And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
The first word of a sentence is.krazed wrote:
the first letter of my name isn't capitalised ya asshole
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Krazed doesn't like it when somebody he thinks is somewhat more mentally challenged than him (if possible) is right.
Posts like the one above are douche bag posts Krazed.
It was purely out of respect and admiration for you brah, I thought the capitalization was a compliment.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
As far as the father goes, he already paid enough by losing his son.11 Bravo wrote:
no. sorry. people need to pay for their mistakes.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The person who gave the child a loaded gun was his father. He was the one who pressured the stand gun into it, and it's a shame the kid didn't put a bullet into him as well. Honestly in a case like this, no criminal penalties for anyone and no private courts.
Maybe pass an age limit on the use of guns in gun booths, but this is just a rare accuracy that shouldn't even be necessary. Why does there always have to be blame, people always make mistakes and thankfully the kid only killed himself.
The most the cop should get is a gun violation.
baaawwww-Sh1fty- wrote:
It was purely out of respect and admiration for you brah, I thought the capitalization was a compliment.
<3
SEREMAKER wrote:
this actually the first that I've ever heard of a gunshow that had a gun range too
Reciprocity wrote:
SEREMAKER wrote:
this actually the first that I've ever heard of a gunshow that had a gun range too
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Part of me wants to agree, regarding the father. My son is 7 and the most he's shot is a bb gun. If I was foolish enough to demand someone place an Uzi in his hands, I think some type of punishment needs to come my way. What that is I'll leave to the legal experts, but the fact that he tragically lost his son in a situation he created isn't enough.Turquoise wrote:
As far as the father goes, he already paid enough by losing his son.
The most the cop should get is a gun violation.
The thing that bothers me is that our system seems to blame authority even when most of the culpability is on the part of the individual.Stingray24 wrote:
Part of me wants to agree, regarding the father. My son is 7 and the most he's shot is a bb gun. If I was foolish enough to demand someone place an Uzi in his hands, I think some type of punishment needs to come my way. What that is I'll leave to the legal experts, but the fact that he tragically lost his son in a situation he created isn't enough.Turquoise wrote:
As far as the father goes, he already paid enough by losing his son.
The most the cop should get is a gun violation.
The father was the most to blame for this mess, yet the cop is likely to get the harshest penalty (aside from losing a son).
Agreed, placing the most blame on the organizer is puzzling at best.
Ah...it's the kids fault, or the fathers.
i dont agree.Turquoise wrote:
As far as the father goes, he already paid enough by losing his son.11 Bravo wrote:
no. sorry. people need to pay for their mistakes.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The person who gave the child a loaded gun was his father. He was the one who pressured the stand gun into it, and it's a shame the kid didn't put a bullet into him as well. Honestly in a case like this, no criminal penalties for anyone and no private courts.
Maybe pass an age limit on the use of guns in gun booths, but this is just a rare accuracy that shouldn't even be necessary. Why does there always have to be blame, people always make mistakes and thankfully the kid only killed himself.
The most the cop should get is a gun violation.
by that logic someone who kills someone while drinking and driving would not be punished since they have to live with the guilt of killing someone
Killing your own child bears a lot more pain than killing random people.11 Bravo wrote:
i dont agree.Turquoise wrote:
As far as the father goes, he already paid enough by losing his son.11 Bravo wrote:
no. sorry. people need to pay for their mistakes.
The most the cop should get is a gun violation.
by that logic someone who kills someone while drinking and driving would not be punished since they have to live with the guilt of killing someone
Killing someone during drunk driving is an act of negligence that is connected to a level of recidivism high enough among society that harsh laws were put into place as a deterrent. When you consider how many people die of drunk driving each year, it makes sense that we're tough on that crime.
If there was an epidemic of people bringing their children to gun shows and accidentally killing them, then I suppose there would be harsher laws involving that too. Since that's not the case, we have to look at it as an isolated incident with tragic consequences.
I say the father has been through enough.
A drunk driver that kills someone involves an entirely different situation, and oftentimes, it's done by repeat offenders of drunk driving.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-08 16:01:28)
no no. you are dodging the point.
guilt is not a punishment per our system.
guilt is not a punishment per our system.
Yes, but it is a consideration. For example, cases like this one usually involve a jury claiming "time served."11 Bravo wrote:
no no. you are dodging the point.
guilt is not a punishment per our system.
I know I'd do that for this guy, because it's not like he'll ever make this mistake again.
once again that is not taken into consideration. i know you think it should be...but it aint.Turquoise wrote:
because it's not like he'll ever make this mistake again.
I thought we were debating what should happen to the guy punishment-wise, not how the letter of the law sees it.11 Bravo wrote:
once again that is not taken into consideration. i know you think it should be...but it aint.Turquoise wrote:
because it's not like he'll ever make this mistake again.
Doesn't the judge ultimately decide the sentence anyway? I think the jury may make a recommendation but it is the judge that sets the sentence. Right?
...
yes and you are invoking what should be done using your personal views and i am saying what should be done via the law.Turquoise wrote:
I thought we were debating what should happen to the guy punishment-wise, not how the letter of the law sees it.11 Bravo wrote:
once again that is not taken into consideration. i know you think it should be...but it aint.Turquoise wrote:
because it's not like he'll ever make this mistake again.
Yes, but the jury's verdict usually has a huge effect on the judge's decision.tuckergustav wrote:
Doesn't the judge ultimately decide the sentence anyway? I think the jury may make a recommendation but it is the judge that sets the sentence. Right?
A judge cannot rule someone as guilty if the jury doesn't, for example. Judges have been known to lessen or heighten punishments, but they are usually reluctant to do so -- especially if they face a close election.
Well, in order to make this debate less of an apples to oranges one, what punishment should he really receive? Imagine yourself on the jury for the purpose of this question.11 Bravo wrote:
yes and you are invoking what should be done using your personal views and i am saying what should be done via the law.Turquoise wrote:
I thought we were debating what should happen to the guy punishment-wise, not how the letter of the law sees it.11 Bravo wrote:
once again that is not taken into consideration. i know you think it should be...but it aint.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-08 16:12:52)
lifeTurquoise wrote:
Well, in order to make this debate less of an apples to oranges one, what punishment should he really receive? Imagine yourself on the jury for the purpose of this question.11 Bravo wrote:
yes and you are invoking what should be done using your personal views and i am saying what should be done via the law.Turquoise wrote:
I thought we were debating what should happen to the guy punishment-wise, not how the letter of the law sees it.
Don't you think that's a bit harsh?11 Bravo wrote:
lifeTurquoise wrote:
Well, in order to make this debate less of an apples to oranges one, what punishment should he really receive? Imagine yourself on the jury for the purpose of this question.11 Bravo wrote:
yes and you are invoking what should be done using your personal views and i am saying what should be done via the law.
well you said as a juror....i know if i said life it would get chopped to 30 years or something.
That can work multiple ways though. All it takes is one juror to say "not guilty", and then the guy gets off. Sometimes, a juror will make a protest vote if he/she feels that the majority among the jury is viewing things in too draconian of a way.11 Bravo wrote:
well you said as a juror....i know if i said life it would get chopped to 30 years or something.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-08 16:18:47)