Bad court thingy in gay teen homicide.

[garbon]

Who cares?

I can't wait til the Saracens drive you to the sea and take your women. Again.

Then he'll be forced into situational homosexuality?

[Martinus]

The article isn't clear, but it sounds like the jury was deadlocked between murder and manslaughter, not guilty versus not guilty.

Yeah but that's exactly what's retarded. If you try him as an adult, it's clearly murder. If you don't, then it's neither murder nor manslaughter (or at least, not one you could get an adult punishment for).

[Martinus]

Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14.  Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here.  At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.

There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like".  Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult).  It's really disgraceful in my opinion.  It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.

How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?

I don't like trying kids as adults.  We don't grant adult rights to children.  There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions.  So we don't let them vote or run for office etc.  Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.

I generally agree. However in the interest of popular sense of justice, there should be a criminal liability of parents/guardians in some form in such cases. If a child commits a hate crime, the parents are likely guilty anyway, either through negligent neglect or active inspiration.

[Ideologue]

Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14.  Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here.  At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.

There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like".  Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult).  It's really disgraceful in my opinion.  It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.

How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?

I don't like trying kids as adults.  We don't grant adult rights to children.  There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions.  So we don't let them vote or run for office etc.  Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.

I generally agree. However in the interest of popular sense of justice, there should be a criminal liability of parents/guardians in some form in such cases. If a child commits a hate crime, the parents are likely guilty anyway, either through negligent neglect or active inspiration.

Fun fact: there are already laws which cover accomplice liability, and it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason.  Anyway, how are things going at Miniluv?

P.S. "negligent neglect," huh?

[Ed Anger]

I'd give the kid a parade.

[Martinus]

it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason

That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.

Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?

[Slargos]

it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason

That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.

Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?

Niggers are a protected group. Fags are not.

[Ideologue]

it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason

That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.

Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?

To get your goat, of course.  But a valid point.  Substitute "fags/niggers/sand people/honkies/anarchists" for the above.

But, yeah, teaching hate is protected speech, and that's important.  If it goes beyond that, criminal law already applies.  I don't know what more you could ask for.  If I would like to say that I-95 ought be lined with the crucified corpses of rich people, but I fear that one my son may nail Jim Walton to a tree, that's called a chilling effect, and it's a problem.

Or how about an example that mirrors your own prejudices: I simply teach my child that Christianity is an evil doctrine, and that a great many Christians actively practice evil, and, when he takes this to heart, he kills Fred Phelps.  Criminal liability for me?

[Martinus]

I am saying that when it comes to adult-to-adult speech, hate speech (when it is not a direct incitement to violence) is protected. The flip side is that if the recipient of the hate speech acts upon it and commits a violent crime, he or she gets indicted.

However, it is different with kids. A kid is not indicted (or at least, under most circumstances) shouldn't be. But the flip side of this should be that the one who teaches hate speech to a child (and the child then goes on to commit a violent crime, inspired by this speech) should be criminally liable.

Is it hard to understand?

In your example, yes, you should be criminally liable if your kid goes on to kill a Christian.

[Ideologue]

That's pretty totalitarian of you there, droog.

What about Nazis?  Can I still raise a kid to hate Nazis?

[Eddie Teach]

Good thing for free speech that most people don't hate parents as much as Marty does.

[Martinus]

That's pretty totalitarian of you there, droog.

What about Nazis?  Can I still raise a kid to hate Nazis?

You shouldn't teach your kid to hate anyone *to the point that would cause your kid to go out and kill people*. Period.

It is your responsibility to make sure your kid is raised as a law abiding person. If you tell your dog to attack a man, and your dog kills him, you are liable, even if you were just being playful. I don't see how it should be different with kids.

[Razgovory]

Let us take it a step further.  Since it takes a village to raise a child, everyone in the kids hometown should be tried for the kids crime.

[Admiral Yi]

You shouldn't teach your kid to hate anyone *to the point that would cause your kid to go out and kill people*. Period.

It is your responsibility to make sure your kid is raised as a law abiding person. If you tell your dog to attack a man, and your dog kills him, you are liable, even if you were just being playful. I don't see how it should be different with kids.

It would be much cleaner and simpler if you took out the part about "to the point that would cause."  If your kid kills someone, you're liable.

[Neil]

I generally agree. However in the interest of popular sense of justice, there should be a criminal liability of parents/guardians in some form in such cases. If a child commits a hate crime, the parents are likely guilty anyway, either through negligent neglect or active inspiration.

See, that's just the sort of thing I'd expect a child-raping faggot like yourself to say.  Your hatred for breeders is showing.