A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
8 years!
No!!
8 years, 6 months!
Sold!!!
Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.
It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn’t truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn’t always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn’t harsh enough, the prosecutor won’t agree to it, and if it’s too harsh, the defense won’t agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.
Yes, it’s “only” 6 more months, but that’s really not insignificant.
Now, to all the people screaming about how it’s not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (???)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.
But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn’t have happened, yes, it’s tragic, but it was not a murder.
Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you’re saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don’t think that’s the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it’s very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.
Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I’m not sure on that one, but that’s because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that’s not her fault, that’s the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it’s now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That’s a hell of an incentive not to repeat.
Alright, I think that’s all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you’re discussing individual crimes, not just when you’re talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.
Removed by mod
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think there’s really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I’m sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren’t pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.
What I’d like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that’s what she needs more than a longer sentence.
If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don’t think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I’m not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it’s hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn’t be helpful to her, and to society at large.
I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn’t long enough for causing someone’s death. I’ve seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.
But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn’t the point here. I’m just trying to point out that there’s a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.
In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it’s important to not lose sight of that.
I don’t give a fuck about rehabilitation. There’s 8 billion people on this planet, we can afford to dispose of the shitty ones. Spend those resources that would go towards rehabilitating her on someone who needs help and hasn’t killed any innocent old women.
What’s the point of rehabilitation if you just arbitrarily decide that people aren’t worth it?
It’s not arbitrary, it’s based off the fact she threw a tantrum and killed a person.
but don’t you get?
this is a good white woman who made an honest mistake (anyone could have done the same)
not some black hooligan selling loose cigarettes
/s if not obvious
Well said. This should be the top comment. You helped me calm down with this.
Well said. Lemmy, like Reddit, and probably every other social media platform, is quick to grab up those torches and pitch forks.
We’re reaching a French revolution type point in American history. There are people who are the product of absurd privilege, and there is everyone else.
This is tipping the scales a little bit back out of the favor of privilege. In the grand scheme, it’s effectively misguided and miniscule. But it’s a sign of progress nonetheless.
Our legal system sucks ass. There’s no reason why so much of our population should be imprisoned for relatively minor reason… but we’re also used to money being more important than culpability. Affluenza, rapists getting off because it would be detrimental to their future to be held accountable, or generally rich people being able to pay for their crimes financially instead of punitively.
So when someone from a perceived place of privilege is actually held to the same standards as one of us serfs, it’s usually celebrated. It sucks, but it’s true.
This thread more of an indictment of our shitty legal system than of the defendant.
This story is weird. Who shoves an old woman for no apparent reason?
👮♂️
But also people with no impulse control…… nvm
I’m sure it was really something far more reasonable, like she was feeling scared or disrespected or thought the coach matched a profile or found that the coach had a suspicious amount of money on their being or…
That cane looked like a fully semi automatic assault rifle I swear.
You sound like you’ve never seen a fully automatic walking assistance device.
No civilian needs that much ambulatory power.
Even if it’s a well regulated dysplasia?
You mean people who are perpetually in fear for their lives and prone to panic?
The abhorrent details from another article:
Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding, her fiancé told authorities, according to a court document.
Pazienza had “several glasses of wine” during the evening before the pair stopped at a food cart for something to eat, according to the document filed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
The pair went to Chelsea Park to eat their meal, but before they were done, an employee told them they would have to leave because the park was closing, the document said. Chelsea Park closes at 11 p.m.
“The defendant became angry, started shouting and cursing at the park employee, threw her food onto her fiancé, and stormed out of the park,” according to prosecutors.
Meanwhile, Pazienza “stormed” down the street and spotted Barbara Maier Gustern, prosecutors said.
Gustern, “in what turned out to be her dying words” before she lost consciousness, told a friend that a woman with dark hair “ran across the straight,” directly toward her, called her a b---- and pushed her as hard she “had ever been hit in her life” toward a metal fence, prosecutors said.
Gustern, according to a witness, “fell in an arc, falling directly on her head,” according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Pazienza “turned around and walked away, leaving Ms. Gustern prone on the sidewalk, bleeding from the head,” prosecutors said.
Pazienza called her fiancé after the assault, he told authorities. When they reconnected, she picked a physical fight with him, accusing him of ruining her night, prosecutors said. He insisted the two head home, but security video from the area showed that Pazienza stayed in the area long enough to watch the ambulance arrive for Gustern.
She later told her fiancé what she had done, he told authorities. When he asked her why she would do such a thing, she said the woman "might have said something” to her.
Sure prison is nice, but this lady is seriously unhinged and time behind bars won’t fix that.
Damn, he dodged a bullet there! (tell me he didn’t marry her after that).
Her fiance dodged a bullet
Christ these stories Blackpill me really badly
Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding
honestly, this is just piece of shit person, living off someone else’s money, running around contributing nothing to society. fuck her
Rich, white entitlement everyone.
I’ve seen it before. Lots of these girls pretend to care about those they see as lesser until you get a few drinks in them.
Then their real character shows, and this is it.
Disgusting.
I don‘t know, this description sounds more like her brain imploded
meet any rich white entitled people lately?
According to prosecutors, Pazienza attacked Gustern after storming out of a nearby park, where she and her fiance had been eating meals from a food cart.
This is speculation, but sounds like maybe she got in an argument or was angry about something and was storming off somewhere. NYC is crowded and if you’re angry, trying to get somewhere, and not composed (getting into the mindset here, not what I really think) then “this old bitch in my way fuckin’ move arrrggg!” shove
Obviously, there’s nothing right about it and most of the time people behave themselves, even when they’re angry. Sometimes, though, they don’t. This isn’t a justification in any sense - more of a speculation in furtherance of an attempt at comprehension.
The costs of the actions you commit while angry often far outweigh the initial cause of the anger.
Her fiance perspective is that there was an argument and the suspect storms off and murders someone. Like, maybe now is a good time to see you’re engaged to a monster.
Guessing you haven’t spent much time in NYC?
In such a dense environment, even the very small proportion of the general population that’s deeply mentally ill and violent can be very visible and do a lot of damage, and we don’t really have any good tools to deal with them except for waiting for them to attack someone.
I live in NJ, been to NYC quite a bit. I saw “event planner from Long Island” and was confused as that doesn’t sound like the kind of NYC crazy person I’ve come to expect (at least the physically violent kind) but once someone mentioned she was intoxicated it clicked for me.
She has history of bullying her classmate. Some comments in nyc subreddit suggesting her father is a mafia - being cesspool contractor has something to do about it? I don’t see the connection anyway but if that’s the case, that could explain a bit.
Bullying her classmates? Isnt she like 40?
she’s 26(+). People came forward after the incident went public. And her neighbors said she’s a troublemaker.
She does not look her age.
You’ve never encountered a rich, white woman in NYC, have you?
She was drunk and got angry that the kicked her out of the park, so assaulted an old woman. Bitch deserves more than just 8.5 years. I prefer that her citizenship is revoked as well.
Revoking citizenship is illegal under the Geneva convention and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Signatory countries aren’t allowed to intentionally make a person stateless. It is actually a big problem that has been abused several times throughout history. Nazi’s revoking Jewish citizenship is a prime example. More recently, we have the Uyghur Muslims in China.
The issue with revoking citizenship as a punishment is that it only pushes the burden of citizenship onto another country. It also removes any kinds of legal protections that a citizen may have had. Imagine if a country only allows citizens a right to an attorney. All that country would need to do to remove your legal council is strip your citizenship. Even if you later manage to get the citizenship back, you’ve still lost your original court case because you were forced to go through it without a lawyer.
Involuntary loss of citizenship is also unconstitutional.
Well that’s gross. I’m not comfortable with giving the government the power to revoke a person’s citizenship; sounds ripe for abuse, but I get the outrage
It’s against the Geneva suggestions.
They are more aspirational than literal.
Removed by mod
Wow. Going for some kind of downvote record? Speed run?
I didn’t vote for you
I’m sorry but normal people don’t shove elderly people when they are drunk.
She is a fucking sociopath
I was an alcoholic for a solid 3 years and been shitfaced many a times. Never have I tries to physically hurt people or engage in fights, despite my anger issues.
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
slavefree labor!This fella…just 4 years for killing someone and you still want to white knight here?
He’s not being a white knight towards this specific woman.
He’s raising the topic of what is best for society.
I agree with his point. Law and order doesn’t exist to punish people or to get revenge. It exists for the benefit of society. And putting people in jail, making them unable to contribute to society and becoming a permanent burden on society is bad for society. It doesn’t do any good.
Frankly, I think it’s better for society to just bring back the guillotine if we aren’t going to rehabilitate.
You’re assuming four years in prison won’t allow her to rehabilitate. It very well might.
We have the data for this that it won’t. The US doesn’t have rehabilitation programs. We have punishment programs. We don’t really provide tools for people to improve their lives when they’re out. If anything, we do the opposite. If you have a criminal record of any kind, getting a job is significantly harder, which pushes people into illegal work again.
We have the data that it LIKELY won’t, but that just means we need to do better with our prisoners and rehab programs. It’s not an excuse to let someone who killed someone right back onto the streets.
Are other countries with better rehab programs letting manslaughter convicts out in less than four years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Swedish_law
Apparently in Sweden you get 6-10 for manslaughter.
Looks like it’d be this one, so yeah they are more lenient:
Causing the death of another (Vållande till annans död, literally ‘causing another’s death’). It roughly corresponds to negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. The law reads: “A person who causes the death of another person through negligence is guilty of causing the death of another and is sentenced […]” The punishment for Vållande till annans död is:
A fine (day-fines) if the crime is petty,
Any prison term up to 2 years, or
Any prison term between 1 year and 6 years “if the offence is gross”.[2]
I ‘m sure it has nothing to do with her being a white rich woman
I see a discussion about rehabilitating everyone or guillotining everyone. I don’t think there’s any need to mix race into these extremes.
Removed by mod
in jail
Wait, but the NY woman did go to jail, didn’t she? I don’t think anyone was suggesting here that she shouldn’t have been sentenced.
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?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
You think this was a sport killing?
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.
Rehabilitation and revenge are two out of the four aims of sentencing. There’s also deterrence and prevention: sending a message to everyone else that this is not okay, and simply keeping the convict away from the public so they can’t hurt anyone else.
Except we have the data for this. Long sentences don’t work effectively for deterrence. If it did, sure. Since it doesn’t, that’s not valid.
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.
Sigh.
I don’t know both sides to this debate. Do you disagree? If so, what do you think? Tbh it sounds pretty reasonable to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, is the difference mainly focused on terminology differences?
I think that punishment is a deterrent for bad behavior and it’s sad such a thing even needs to be discussed.
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
The US has more people in prison as a proportion of the population than almost anywhere else, and notoriously harsh prisons by developed world standards. We also have some of the highest crime rates among developed countries, so it would seem that maybe punishment isn’t that great a deterrent.
yea for minority drug charges
this is none of those
Sorry, I’ve had this argument before.
Do you think that the only difference between the US and other developed nations that has an impact on crime is the rate of imprisonment?
You’re right, punishment is only one of very many factors. Thanks for making my argument for me.
So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes? What do you think about the criminal themselves?
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The only reason there’s a discussion about the purpose of criminal punishment?
So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes?
I’d say that’s pretty close. I’m not going to take an “all-or-nothing” approach and say prison can’t rehabilitate, but I would say it’s mostly to punish criminals so fewer people commit crimes.
What do you think about the criminal themselves?
It depends on the crime and the criminal.
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
I’m referring to people who don’t understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.
You’ve reduced the argument for less severe punishment in favor of rehabilitation to:
I’m referring to people who don’t understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.
This is a horrible argument. No one is saying that there aren’t some people who can’t be helped. However, should all people be damned because a few can’t be redeemed? In a system that prioritizes rehabilitation, you’d review the prisoners progress occasionally to see if they’re problems are being solved. If they aren’t, they’ll serve a full lengthy sentence. If they are then they can stop being a burden to society and instead benifit society. What’s not to like about that? We waste so much money on holding people in cells and not even trying to fix them. Why do you want your taxes spent for that?
Harsher sentences do not effectively work as deterrence from the data we currently have. The US has the highest incarceration rate, by a large margin, so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right? This isn’t true, so we can pretty reasonably say our method is not working and is placing a larger burden on society than it needs to (though it’s making some people very wealthy).
so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right?
In what myopic world do you live in where “all else is equal”?
Also, you’re confusing “harsher sentences” with “incarceration rate.” They are not the same.
Obviously all else isn’t equal. However, given a large enough data set (the entire world) it’s clear it isn’t working because we’re literally the worst. Thats why I said all else being equal, because variations should average out across the sample and we should be able to compare performance.
Also, you’re confusing “harsher sentences” with “incarceration rate.” They are not the same.
They aren’t the same, but they’re closely related. If we double all sentences then, over time, the incarceration rate would double, all else being equal. If each prisoner is spending more time in prison, more people will be in prison at any given time.
Well, that and all the scientific research that shows definitively that punishment isnt a successful deterrent for criminal behavior.
Can you link it?
definitively
Lol, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Let’s see this “definitive” research. You probably think any study is “definitive.” Lol.
Multiple examples have been linked in the thread already, and even more come up on a simple google search of the topic.
But you and I both know that you dont care about the sources, why even ask? We both know youve already decided that hurting people works, no amount of science or fact is going to shake you of that.
Real professionals have been working on this for decades, and you hand wave that away as “victims getting taken advantage of by criminals.”
You dont care about the facts. You have some personal grudge about this. Why not be honest?
“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.
What’s actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?
It seems that the act of pushing alone isn’t enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.
I think it’s clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.
For cases where injury was sustained there is legal doctrine know as the Eggshell skull rule
The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
What an odd rule! Thank you for the explanation.
I think the idea is the actual damages aren’t going to go down just because the person was frail. Someone with prexisting medical problems aren’t going to need less physical therapy compared to someone who is average.
This wasn’t a tort case.
This is a simple case of assault in which someone unintentionally died. It’s textbook manslaughter.
Removed by mod
Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome
No it wouldn’t, you have to prove intention to kill for a murder charge. This is manslaughter, a lesser but still very serious charge. Killing someone on accident is still a crime, shocker, I know.
pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury.
This is why she’s being punished. You cannot assault an 87 year old without expecting serious injury or death. Just like you can grab a 20 year old and shake them by the shoulders and they’ll be fine, but if you do the same to an infant they’re probably going to die.
This is the problem of moral luck. We often want to punish people more because factors outside of the perpetrator’s control turned out badly. Either we should punish everybody harshly when they push an elderly person, whether or not it injures them, or someone like this should get a pretty light sentence. Yet we have an irrational pull to treat the cases differently.
So you’re saying that you don’t understand what manslaughter is. You ask a lot of questions, but I get the feeling that you’re not the type of person that is actually looking for answers
you’re saying that you don’t understand what manslaughter is
No, they’re just saying that instead of manslaughter being a more severe charge than assault, maybe it should be lessened to be equivalent. Similarly, maybe attempted murder should carry a charge equivalent to actual murder.
Muder is murder. Manslaughter is manslaughter. Intention, knowledge, negligence, does not matter for manslaughter, unless the intention was to kill, which upgrades it to muder instead.
Sneezing on someone? No crime.
Pushing someone? Crime.
This is why you’re not a lawyer and should never have any say in legal proceedings.
Stay in your lemmy fantasy world with the rest of the mentally ill.
You don’t have to be a dick about it Bob.
All I have to say is good. Fuck this woman (not literally she doesn’t need to get laid). I drink and have been drunk many a times, never in that stupid inebriated state have I EVER thought to murder someone or try and cause them harm. Do dumb shit? Absolutely I’m a drunk fool so you give me a bucket, a empty street and a fuel and lighter I’m likely gonna kick a flaming bucket down the street. But to hurt someone or seek a fight etc? No. I’m still able to keep my morality and decision-making under control over those things.
That’s uh, pretty specific with the flaming bucket…
That’s because that’s something I’ve done when I was 21 😆 we played flaming bucket soccer. It did NOT end in disaster luckily.
“Man did you see Mafflez’s goalkeeping skills last night?? That dude was on FIRE!!”
That was my buddy Matt actually XD his left Jean leg caught fire, but yea I’ve done stupid but fun stuff.
deleted by creator
You could hurt someone with a flaming bucket though.
Oh for sure I could. The difference between myself and my friends doing this drunkenly is it was a dead end street with only his house and no vehicle traffic. And while Matt did slightly catch fire, we wouldn’t have purposely hurt someone. The lady in the article was said to get increasingly unruly and belligerent. Not how I operate.
Now say we’d caused a house fire or any fire for that matter I’d have fully accepted any punishment for the severity of whatever had happened. Just who I am. I fuck up I own it. Even drunk me knows not to punch someone or harm someone unless I’m in danger.
So no judgement but for me: drunk fool doing dumb shit ≠ decision making under control. To each there own but shit can spiral out of control rapidly. Be safe out there.
If you do dumb shit while drunk, you still chose to get drunk. Your fully-aware mind is perfectly capable of grasping that you getting drunk will make you do dumb shit, so imo you’re fully responsible for your actions while drunk.
I mean I suppose but when I drink now I rarely get to a state I cannot retain reason and think somewhat critical. This was mostly when I was in my 20s. But I would argue being drunk does NOT at all absolve me or anyone else from consequences of actions we made… even impared. That’s why I agree with this woman’s sentences. She absolutely deserved what she got.
The judge didn’t believe the defendant was actually repentant.
She probably wasn’t.
The story reads like a rich, entitled white girl getting trashed and then her real personality coming out.
Eight and a half years for the senseless murder of one of our society’s most vulnerable citizens.
Legally speaking you’d have a hard time prosecuting that as murder. You’d have to prove that she was intending for the old lady to die when she shoved her. I’m guessing she was charged with some combination of second degree assault and manslaughter, maybe more. She was facing up to 25 years and took a plea deal for 8, which I assume included part of the charges being dropped.
Removed by mod
Do you always get unreasonably angry when knowledgeable people correct you about things you’re ignorant of?
I expected more maturity out of pp boy.
Why lmao literally all I do is shitpost on this account and engage in bad faith arguments
Well, enjoy your ban then.
Have you tried… I don’t know maybe not doing that?
Nearly 10 years is a long ass time to be in jail for a random angry act.
A random angry act is knocking a sign over, kicking a garbage can, punching a wall. NOT killing someone
Its wild how some people ignore it is a murder. They can’t imagine what if the person dying is their grandma ?
I also wonder if it is ageism and their opinion would change if the person dying is a toddler.
I mean, it’s kind of the risk you take being drunk in public, you have no idea what you are going to do other than be held accountable for it when you are sober afterwards. It’s kind of insane that it is seen as “normal” to take that kind of risk, for alot of people it’s a surprisingly common occurrence.
Bro when I get drunk I wanna cuddle things, not shove elderly people. If “am I gonna murder someone if I go out drinking” is something you have to consider, the problem is you, not the alcohol.
It sounds like you probably aren’t the “people taking risk” that I am referring to.
Not as long as that person is going to be dead.
If you can’t control your anger and you attack random people on the street, you belong behind bars.
“A random angry act” lmao fuck outta here downplaying homicide
There’s a big ass difference between international murder and an angry lash out killing someone. At 87 you’re going to die from stuff that a random angry drunk won’t consider.
So it’s mostly her own fault for being 87 and in public?
No dumbass, murder has to be premeditated and/or intentional.
Shoving someone out of your way/down doesn’t imply that you intended for them to actually die. And it’s pretty hard to prove that you did in court.
Manslaughter - the unintentional act of killing someone through irresponsible or negligent actions - is a fucking slam dunk here. You want this sour bitch to walk free because the prosecution couldn’t get a conviction, because laws are written more specifically than the few words you learned in school?
Go away. Adults are having a conversation, sweetie
No dumbass, murder has to be premeditated and/or intentional.
IANAL but in American law, second degree murder can be intentional without being premeditated. For example, a bar fight that ends in someone dying. There is also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (in the later, the person does not intend to kill the victim). Different states define the different degrees and types differently.
Oh honey. Is there some grass you could touch? I think that might help.
Just make sure there aren’t any elderly people in your way to get there.
Yeah, there’s a lot of fantasy-world takes here in lemmy.
Sometimes it’s nice, and sometimes it’s yikes.
This is one of those yikes times where we’re actually defending a drunk girl killing an old lady for no reason.
Ahh well, I don’t expect more from the chronically mentally ill.
Removed by mod
Plea deals are between the prosecutor and the defendant. The judge can sentence you to anything. That’s why, frequently, prosecutors will drop the most serious charges in a plea deal. That way the judge is limited to sentencing to only the lesser charges.
I believe the plea deal is between the defense and prosecutors. Judge has the last say.
As you can tell, I ain’t a lawyer.
I found a different article that quoted her “former friends” and one said she was basic. Another said she’s the poster child for white privilege and a third said she’s nothing but trouble lol
Like damn wtf… How are you this hated?
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think someone who pushes the elderly in fits of rage isn’t very chill.
I don’t really know what 6 months more or less is gonna do in this case, but ok I guess?
Honestly I think it just made the judge feel better to make it longer
Seems kinda petty
Who knows maybe by adding 6 months it puts her in a different category for parole or something. It only takes $1 to move you from one tax bracket to another one. Maybe something like that is involved. I honestly don’t know.
I think you might have a misunderstanding about how tax brackets work (at least if you’re taking about american federal income taxes). Progressive tax rates mean that only the income that is over the threshold for the new tax bracket gets taxes with the higher %. So if you are $1 over the limlt for a new tax bracket, only that dollar gets taxed with the higher percentage. You can read about this anywhere, this is just the first source I found.
So, I don’t see how this example still applies here. But after some reading, apparently the prosecution got some new information after the plea deal, so the asked for 9 years, and the judge compromised on 8.5. That’s at least what this article implies.
Pazienza’s plea agreement called for an eight-year sentence but prosecutors asked for nine years based on new information contained in a presentence report, a spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said.
That’s not how tax brackets work. If you were one dollar over the next tax bracket, only that dollar would be taxed at that amount.
You’re right I was just trying to illustrate something and I thought that was a good enough example but you’re absolutely correct
Fuckin’ Debbie…
I mean, 8 years for premeditated murder seems kinda low to begin with. 8 years and six months doesn’t seem like much of a difference.
She was charged with manslaughter. I’m not sure of the degree though. Manslaughter basically means you didn’t intend to kill someone but you did
someonesomething reckless that resulted in someone’s death. Premeditated murder is a completely different, and much more serious, charge.“premeditated murder” is a bit of a stretch
