Who's ready for another round of race riots?

god you suck

Race war! Raaace war!

Can't say the article provides enough detail to judge either way.

people lose, there's less of them

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

aggravated assault? They KILLED him, intentionally or not. Stupid.

[quote=The Article]However, the all-white jury of six men and six women from Schuylkill County jury found Piekarsky and Donchak guilty of simple assault.[/quote]
Something to think about.

[quote=The Article]Limon said her group intends to press the Department of Justice to file federal charges against the teens.[/quote]
What federal law did they break?

Edit: I don't see that they pressed murder or manslaughter charges. If the prosecution can come up with stronger evidence they might be able to try them for these charges. They didn't intend for his death but they still killed him. That's murder 2, right? Legal people help clarify? They definitely had a guilty mind.

Well, like the article said, many witnesses provided conflicting accounts of exactly what happened. It may or may not be that the defendants could have a valid "self-defense" argument...but again, the articles doesn't really say enough.

It doesn't matter what verdict was handed down, those rednecks are dead. Beaners hold grudges, and they're mean.

WHITES WIN!!! WHITES WIN!!!!

This is bull****. **** them. If that was my family member, I'd say to hell with all morals and values. I'd go out buy a gun and ****ing kill them. Seeing as I'm american and I have a family of lawyers for my defense I'll get off the hook just as easy.

What federal charges? Attempted murder/manslaughter is a felony to my knowledge.. those kids should have been charged with more. But I can also understand the verdict seeing as there were conflicting witness accounts.

Manslaughter is murder without any intent. Murder is murder with intent. Murder in the 1st degree means you planned it out beforehand, Murder in the 2nd degree means it was a "spur of the moment" deal.

So much wrong in this that it has to be a troll.

Intent shouldn't have anything to do with it (unless the death was an accident, of course, like a car accident).

If you just 'intend' to beat someone up, and they die, that shouldn't let you off the hook.

I think that's called constructive manslaughter. You intend to do something else bad (start a fight in this case), but it goes wrong.

First degree basically means you conspired to kill that particular person. Second degree means it was incidental, or a death while killing a felony (i.e. killing a bank guard because you're robbing a bank).

There may be a 3rd degree as well, which usually means you intended to do harm to the victim but you didn't mean to kill them.

"Spur of the moment" would be voluntary manslaughter (like catching your wife in bed with another man and killing him).

Involuntary manslaughter includes death by criminal negligence. It's not premeditated - like, you are doing something stupid and dangerous and someone gets killed. It also includes causing death while committing a misdemeanor.

Could be, or it could be third-degree murder. They're pretty much the same thing.

well obviously they were defending their ancestors' homeland from immigrants... oh wait...

We do not and may never know the whole story. All we know for sure is that four teenagers got drunk and then a Mexican immigrant started a fight with them. We don't know why the fight started, we don't know what the teenagers were thinking and we don't know the history of the victim.

Being a non-American, pure-bred Mexican with ambitions of someday making a life in a country that will somehow hate you even more than your native land (a move akin to an American anime fan migrating to Japan), I can understand why you would automatically assume the most extreme perspective possible even though you lack the information and the mental faculties to view the situation critically.

People with similar personality deficiencies to your own made the same mistake back in the 90s. Rodney King, when he was beaten for resisting arrest, was out on parole for armed robbery. In the intervening years he has had 12 similar run-ins with police. Did it stop the LA Race Riots? Of course not, that would require people to think. Knee-jerk reactions are much more efficient.

So either you're lying again or you're bragging about how easy it is for you to evade personal responsibility and will take the easiest way out of a difficult situation. How interesting.

Kill yourself. Everybody hates you.

I think we've all lost count of how many different stories he's told us.

Well lets see.
-He ran a gang at one point.
-He is a creationist.
-He is a professional game designer working on an MMO.
-He is a professional 3D CAD designer.
-He once took martial arts, but quit.
-He has a double citizenship.
-He is great with the ladies.
-He is being spied on.
-He is poor, and in mexico.
-He has many lawyers in his family.

Did I get it right?

i think you forgot about his taco cart

Taco cart?

I'm convinced SF_Gold is a sock puppet, and the mods are in on it.

Wouldn't surprise me too much.

You'd think so, but Schuylkill County is about 97% white. The composition of the jury might have had an effect on the outcome, but I doubt the defense did anything to make it happen.



Not sure, but one of the defendants not in this case pleaded guilty in federal court. Then again, whatever he pleaded guilty to may be something they were already tried for under state law, so then you run into double jeopardy. Wish I could be more help here.



Third-degree murder charges were brought against Piekarsky, but none for Donchak. Apparently no manslaughter charges for either, probably because the manslaughter/murder distinction usually has to do with state of mind and that's not where the prosecutors' problem was.

The problem here is that you're assuming it was clear Donchak and Piekarsky killed Ramirez. For everyone wondering what happened, it's basically this:



Causing a death is an element of murder and has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Causing or attempting to cause a severe bodily injury is likewise an element of aggravated assault. Causation in most criminal codes is drawn pretty narrowly. So when you have a situation with four (or more) different defendants, all causing injuries, it's damn near impossible to prove with any certainty which defendants caused (or attempted to cause) which injuries.

What the defense did here was to admit that the defendants got into a fight with the victim, but deny that they caused severe bodily injury or death, claiming that the other defendants (not in this case) were responsible for causing those results. They effectively conceded simple assault (though the claim that the victim started the fight might have been a half-hearted attempt at a self-defense justification) but denied key elements of aggravated assault and murder -- elements they knew the prosecution would have a very hard time proving.

This is probably why there was no manslaughter charge for Piekarsky. The prosecutors knew there were two possibilities.

1. They successfully prove Piekarsky caused the death. Like you suggested, it seems obvious that if he caused a death he did so at least recklessly. Recklessness is enough for "depraved heart" murder (causing a death recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, or something like that), which, assuming Pennsylvania has that doctrine, probably falls under third-degree murder.
2. They fail to prove that Pierkarsky caused the death. Causing a death is an element of manslaughter as well as murder, so if they can't establish causation, they fail on manslaughter too.

Hard to be 100% certain about all this, but looking at the few facts we're given, I have to think that's roughly how things unfolded.

Anyway, we have the small comfort that these kids are probably screwed when it comes to the (surely inevitable) wrongful death lawsuit. Lower standard of proof, and the causation requirement is more relaxed.

is Michael MacFarlane a lawyer?

No, just a law student.

*cartman* WHITES WIN! Heyyyy everybody! Whites win!!!

Jon'C and the rest of the lot who buys into this discrimination of me is full of ****. I was born in San Jose, California. I lived there until 1995, moved to Mexico, and went back in 1997. In 2001 I went back to mexico and have been unable to return. I DID NOT CHOOSE TO LIVE HERE, NOR DO I INTEND TO LIVE HERE FOREVER.

I am poor in the sense that I cannot afford luxuries. I don't own any gaming console. I don't own a decent computer. I can't afford to reinscription to my highschool at the moment (highschool isn't free, like the rest of them. The so called free federal schools aren't exactly free. You got to buy uniforms, pay all kinds of small charges here and there and buy some REALLY expensive books. Some times the school will use the federal books of the SEP. Those are free). I don't have a job, no jobs for people like me at the moment, in fact the only jobs available are for people with a finished career and experience.

I am half mexican, and half american. I have values from both nations. You obviously are prejudice Jon'C, and seeing as no one wants to recognise, I am actually more american than I am mexican. I have white skin, brown eyes, brown hair. I speak fluent english with no accent. I also speak fluent spanish with no accent. I have friends from both nationalities.

I am sick and tired of being tagged as "the mexican" by you people. Down here I am tagged as "the gringo".

There is NOTHING wrong with the Mexican people. I am offended by the the term beaner and also by derogatory terms of americans.

I would think that some with such a high level of intellect and maturity should atleast inspire others to leave aside this discrimination and start accepting others as human beings.

I've said a lot of exagerated things in my time here, and some times I did them out of anger. Even know I write this out of frustration due to the way my people is being treated, by the other people to who I belong.

I belong to two peoples, which I love both. But the way you treat this people is totally irrational, unfounded and just terrible.

The only factor which justifies this "conflicting accounts" is the fact that the victim is Mexican. Just because someone is Mexican you have to assume that they are involved in drugs, violence, illegal actions and all kinds of foul things. Because they were born in a patch of dirt lower than yours, smaller, poorer, speak a different language, has darker skin and is a decendant of a TRUE native american. What are you? What am I? I'm half decendant of native american, the other half of me is nothing but a decendant of a mixed people who invaded and stole land from them by force. (Not talking about Texas or California)

Seriously, there are PLENTY of good people who are examples for you and for me, in this country. Plenty of them. We only focus on the negative because thats what sticks out like sore thumbs in todays present society.

The Mexican jokes, name calling, and general putting down has to stop. We are just people trying to live in an unforgiving world. Trying to be better and trying to get rid of this general hollywood made picture and idea that has been made of us. Of course there are those who do not want to accept as equals, or for that matter, most anyone else. And there are those who cannot afford to loose this "superiority".

I am sick of it. It makes me sick. I could easily say **** about the Mexicans. I know plenty of full-bred Americans who now live here, if they heard you, they would get pissed off as well.

Stop bashing a people for trying to change.

Me I like tacos.

You've never even tasted a true taco. Only that frozen crap fattening crap that tastes no where near as good as real fresh made taco.

Now stop with the crap. Grow up.

That was an odd response.

I've also never eaten a frozen taco. That sounds kind of odd too.

.

STFU beaner