Submitted by OpinionPoop t3_11qngmc in nyc
8bitaficionado t1_jc6bqol wrote
Reply to comment by spicytoastaficionado in Teen brutally attacked in NYC subway station; hate crime probed: NYPD by OpinionPoop
This is the same city state that just dropped a first degree murder conviction on one of the members who killed Lesandro “Junior” Guzman-Feliz and that guy was caught on video.
socrates4_2_0 t1_jc739fo wrote
Did you not read the article you linked? You make it seem like the guy you mentioned will just walk free. The article says the state literally could not make the legal case for first degree murder (requiring an element of torture), and so the guy will be sentenced for second degree murder. He still faces life in prison.
8bitaficionado t1_jc759zl wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxA8vTd2VnQ
They dragged this poor kid out of a store and beat him, slashed his neck and left him to die and they they have the gall to say
"Thus, we find that defendant and his accomplices did not engage in a ‘course of conduct’ involving the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain.”"
He was convicted by a jury of his peers and the city reduced it.
socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7676y wrote
The appellate division of the New York Supreme Court vacated the first degree murder conviction, so no, it was not the city... Again, did you read what you linked?
No one is debating whether or not this was an awful crime. You seem to be mixing up the Manhattan DA with NY state law. The city didn't reduce anything.
8bitaficionado t1_jc79u1u wrote
I edited it from City to State, but it doesn't matter. Its the same political machine that put those state judges there and made this determination.
Also with 25 years to life who is to say they will actually get life with the lessor sentence?
socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7bptq wrote
I only bring that up because the comment you originally replied to was lamenting about the Manhattan DA who charged the bodega worker for acting in self-defense, making your comment seem like this is just yet another example of Manhattan DA incompetence, when by reading the article it's clear it's not that at all.
To answer your second question, there's no guarantee I suppose, but if you read the link you sent, the Bronx DA (who is not in favor of the NY Supreme Court's ruling) said the guy has already been sentenced to 25 to life as part of the second degree murder conviction, and is also charged with conspiracy and gang assault on top of that. Those seem like appropriate charges to me, given what I know, and I expect the total charges will likely extend his sentence to the maximum.
8bitaficionado t1_jc7j8ly wrote
I didn't mention the DA at all.
socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7jotg wrote
I didn’t say you did.
8bitaficionado t1_jc7jzl1 wrote
Yet you made the assumption. I said the city and I should have said the state. Regardless it is the same political machine that put the state judges and the city ones
socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7l0oz wrote
I made no assumption. But your comment’s lack of clarity (and, as you admit, false info) could easily lead anyone who read it to believe that the choice to vacate the first degree murder sentence was a bad (perhaps political?) decision on the part of the DA’s office.
Clearly, the defendant’s lawyers filed an appeal that was ruled favorably upon by the state supreme court. What exactly is your problem with that?
8bitaficionado t1_jc7nfk4 wrote
I made a mistake and it was more about the politics then the DA. If I meant the DA I would have said so.
My problem is the political ideas and the machine that has enabled this.
socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7p5rl wrote
I understand that, but what I'm trying to get at is that based on the article you linked, the circumstances surrounding the case you're referring to has literally nothing to do with "political ideas and the machine".
8bitaficionado t1_jc84w3p wrote
I agree to disagree
williamwchuang t1_jc807tp wrote
The law is a harsh mistress. For first degree murder, the law requires a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that "the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim’s death." A single stab wound that results in death almost certainly cannot constitute torture under this law as a single action cannot be a "course of conduct". The idiot was convicted of second degree murder.
To give you an idea of how hard it is to get a conviction for first degree murder by torture, only three convictions have been obtained in the thirty years it has been in effect.
8bitaficionado t1_jc84suy wrote
The dragging out of a deli and the beat down doesn't fit those requirements? It wasn't just a stab wound.
williamwchuang t1_jc8cn8p wrote
Pulling him out of the deli wasn't meant to infect torture. It's a law meant for really specific purposes and the prosecutor tried to stretch it.
8bitaficionado t1_jcauepv wrote
You forgot the beating, but I guess they determined that that wasn't severe enough. What a joke.
williamwchuang t1_jcb2hqv wrote
It's clear that the crime here doesn't meet the requirements of the law. We aren't supposed to bend the law because we hate the defendants. That's why there's a saying that tough cases make bad law: we twist the law to fit a certain situation then that ends up with bad consequences down the road.
The torture law requires:
the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain;
In the context of murder, everything leading up to the death is going to be horrible. The law says that it has to be "especially cruel and wanton manner" and it has to be intended to inflict and actually inflict torture. The other ways to get convicted of first degree murder are pretty extreme and rare:
- Knowingly and intentionally killing an on-duty cop, firefighter, EMS, corrections officer, etc.;
- Killing a witness to silence them;
- Killing a judge out of vengeance;
- being a serial killer;
- Killing anyone while you're already in prison serving a life term;
- murder for hire;
- a killing while conducting a rape, robbery, or burglary.
8bitaficionado t1_jcbie16 wrote
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.27
> the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain; or
If you want to argue that what happened was not "especially cruel and wanton" that's on you. If you don't feel multiple people beating on someone is torturous, that's your opinion. The prosecutors and jurors thought so.
williamwchuang t1_jcbl58r wrote
You're making an emotional argument and an appeal to authority. The appellate court overturned the decision of the prosecutor and jury, so my appeal to authority defeats yours. If you want to say that you know more about the law than the appellate courts, then you are free to do so, but it would not hold much water because it's just your opinion supported by your emotions. At the end of the day, are you saying that the appellate court was wrong?
8bitaficionado t1_jcbrjyz wrote
You must be a lawyer because you are looking at this like a case you want to win and looking for a technical edge.
williamwchuang t1_jcbtp7c wrote
You are very clearly wrong but you're still arguing. No idea why you think you know more than an appellate court.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments