quote:

Police: teens misinterpret woman's screams during sex, beat man with baseball bat, fists

Thu Jul 2, 3:04 PM


By The Associated Press

TORRINGTON, Connecticut - A group of teenagers misunderstood a woman's screams during sex and, thinking they were stopping an assault, beat a 25-year-old man in her bedroom, police said.


A 16-year-old girl who lives in the same home as the 34-year-old woman overheard her and the man on June 6 and rounded up four friends to stop what they thought was an attack, police Lt. Bruce Whiteley said Thursday.


One of the five teens beat the man with a bat and others punched him, police said. The man was treated at a hospital for injuries that were not life-threatening, and was released that night.


"Apparently he didn't have time to explain himself," Whiteley said.


The girl, two 17-year-old boys and Dilyen Langdeau, 19, were arrested Tuesday night and arraigned in Bantam Superior Court on Wednesday. Langdeau was charged with assault and conspiracy; the teens face similar counts. The fifth teenager was not charged.

(...)

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I think the conspiricy charge is a bit much if they really thought they were trying to stop an attack. Yes, they assaulted the guy. But they didn't conspire to assault anyone, they conspired to stop an attack.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I think the conspiricy charge is a bit much if they really thought they were trying to stop an attack. Yes, they assaulted the guy. But they didn't conspire to assault anyone, they conspired to stop an attack.

It doesn't matter what they thought in this case. Yes, they did conspire to committ assault and battery. Their intentions may have been good, but their actions were otherwise.

What if they had killed the man? Would you still oppose any punishment for them?

HE answered the door (read the article), therefore he was not "assaulting" her at the time, and could have been asked what was going on instead of immediately start beating him.

Do the crime, do the time.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I think the conspiricy charge is a bit much if they really thought they were trying to stop an attack. Yes, they assaulted the guy. But they didn't conspire to assault anyone, they conspired to stop an attack.

It doesn't matter what they thought in this case. Yes, they did conspire to committ assault and battery. Their intentions may have been good, but their actions were otherwise.

What if they had killed the man? Would you still oppose any punishment for them?

HE answered the door (read the article), therefore he was not "assaulting" her at the time, and could have been asked what was going on instead of immediately start beating him.

Do the crime, do the time.

Where do I say I oppose punishment? I even stated that they did assault the man. I am saying the conspiracy charge should be used when someone knowingly conspires to commit a crime, which (if you believe their story) they did not. They conspired to help someone, not assault someone. I feel that the intent makes a huge difference in the conspiracy charge.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I think the conspiricy charge is a bit much if they really thought they were trying to stop an attack. Yes, they assaulted the guy. But they didn't conspire to assault anyone, they conspired to stop an attack.

It doesn't matter what they thought in this case. Yes, they did conspire to committ assault and battery. Their intentions may have been good, but their actions were otherwise.

What if they had killed the man? Would you still oppose any punishment for them?

HE answered the door (read the article), therefore he was not "assaulting" her at the time, and could have been asked what was going on instead of immediately start beating him.

Do the crime, do the time.

Where do I say I oppose punishment? I even stated that they did assault the man. I am saying the conspiracy charge should be used when someone knowingly conspires to commit a crime, which (if you believe their story) they did not. They conspired to help someone, not assault someone. I feel that the intent makes a huge difference in the conspiracy charge.

I didn't say you opposed punishment. I simply pointed out that they DID conspire to commit assault and battery. Fail to see that? A crime, of this type alleged to be thought to be happening, can typically be stopped by someone simply showing up vs beating them with a baseball bat.
You asked "Would you still oppose any punishment for them?" , that says I oppose punishment.

The conspiracy was there - it was to beat the man. If not, they would NOT have shown with a baseball bat, and immediately started beating him without giving him a chance to tell his story.

Their supposed intent doesn't make a difference. He was beaten either way, and he was innocent. Guilty. Case closed.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Case not closed. It is called mitigating circumstances. If you believe that they honestly thought they were stopping an assualt they didn't conspire to commit a crime. They did commit a crime, but they didn't conspire to commit a crime. The intent is a big factor in a conspiracy charge.

Personally I have trouble believing that teens don't know the sounds of sex vs the sounds of an assault, that may be why the conpsiracy charge. But, if you believe they thought they were stopping an attack, then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Case not closed. It is called mitigating circumstances. If you believe that they honestly thought they were stopping an assualt they didn't conspire to commit a crime. They did commit a crime, but they didn't conspire to commit a crime. The intent is a big factor in a conspiracy charge.

Personally I have trouble believing that teens don't know the sounds of sex vs the sounds of an assault, that may be why the conpsiracy charge. But, if you believe they thought they were stopping an attack, then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge.

Yeah, closed. I was referring to the conspiracy charge you seem to oppose. Maybe you didn't understand THAT part. Mitigating circumstances won't apply. Had they just barged in, then something could be said for it. But not when they proceed to beat the h3ll out of someone with a baseball bat as soon as they open the door.

The conspiracy charge is there because they PLANNED to beat the person (assault & battery) - remember the baseball bats? If not, they would not have brought them.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Case not closed. It is called mitigating circumstances. If you believe that they honestly thought they were stopping an assualt they didn't conspire to commit a crime. They did commit a crime, but they didn't conspire to commit a crime. The intent is a big factor in a conspiracy charge.

Personally I have trouble believing that teens don't know the sounds of sex vs the sounds of an assault, that may be why the conpsiracy charge. But, if you believe they thought they were stopping an attack, then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge.

Yeah, closed. I was referring to the conspiracy charge you seem to oppose. Maybe you didn't understand THAT part. Mitigating circumstances won't apply. Had they just barged in, then something could be said for it. But not when they proceed to beat the h3ll out of someone with a baseball bat as soon as they open the door.

The conspiracy charge is there because they PLANNED to beat the person (assault & battery) - remember the baseball bats? If not, they would not have brought them.

quote:

The teens knocked on the bedroom door and Arnold opened it, according to the couple, who recently broke up.

quote:

With all due respect, these teens probably had to "work themselves up" to make this assault. They thought they were acting in an emergency. Under different circumstances we would be calling them hero's.

I once stopped a tean who caught a rapist in the middle of the day, in the hallway of a building. I stopped him after he had hit the guy thirty of forty times with a two by four.

I stopped him, because I didn't want him to possibly face a murder charge. But the kid was literally not capable of stopping himself. He was "out of it." Later, after the Police took the rapist away, I told him, "Good Job!"

Let's not get carried away here. Unfortunate as this incident is, these kids were trying to do the right thing.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Case not closed. It is called mitigating circumstances. If you believe that they honestly thought they were stopping an assualt they didn't conspire to commit a crime. They did commit a crime, but they didn't conspire to commit a crime. The intent is a big factor in a conspiracy charge.

Personally I have trouble believing that teens don't know the sounds of sex vs the sounds of an assault, that may be why the conpsiracy charge. But, if you believe they thought they were stopping an attack, then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge.

Yeah, closed. I was referring to the conspiracy charge you seem to oppose. Maybe you didn't understand THAT part. Mitigating circumstances won't apply. Had they just barged in, then something could be said for it. But not when they proceed to beat the h3ll out of someone with a baseball bat as soon as they open the door.

The conspiracy charge is there because they PLANNED to beat the person (assault & battery) - remember the baseball bats? If not, they would not have brought them.

I haven't read where they brought the bats, they could have already been in the house.

From another source on the story (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/nation/story/812721.html)

quote:

The teens knocked on the bedroom door and Arnold opened it, according to the couple, who recently broke up.

If they had recently broke up wouldn't it be understandable to think it was an assault? Why would she be screaming with a man she broke up with.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:
Well, guess what assuming got these kids? A criminal charge. They are going to learn a HARD lesson to make sure what is going on before they jump to conclusions.

Here is another article, with some info on it.
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31709580/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

"Instead of asking what was going on, they assumed and took matters into their own hands," Arnold said. "Now they have to learn a lesson."

The teens knocked on the bedroom door and Arnold opened it, according to the couple, who recently broke up.

The teens rushed into the room and the man, Roger Swanson, said he didn't have a chance to explain himself. He said he tried to get away, but the teens chased him down and started beating him in the house.

Pretty much sums it up - they jumped him without making sure a crime was on-going.

He said he knelt down over a chair and tried to protect his face, but got hit in the eye and in the back. He said Arnold covered his back to try to protect him, but the teen with the bat started hitting him in the legs. Then the youths left.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Oh, he tried to get away. Is that supposed to show that he wasn't an attacker? An attacker would never run away if caught.

I believe the assault charges are appropriate, but not the conspiracy charges. Unless the prosecutor is convinced that they didn't believe the woman was being assaulted. Wouldn't the assault charges on there own be sufficient to teach them a lesson if they actually thought they were stopping an attack?

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Oh, he tried to get away. Is that supposed to show that he wasn't an attacker? An attacker would never run away if caught.

I believe the assault charges are appropriate, but not the conspiracy charges. Unless the prosecutor is convinced that they didn't believe the woman was being assaulted. Wouldn't the assault charges on there own be sufficient to teach them a lesson if they actually thought they were stopping an attack?

Hmmm, HE answered the door. How many attackers answer the door in the middle of an assault?

He ran away - so he's guilty by your thought. Would you run if someone started beating you with a bat? And who says they were trying to stop an assault? Oh yeah, the ones who committed the assault. For all we know the girl just wanted to get back at the guy for some supposed wrong-doing against her mother and came up with this story.

Guilty of assault, guilty of conspiracy to commit assault. Would the assault charges be enough? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, probably get probation and a slap on the wrist.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Oh, he tried to get away. Is that supposed to show that he wasn't an attacker? An attacker would never run away if caught.

I believe the assault charges are appropriate, but not the conspiracy charges. Unless the prosecutor is convinced that they didn't believe the woman was being assaulted. Wouldn't the assault charges on there own be sufficient to teach them a lesson if they actually thought they were stopping an attack?

Hmmm, HE answered the door. How many attackers answer the door in the middle of an assault?

He ran away - so he's guilty by your thought. Would you run if someone started beating you with a bat? And who says they were trying to stop an assault? Oh yeah, the ones who committed the assault. For all we know the girl just wanted to get back at the guy for some supposed wrong-doing against her mother and came up with this story.

Guilty of assault, guilty of conspiracy to commit assault. Would the assault charges be enough? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, probably get probation and a slap on the wrist.

I didn't mean to imply that running away proves his guilt. I read your post as meaning since he ran away it shows he is innocent.

As far as the assault being a way to get back at the guy, that is a possibility.

As I have said before- If you believe they were trying to stop an assault then the conspiricy charges are excessive.