Pigskin pranksters' punishment postponed

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
…What I’m trying to get across is that the judge’s objective appeared to be an attempt to minimize ‘colateral damage’ to other people…
[/QUOTE]
So you can provide a cite to show that? Ya know, actual words from the judge.
Cause all I can find is this,

…“I shouldn’t be doing this, but I’m going to. I see positive things about participating in football,” Judge Gary McKinley said…

…“I’m cutting you somewhat of a break here, and the court will get criticized for this,” McKinley told…

“I would love to make (the victims) whole, but you can’t go back and unring a bell,” McKinley said. Then, he told a crying Howard: “I’m going let you play football. I’m going to let you have your shot at a scholarship. What you make of it is up to you.”

To the attorneys and the courtroom in general, he added: “Denying him an opportunity to play football and denying him an opportunity to go to college isn’t in any way going to help the victims in this case or help society.”

I don’t see anything about “‘collateral damage’ to other people”.
I’d love to see how this judge has dealt with other juveniles before him, the ones who don’t have a shot at a scholarship, and ain’t going to college.

@FRDE

…My position is simple, regardless of what they have done, is it reasonable to defer punishment if deferal will save a load of other totally uninvolved people ‘punishment’ ?
I don’t care about the two morons, it is the other people I’m concerned about.

Every person sent to prison leaves behind a load of totally uninvolved people who will be “punished” by that imprisonment, does everybody get a deferral?

CMC fnord!

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
So you can provide a cite to show that? Ya know, actual words from the judge.
Cause all I can find is this,
I don’t see anything about “‘collateral damage’ to other people”.
I’d love to see how this judge has dealt with other juveniles before him, the ones who don’t have a shot at a scholarship, and ain’t going to college.Every person sent to prison leaves behind a load of totally uninvolved people who will be “punished” by that imprisonment, does everybody get a deferral?

CMC fnord!
[/QUOTE]

Hmm… yes I see what you mean.

Although I can think of individuals whose jailing would be of immense benefit to a lot of uninvolved people.

I was arguing from a point of principle, and I’m beginning to think that the principle was not relevant in this case.

[Autumn_Almanac]

How common are these kinds of “deferments” for short prison sentences, for whatever reason?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Fish]
Based on this story.

Two teenagers played a prank in their town: they placed a deer decoy at the top of a hill, on a curve, to watch as motorists panicked and swerved to avoid the decoy. The prank drove a motorist off the road, injuring two. During their trial, the judge decided the two pranksters (aged 16 and 17) could finish the football season before doing their 60-day
[/QUOTE]

This needs to be pitted so we can calls these parents and that judge all sorts of mean and nasty things. Those families will have to leave that community and hopefully that will teach those boys a lesson. Otherwise they will be learning lessons in prison some day.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Fish]
That’s because the law doesn’t deal in could’ves. You’re not charged based on what could’ve happened, but on what did. If nobody had been hurt at all, they probably wouldn’t have been punished at all. But somebody was.
[/QUOTE]

reckless endangerment
mayhem
attempted murder
conspiracy to murder

None of these require any injury and can land you in prison, the @ssraping kind.

60 days is ridiculous, these kids need at least a scared straight experience.