quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:
Excessive? No, justified, IMO, for their blatant failure to verify what was happening and going off half-cocked.

Never said his running away proved his innocence or guilt - just that he was trying to get away from people assaulting him.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:
Excessive? No, justified, IMO, for their blatant failure to verify what was happening and going off half-cocked.

Never said his running away proved his innocence or guilt - just that he was trying to get away from people assaulting him.

IMO.....

There you have it. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Not saying you can't have your opinion and I am not trying to say things for you that you didn't say. You are the one saying I opposed punishing them.

The way you made the bit about him running away bold sure makes it look like that is supposed to prove something, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:
Excessive? No, justified, IMO, for their blatant failure to verify what was happening and going off half-cocked.

Never said his running away proved his innocence or guilt - just that he was trying to get away from people assaulting him.

IMO.....

There you have it. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Not saying you can't have your opinion and I am not trying to say things for you that you didn't say. You are the one saying I opposed punishing them.

The way you made the bit about him running away bold sure makes it look like that is supposed to prove something, IMO.

Read again.

I never said you opposed punishing them. I asked you if you opposed charging them with conspiracy even if they killed the guy (which you didn't answer). Maybe I didn't state conspiracy, but I thought your reading comprehension would be able to interpret that.


And, no, I didn't say running away proved his innocence. I said he was trying to get away from HIS ASSAILANTS. Understand now?

quote:

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

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I already said I misunderstood what you meant by the part in bold about him running away. It was not clear, at least to me, what you meant by emphasizing that portion.

If they had killed him then I would be wanting a murder charge. But unless you can show they planned on acually killing him then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge. The conspiracy charge means you planned to do it. Even if you are actually stopping a real attack you can't kill the person if they aren't a threat to you. Laying there covering yourself is not a threat to anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
-

IMHO, you all missed the most interesting point of this story:

The 'screamer' is 34... the 'assailant' is 25.

Older woman, younger man - it's fireworks in the bedroom!






-

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I already said I misunderstood what you meant by the part in bold about him running away. It was not clear, at least to me, what you meant by emphasizing that portion.

If they had killed him then I would be wanting a murder charge. But unless you can show they planned on acually killing him then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge. The conspiracy charge means you planned to do it. Even if you are actually stopping a real attack you can't kill the person if they aren't a threat to you. Laying there covering yourself is not a threat to anyone.

I emphasized it because it appeared you did not note it.

BS. It was still conspiracy to beat the guy up. Else why the baseball bats and else why did they start chasing and beating him from the beginning as soon as HE opened the door - without seeing what was going on first - And, HE was not a threat to them. If there was no conspiracy, they would have just shown up, even en masse, to check on the woman - no harm, no foul.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
I already said I misunderstood what you meant by the part in bold about him running away. It was not clear, at least to me, what you meant by emphasizing that portion.

If they had killed him then I would be wanting a murder charge. But unless you can show they planned on acually killing him then there shouldn't be a conspiracy charge. The conspiracy charge means you planned to do it. Even if you are actually stopping a real attack you can't kill the person if they aren't a threat to you. Laying there covering yourself is not a threat to anyone.

I emphasized it because it appeared you did not note it.

BS. It was still conspiracy to beat the guy up. Else why the baseball bats and else why did they start chasing and beating him from the beginning as soon as HE opened the door - without seeing what was going on first - And, HE was not a threat to them. If there was no conspiracy, they would have just shown up, even en masse, to check on the woman - no harm, no foul.

I see you still didn't answer on how you interpret your quote without saying I thought there should be no punishment. You have twice denied saying that, and I have twice pointed out your own words.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:

Because why point out what you fail to see, in that I was referring to the issue of conspiracy. Conspiracy to assault or conspiracy to murder is regardless. It is still conspiracy. And YOU didn't want punishment for conspiracy to committ assault.

quote:

A combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of 'partnership in criminal purposes,' and willful participation in such a scheme or agreement, followed by the commission of an overt act by one of the conspirators is sufficient to complete the offense of 'conspiracy' itself even though the ultimate criminal object of the conspiracy is not accomplished or carried out. To establish the offense of 'conspiracy' the Government must prove:

(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and (4) That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

quote:

Why there are so many calling for blood in this case puzzles me.

quote:

Originally posted by DragonRider01:
Because why point out what you fail to see, in that I was referring to the issue of conspiracy. Conspiracy to assault or conspiracy to murder is regardless. It is still conspiracy. And YOU didn't want punishment for conspiracy to committ assault.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Why there are so many calling for blood in this case puzzles me.

Some are the same folks that bemoan the fact that bystanders don't come to the aid of someone in trouble ...

Guess this should help us understand why they don't.

Unless there are grounds to disbelieve the storyline, I'd think all concerned would be looking for ways to mitigate the charges and possible consequences, not pile more on.

I admit, however, that the facts from the OP's link are pretty sparce ... and a little strange. Time will tell.

quote:

Duster6
Highly Experienced Member

Posted Sat 04 July 2009 04:43 AM Hide Post
That guy must have been hung.

quote:

Originally posted by KoRnAdvocate:

quote:

Originally posted by ANZACbiscuit:
-

IMHO, you all missed the most interesting point of this story:

The 'screamer' is 34... the 'assailant' is 25.

Older woman, younger man - it's fireworks in the bedroom!






-

Some ladies cant resist the boy toy's

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck_Centaur:
HA!

++http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090702/koddities/20090702us_screaming_sex_arrests

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.

(...)