77-year old is beaten for comics, dies

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

That should be manslaughter.worlock77

Why should it be? They did not cause the man's death.

i heard even more sadder stories but this is bad.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Godwin's Law

worlock77

Yeah, hence Godwin's Law. That doesn't make your misguided Hitler comparison anymore valid however.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

That should be manslaughter.Strider_91

Why should it be? They did not cause the man's death.

I have no opinion on it. Depending on the degree an assault charge may be entirely superfluous. Assault could be anything from a shove to a pistol-whipping. If the assault is a misdomeanor while the robbery is a felony charge then there's no real reason to bother with the assault charge.

I don't think I'd trust a man named Vendetti.

[QUOTE="Strider_91"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Why should it be? They did not cause the man's death.

worlock77

I have no opinion on it. (Followed by opinion).

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"] Oh I get it now. But come on. A topic like this has a high probability of Nazis, and Hitler coming into play.-Big_Red-

Yeah, hence Godwin's Law. That doesn't make your misguided Hitler comparison anymore valid however.

No, your comparisons are not valid. Hitler did not indirectly cause the deaths of millions, he directly ordered the deaths of millions. You have no way to establish that they caused the man's heart attack and you're commiting another logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) by insisting so.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Strider_91"] Worlock you avoided my quote above, after you said they are being charged the quote said they were not for assaulting him.. Whats your opinion on that?Strider_91

I have no opinion on it. (Followed by opinion).

I'm saying that a prosecutor, having limited resources, likely isn't going to bother with a lesser charge when they can persue the greater charge.

[QUOTE="Strider_91"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I have no opinion on it. (Followed by opinion).

worlock77

I'm saying that a prosecutor, having limited resources, likely isn't going to bother with a lesser charge when they can persue the greater charge.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Strider_91"] Are you saying it doesn't matter they aren't being charged for beating him because the breaking in is seen as worse? If not, clarify your pointStrider_91

I'm saying that a prosecutor, having limited resources, likely isn't going to bother with a lesser charge when they can persue the greater charge.

I don't believe in charging people with crimes over natural events when there is no proof that they had anything to do with them. I value rights, maybe you don't. And yeah, if the beating is a misdomeanor then it is a lesser charge than a felony. I don't know that it was, but it may have been. You don't know why the prosecutor isn't charging them with assault, but it may be such a case. I don't know ether, I'm just giving a possible reason why. Prosecutors often pick and choose what charges to persue based on a variety of factors such as what they feel they can prove in court, and what will bring the most severe punishment.

[QUOTE="Strider_91"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'm saying that a prosecutor, having limited resources, likely isn't going to bother with a lesser charge when they can persue the greater charge.

worlock77

I don't believe in charging people with crimes over natural events when there is no proof that they had anything to do with them. I value rights, maybe you don't. And yeah, if the beating is a misdomeanor then it is a lesser charge than a felony. I don't know that it was, but it may have been. You don't know why the prosecutor isn't charging them with assault, but it may be such a case. I don't know ether, I'm just giving a possible reason why. Prosecutors often pick and choose what charges to persue based on a variety of factors such as what they feel they can prove in court, and what will bring the most severe punishment.

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

That should be manslaughter.worlock77

Why should it be? They did not cause the man's death.

Actually they can be if their beating led the complications that killed him.. If I shot you, and you lived.. Only to die a few horus later due to a complication due to this wound.. Then that most definitely should be considered murder..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Strider_91"] I wouldn't count the beating as a lesser charge. Whether you agree with this or not, he was beaten and hospitalised, and that WILL of had some kind of effect on him and his heart at his age.. they deserved to be charged with something more severe than breaking and entering I'm getting the impression from your posts that you don't believe anything is enough evidence to convict them.. nothing short of a video or the judge bloody being there is legitStrider_91

I don't believe in charging people with crimes over natural events when there is no proof that they had anything to do with them. I value rights, maybe you don't. And yeah, if the beating is a misdomeanor then it is a lesser charge than a felony. I don't know that it was, but it may have been. You don't know why the prosecutor isn't charging them with assault, but it may be such a case. I don't know ether, I'm just giving a possible reason why. Prosecutors often pick and choose what charges to persue based on a variety of factors such as what they feel they can prove in court, and what will bring the most severe punishment.

Rights ether apply to all equally or they apply to none.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="TSNAKE617"]

That should be manslaughter.sSubZerOo

Why should it be? They did not cause the man's death.

Actually they can be if their beating led the complications that killed him.. If I shot you, and you lived.. Only to die a few horus later due to a complication due to this wound.. Then that most definitely should be considered murder..

In that case there is a clear connection to the crime commited and the death. In this case there is not. It's really not a hard concept to follow.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Why should it be? They did not cause the man's death.

worlock77

Actually they can be if their beating led the complications that killed him.. If I shot you, and you lived.. Only to die a few horus later due to a complication due to this wound.. Then that most definitely should be considered murder..

In that case there is a clear connection to the crime commited and the death. In this case there is not. It's really not a hard concept to follow.

Your condescending tone is not helping.. And yet again has he had an autopsy? When there are "pending" charges that means they have yet to get all the answers they are looking for which most likely includes a autopsy.

Rights ether apply to all equally or they apply to none.

worlock77

He's lucky xaos didn't come after him for his comics.

This story just proves that Humanity is vile by its very nature. Disgusting.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Rights ether apply to all equally or they apply to none.

Strider_91

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

[QUOTE="Strider_91"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Rights ether apply to all equally or they apply to none.

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Strider_91"] Whether they have rights or not is irrelevant.. they have committed a crime and should serve there time..sonicare

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

The man was admitted to the hospital, treated, released and had the heart attack afterwards. Seems like that pretty well rules out them causing the heart attack.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

The man was admitted to the hospital, treated, released and had the heart attack afterwards. Seems like that pretty well rules out them causing the heart attack.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

worlock77

The man was admitted to the hospital, treated, released and had the heart attack afterwards. Seems like that pretty well rules out them causing the heart attack.

That depends has there been a autopsy? If they find evidence that the hospital possibly missed or could not have detected at the time..

Without reasonable doubt anyone? It would be appaling if they got charged with manslaughter or murder.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yeah, hence Godwin's Law. That doesn't make your misguided Hitler comparison anymore valid however.

worlock77

No, your comparisons are not valid. Hitler did not indirectly cause the deaths of millions, he directly ordered the deaths of millions. You have no way to establish that they caused the man's heart attack and you're commiting another logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) by insisting so.

His heart attack struck immediately after being interviewed by police. Charge them for manslaughter?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] It may be more proper to charge them with manslaughter as opposed to murder. Their intent and actions were not to kill the person. However, he may have died from their negligence. sSubZerOo

The man was admitted to the hospital, treated, released and had the heart attack afterwards. Seems like that pretty well rules out them causing the heart attack.

That depends has there been a autopsy? If they find evidence that the hospital possibly missed or could not have detected at the time..

And what would an autopsy show? That he had a heart attack?

[QUOTE="Strider_91"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Rights ether apply to all equally or they apply to none.

worlock77

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The man was admitted to the hospital, treated, released and had the heart attack afterwards. Seems like that pretty well rules out them causing the heart attack.

That depends has there been a autopsy? If they find evidence that the hospital possibly missed or could not have detected at the time..

And what would an autopsy show? That he had a heart attack?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"] I'd say my comparisons are pretty valid though. The authorities are acting like all they did was steal the mans stuff. They're completely neglecting the fact that they beat him. They indirectly caused his death. Just as Hitler indirectly caused the deaths of millions of people.-Big_Red-

No, your comparisons are not valid. Hitler did not indirectly cause the deaths of millions, he directly ordered the deaths of millions. You have no way to establish that they caused the man's heart attack and you're commiting another logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) by insisting so.

Amazing that you just repeated the same logical fallacy after it being pointed out to you.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Strider_91"] Whether they have rights or not is irrelevant.. they have committed a crime and should serve there time..Strider_91

Rights are entirely relevant. You're advocating charging them with killing the man when they may not have had anything to do with the man's death whatsoever. And no one is arguing that they shouldn't serve whatever sentence they get should they be convicted.

I'm trolling? Since when is rationally debating a topic trolling? And sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plan to leave this board anytime soon.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, your comparisons are not valid. Hitler did not indirectly cause the deaths of millions, he directly ordered the deaths of millions. You have no way to establish that they caused the man's heart attack and you're commiting another logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) by insisting so.

worlock77

Amazing that you just repeated the same logical fallacy after it being pointed out to you.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"] I'm impressed that you stood here and effectively debated with all of these people by yourself. But chances are no matter if you want. To admit it or not: he would not have died that day if he was never attacked.-Big_Red-

Amazing that you just repeated the same logical fallacy after it being pointed out to you.

I'm saying that it is speculation that the robbery caused the heart attack. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused by the other.

People defending these individuals are just another reason why the justice system does not work people can get away with anything if they skirt a fine line around the laws. xxmatt125xx

What fine line? All I'm saying is that people shouldn't get charged with murder if they haven't murdered anyone.

Extreme amounts of stress can trigger a heart attack. These men ente red his home illegally and assaulted him, putting him under enough stress to have induced a heart attack. Compare it to intoxicated man slaughter. The drunk guy behind the wheel may not have meant to kill anyone, but they did, and they get prosecuted for it. The evidence is ciircumstantial, but it's enough to argue to get these guys more time IMOo.

LikeHaterade

I might agree if the guy had suffered a heart attack WHILE BEING BEATEN.

Instead, he went to the hospital, was treated and released, went home, waited for the police to arrive and question him, waited for the police to leave, and only THEN did he have a heart attack.

And by that point, I think the burglars are in the clear.

Very sad.

Sad, people are so selfish.

This story just proves that Humanity is vile by its very nature. Disgusting.

BluRayHiDef

Humanity...blah, blah, blah.

Pretty much every species acts the same way. Don't tell me you've never seen pigeons fight over a french fry, or cats fighting just for the hell of it. The robbers saw something that they wanted, and took it by force because they could.

Well, I don't know about your states, but in Oklahoma, anytime that someone dies in the commission of or as a result of a felonious act, the death can be considered a homicide for which the person or persons who committed the felonious act can be charged with murder.

I saw this a week ago, it's just awful.

The world can be one messed-up place....

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Extreme amounts of stress can trigger a heart attack. These men ente red his home illegally and assaulted him, putting him under enough stress to have induced a heart attack. Compare it to intoxicated man slaughter. The drunk guy behind the wheel may not have meant to kill anyone, but they did, and they get prosecuted for it. The evidence is ciircumstantial, but it's enough to argue to get these guys more time IMOo.

MrGeezer

I might agree if the guy had suffered a heart attack WHILE BEING BEATEN.

Instead, he went to the hospital, was treated and released, went home, waited for the police to arrive and question him, waited for the police to leave, and only THEN did he have a heart attack.

And by that point, I think the burglars are in the clear.

I find it very sad that despicable acts such as this never surprise me anymore.

I'm with those who would charge them for murder.

hitting a 77 year old in his own home. what kind of person do you have to be to do that