being similar.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Oct 6, 2010 13:47:53 GMT -5
............................the rest of the world has been suffering for 60 years. 60 years?......................the Middle East has been in turmoil since before the time of Rome 2,000 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 6, 2010 17:35:44 GMT -5
............................the rest of the world has been suffering for 60 years. 60 years?......................the Middle East has been in turmoil since before the time of Rome 2,000 years ago. Sure, but I didn't talk about turmoil inside the Middle East, I talked about turmoil in "the rest of the world" because of the Middle east. During what other era have North and South America, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Somalia, China, Indonesia, India, etc., all experienced suffering due to geopolitics of the Middle East? The European colonial empires didn't introduce turmoil to a previously Edenic semitic paradise by any means, but they did a good job of upping the ante. I think one of the most important lessons of the 20th century is that artificially partitioned regions aren't sustainable when they contradict the local ethnic, tribal, religious, and economic demographics. Such arrangements either descend into chaos and civil war, or become a crucible within which the most successful leader is almost invariably the most cruel/corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Oct 6, 2010 20:34:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Oct 6, 2010 21:03:38 GMT -5
But if you rob a bank, and then a few days later a guy who lost all his money in the robbery jumps off a bridge, you aren't legally guilty of killing him. Morally guilty? That's perhaps a different matter. I was under the impression that this discussion was about the morality of what these students did to a fellow student. People do not like to look into a dark place because that dark place will stare back at them and will make them feel uncomfortable, scared, unnerved. People do not like to put themselves into the shoes of others. Would you not be very upset, sad, even horrified if someone recorded or filmed you without your knowledge or consent and posted for the entire world to see or hear? Would you not feel marginalized and be very angry? This poor kid was !!!!###$$$!!!ed by his peers and it caused him to flip out.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 6, 2010 21:48:14 GMT -5
"...it caused him to flip out" is not the language of personal responsibility, but the language of excuses and blame-shifting. Only one person caused Tyler to jump off the bridge, and that was Tyler himself. Nothing about the reprehensible acts of the two other people involved was in any way a suggestion that Tyler kill himself.
Everyone quite correctly wants to be sensitive to the deceased, but the sadly inescapable fact of this case is that Tyler Clementi is the murderer; the fact that his victim was his own self doesn't make him any less culpable for the act. There were numerous ways he could have responded to this invasion of privacy. Suppose he had gone to Wei's room and stabbed her to death with a ball point pen -- would the police charge Ravi with the murder/ manslaughter because he "caused [Tyler] to flip out"? Of course not.
The murderer of Tyler was Tyler. Render to murders the punishment which befits murderers, and render to privacy-invaders and broadcasters of illegal content the punishments which befit them. If our legal system is going to punish people not according to rigorous definitions and strict factual evidence of what they have done, but simply because we are angry at some horrible event and require vengeance in order to distract ourselves from the pain, then we are all in grave danger of being victimized by anyone with the power to wield the Law.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Oct 6, 2010 22:48:25 GMT -5
"...it caused him to flip out" is not the language of personal responsibility, but the language of excuses and blame-shifting. Only one person caused Tyler to jump off the bridge, and that was Tyler himself. Nothing about the reprehensible acts of the two other people involved was in any way a suggestion that Tyler kill himself. Everyone quite correctly wants to be sensitive to the deceased, but the sadly inescapable fact of this case is that Tyler Clementi is the murderer; the fact that his victim was his own self doesn't make him any less culpable for the act. There were numerous ways he could have responded to this invasion of privacy. Suppose he had gone to Wei's room and stabbed her to death with a ball point pen -- would the police charge Ravi with the murder/ manslaughter because he "caused [Tyler] to flip out"? Of course not. The murderer of Tyler was Tyler. Render to murders the punishment which befits murderers, and render to privacy-invaders and broadcasters of illegal content the punishments which befit them. If our legal system is going to punish people not according to rigorous definitions and strict factual evidence of what they have done, but simply because we are angry at some horrible event and require vengeance in order to distract ourselves from the pain, then we are all in grave danger of being victimized by anyone with the power to wield the Law. We know he was a gay man who was treated like a circus animal, his sexual life treated like a curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 7, 2010 13:37:18 GMT -5
Tell me, if I have cancer, and I die of pneumonia because of a weakened immune system caused by the cancer, what killed me?
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 7, 2010 17:09:54 GMT -5
If you have cancer, and you die of pneumonia because of a weakened immune system caused by the cancer, which group of microsocopic bags of mostly water is guilty of consciously murdering you or consciously behaving in a reckless manner?
A more accurate comparison would be: If you have cancer, and then you catch pneumonia and are suffering horribly because of it, and of the many options available to you - chemo/surgery at the hospital, praying to God for a miracle, entering hospice treatment, depending on your friends and family for support, requesting a social worker be assigned to connect you with services and community resources that have helped hundreds of thousands of people in your condition - you instead consciously decide to throw yourself down the hospital elevator shaft, what killed you?
What killed you was the fall, down the shaft, which you threw yourself into. It's tragic that you decided to cope with your pain by killing yourself. Life is really complicated and tough and cruel sometimes, and sometimes all the options seem to suck badly. My sympathies go to your surviving loved ones, that they must deal not only with the psychological stress of your condition but additionally with the manner in which you chose to permanently irrevocably deny them your continued presence.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 7, 2010 18:36:42 GMT -5
Over, go right on believing what you will. You point out that life is complicated, but yet you do not seem to understand it. That's all I'll say on this subject.
|
|