Post #14,031
10/18/01 4:57:50 PM
|
Which punishment?
The solitary? Or the prison sentance?
The solitary is for his own protection... and its one of those "Well, think about it next time..." sort of things, IMO.
Or is it the prison sentance you're against?
Addison
|
Post #14,034
10/18/01 5:09:04 PM
|
I'd question the sentence
For the reasons bconners gave. Just videotaping? I suppose you can get him on some sort of conspiracy charge, but six months is way out of line.
Depending on the damage, the paintball attacks themselves may or may not justify six months. The story doesn't give enough information to tell. If there was no damage but the harrassment, I'd call the six months excessive. On the other hand, if they shot someone in the face and (say) injured someone's eyes, then I'd throw the book at them.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #14,038
10/18/01 5:16:47 PM
|
If its the one I saw, I wouldn't.
If he's videotaping, and not actively trying to stop them, then he's as guilty as they are, in my opinion.
Its one thing, if they start doing it, and he's in the car. And there's not much he can do about it. But the one I saw the videographer was very gleeful as they shot people with paintball guns (there's been more than one time its happened).
Just videotaping?
Not just videotaping, but participating, and not attempting to stop the others - apparently that *was* a function of his plea bargain, he didn't shoot anybody himself, and he'd testify, and get a reduced sentance.
On the other hand, if they shot someone in the face and (say) injured someone's eyes, then I'd throw the book at them.
But if he *just* videotaped them doing that?
See, you're making a distinction on what happened. If he'd videoed them when they did severe damage, then throw the book, but if it was a harmless prank..
It was also luck that they *didn't* (I don't thnik they did), but that's the sort of thing that VERY easily could have had a problem, with exactly that. I don't know the extent of the damage, but I don't have a problem with ignoring that they got "lucky" and didn't hurt anybody severely, in order to make DAMN SURE that everybody else knows that you're ass is grass if they catch you doing it.
The solitary... Well, that's somewhat justified, because of his own safety. I mean, they *could* toss him into GenPop...
Addison
|
Post #14,072
10/18/01 10:20:49 PM
|
Disagree, of course.
Paintball. Designed not to do harm, only to splatter paint (or dye or whatever) on the recipient.
In a society where we sentence violent criminals (eg, people who have done real, violent harm to people) to less jail time, this is very excessive. Let alone the question of whether he participated or just videotaped the attacks.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #14,087
10/18/01 11:24:55 PM
|
Well..
But you, yourself made a qualifier.
And paintball was more accidentally discovered - and even then, that's *with the other people wearing protective gear*.
As you noted - what if they'd put people's eyes out? If someone had had a heart attack and died?
What if they'd done that, would that change things? But they were just lucky taht they didn't.
I don't think 6 months in jail is a disproportionate sentance for anybody who was a participant in that. We sentance getaway drivers as well as the criminals, he got off light, he got the consideration he was entitled to.
So if somebody runs up and paintballs your wife/kids/mother, you think 6 months is way too much for luckily missing their eyes? (Didn't they use *frozen paintballs* or was that someone else?) - in that case, all bets all off, that's a serious weapon, now.
(Manufacturer started making solid paintballs - for practice - and stopped shipping them a week later when they found that they easily penetrated masks and provided enough force to cause a concussion, and they (rightly) worried about deliberate use, or more likely, accidents).
Addison
|
Post #14,145
10/19/01 9:31:44 AM
|
Consider the following
You can get only about 8 years for 1st degree rape, but life w/o possibility of parole for hacking a computer.
Perhaps, the amateur cinematographer should have participated...he might have gotten away with time served.
(wharris2 is right....)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #14,177
10/19/01 12:35:22 PM
|
What jurisidiction?
Because that makes a big difference.
Right now, there's not any hacking laws in my area. There are Federal laws. But the Feds don't have rape statutes.
So its somewhat of a false comparision.
I believe you're citing the "average time served", but I could be wrong, its what I thought I read on rape cases.
So how much time would you have wanted him to serve had he been shooting your family or you?
Addison
|
Post #14,192
10/19/01 2:17:19 PM
|
A slight misunderstanding
I'm not saying he got too much (in spite of the way it sounded, in retrospect). I'm saying that I don't know what his "buddies" got (should have been about a year, by my extrapolation).
I'm also saying that the concept of punishment fitting the crime is a sick joke plied upon the naive and innocent. This sot's 6 months could have just as easily been time served if he was politically connected, or 2-5 years if he was an Inuit paintballing a white guy. Or consider that assaulting an Inuit might get you 6 months, while selling that same Inuit some psychotropic white powder would get him 20 years w/o parole.
My remark was to the arbitrariness and capriciousness of our so-called "justice" system; that saying that 6 mos. for this guy was "jsut about right" is a meaningless statement, because there are no standards for comparison.
I was trying to be ironic. Sorry if I missed the mark.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #14,040
10/18/01 5:27:53 PM
|
BOx linked the story before; the damage was bad enough.
|
