News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Judge saw through the crocodile tears, and sentenced her appropriately. I see a lot of pearl clutching in this thread, would you be so empathic towards this sociopath if the victim were your mother or grandmother?
I don't know anything about this case, but revenge is not a solution. Our penal system is totally fucked, and part of the issue is people have been told that revenge is justice. It isn't. We will all be paying for this woman to be locked up and she won't be able to contribute to society. If we tried to rehabilitate, that'd be one thing. We just try to punish though, and people like you act like a harsher punishment is good somehow. What good does it do?
Oh no, who could have ever predicted that actions might have consequences. She killed someone, completely unprovoked to boot. It’s not revenge to lock her ass up, it’s the consequence of her killing someone.
It's still revenge. I agree there should be some consequences, but should it be for life? I can use your exact argument to just keep increasing the sentence. At what point is it not acceptable? Should every mistake be a life sentence? The US already has the worst incarceration rate by far in the world. Why are people still ok with this shit? Why do they think this argument is acceptable? It doesn't work as a deterrent, so what's the point, besides making you feel good about getting revenge?
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Without personal emotion I do not believe it to be revenge and with a professional judge upholding judicial standards set by society I do not believe the consequence bestowed on this woman displays any signs of being revenge. That’s not so say I agree that is true for every punishment but it most certainly aligns in this case, I’m sure that line will look different for different folks. She purposefully acted in a violent manner that directly killed somebody. No unpredictable tools, mechanisms, devices, or external factors were at play. Her hands and her mind alone violently shoved and killed this woman. Eight years seems plenty appropriate to me. Depending on circumstances, some within her control, should could see a meaningful reduction to that sentence. Theirs plenty of incarceration issues to take issue with that display a failed system, this isn’t one of them in my assessment.
My biggest issue is this was obviously spontaneous. The punishment likely would play no factor in preventing this from happening. If the sentence is death, she still probably would have done it because it wasn't considered. In that case, what does 8 years do that 4 years or life also doesn't do? The harshness of the sentence doesn't matter and it's just another person to pay taxes to keep in prison who is providing nothing in that time. What good does it do besides making people feel like she got what she deserved (aka, revenge).
We get some of that sweet sweet ~~slave~~ free labor!
This fella....just 4 years for killing someone and you still want to white knight here?
Where did you get 4 years? Plea deal was for 8, judge added 6 months to that.
This isn't a rebuttal against what you're saying overall btw, just a correction on the 4 years. 8.5 years still seems too short.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world by a large margin. How do you see that as acceptable? We have a culture of revenge and it doesn't do any good. Shouldn't the purpose of laws be to do as much good as possible, not to make people feel nice because they got revenge?
There are people doing more time than her for having weed on their person or passing a bad check to buy groceries or pay rent. Let's start there, not with people who kill old ladies because they're mad about being asked to leave an establishment that is closing.
We need to reform the system completely. Saying we need to start with only one crime is being shortsighted. It's all fucked, and it's fucked so some people can profit off of it. I agree those people serving more time is worse, but it's a symptom of a rotten system, not something we can fix one case at a time.
System reform doesnt start with the crimes you feel morally okay with. It starts with systemic issues.
I mean.. yeah.. but I don't think you're going to get far arguing that violent people who kill old ladies for sport should be given less time. You'll win more hearts and minds with literally any other type of crime (except those against kids). She is an example of someone who does need to be separated from society, for the safety of vulnerable people.
You think this was a sport killing?
It was classed by the court as first degree manslaughter. She got angry, threw food, was "storming" down the street, saw an old lady on the other side of the street, called her a bitch, crossed the street and killed her, to placate her own rage. Yes, I would call that sport killing. It would be slightly different if the woman just happened to be in her way, but she wasn't. She saw a target, made a decision, changed course, and killed her to meet her own emotional need. If she had been in a car and done this there wouldn't be a question (unless of course the lady had been protesting something at the time, then game on!).
Thats.... a wealth of assumptions. What youve detailed assumes a ton about the motive, but you didnt even detail a sport killing. Killing someone "to meet an emotional need" isnt killing for sport.
Youre also assuming that she knew pushing the lady over would be lethal, and that she started an argument with the express intent of justifying lethally shoving her.
She was drunk, bud. A drunk person incorrectly assuming a passer by is insulting them in some way and starting a fight over that assumption is so common its a writing stereotype.
Angrily starting a drunken argument on the street and then getting violent isnt killing for sport.
And, like.... yeah if she had a murder weapon it sure would be different. If she had done it sober at 8 in the morning it would be different too.
E: it feels kinda dumb the say "thats not killing for sport" without saying why. Sport killing is killing for the fun of it. Like, intentionally hunting someone down and killing because you enjoy making someone die. Theres no evidence publicly available that she shoved the victim because she wanted to kill her, for the purpose of personal enjoyment.
Oh honey. I'm not your bud. Being drunk doesn't make it ok to hurt or kill vulnerable people. Just because it's a trope doesn't make it ok... you.. you know that, right? I'm worried that you don't know that.
I kinda thought this was an ordinary conversation, but pretending youre insulted by bud and playing stupid that you think that knowing what killing for sport means must mean I think that this was a justified act.... are you okay? Did you take a few hits of something in the past hour?
You understand that wrongful death is still a crime even when its not killing for sport, yes? Do I need to, like, walk you through every way a person can kill another person, and reassure you that each one is also bad?
Or are you gonna make up more baseless nonsense about how this lady secretly plotted and hunted a total stranger who she machiavellian-esquely knew would be outside the bar, just for the thrill?
That's.... a lot of assumptions, bud.
Kinda ironic, I guess.
Were you ever gonna elaborate on how you are so sure she killed out of premeditated glee, or are you hoping that just goes under the rug
My least favorite thing about forum users is when they think they have some entitlement to having their bad faith questions answered. It's just gross. It's a gross feeling. You know perfectly well that there isn't a legal definition of "sport killing humans." So you're here to provide your own definition, that is different to mine and waggle your cock around pronouncing yourself the king of correctness. Gross.
Notice how you had to add "humans" to that? Since there is a definition for "sport killing," which is "to kill for pleasure"?
Is it gross that you claimed a woman intentionally killed someone for fun, despite you having zero reason to even suspect that? Yeah, its gross as hell.
Is it gross that when you were questioned on your insane theory that this was a pleasure driven intentional murder, you pretended that I must think the death was justified and not a crime? Yeah, its fucking disgusting.
You are attributing cruel intent to a human beings death. Thats very very very fucked up. And it solidifies my point of system reform, because you want to make up stories about a stranger to justify punishing her more. And when questioned, you freak the fuck out, rather than stopping and asking yourself " huh, why did I make up a motive that justified more punishment?"
But Im gross? Thats a riot. Get your priorities straight.
You are just all frothy about this aren't you? (Also gross)
Its fascinating how immediately you begin doing the things you accused me of.
So froth. Very rage.
There are better ways to bring down incarceration rates than to go easy on casual murderers.
I get your position but killing is where I draw the line.
Let's say you accidentally hit someone with your car. Does that deserve a life sentence? You killed someone and I draw the line at killing, so I think we should lock you away forever. Stupid, right? I'm not going to argue for a certain amount of punishment (none of it effectively works to deter crime, especially accidental), but I will argue that we need to fix our system. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and that doesn't need to be the case. We could have rehabilitation instead of torture too, which would help people when they finally do get out to contribute to society.
Lmao I can want prison to be a place of rehabilitation and still want a criminal to spend time locked up, away from society.
Yes, they would still be locked up for a period of time. I don't know what the right amount of time is, but just wanting more always creates more issues. You can always ask for more. It never ends. The sentencing time should be based on data and science, not feelings.
"If you were unable to think rationally about the case, you would have a different opinion" isn't the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is.