People can be so retarded.

[Icy]

[quote name='Vuvuzela of Triumph' timestamp='1286404029' post='4684459']
It's a generally unfair and hypocritical thing for them to murder people on account of what crimes they disagree with, but oh well.
[/quote]

Dun ask me o_O... That's what I've been told by people in prison etc.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

They murder people outside and inside of jail. It's just a means of justifying the killing of somebody.

[Icefrog]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1286402262' post='4684388']
No one said anything about a murder charge. It was second-degree murder, which is essentially involuntary or "accidental" or indirect murder. Essentially, by posting live images of one having homosexual sexual activity, he caused his roommate to commit suicide. You can prove using a psychological investigation in court that the [i]reason[/i] he suicided was because of this live streaming, or maybe he just didn't want to come out of the closet and his roommate was being an ass. The point is, this type of action cannot be condoned, and if a punishment is not given, it gives the air that discriminating and acting like a retard with a homosexual person will let you off scot-free, which isn't and should not be the case.

As Vuvuzela said, it is hard to convict someone of second-degree murder based on common sense in a suicide case like this. Apparently American juries don't have common sense, go figure. [i]However[/i], that doesn't mean he is not worthy of a longer sentence than five years. From what I've read, the five years is only for extreme invasion of privacy, [b]meaning he was not charged at all for the suicide of the homosexual[/b].

[i]The guy was an asshat, but putting him away for life for unintentional murder really doesn't fix anything. I'm sure 5 years is a good amount of time to show someone that doing really stupid s*** like that is not conductive to living a healthy life outside of prison. Still think the sentence could have been upped a few more years (oh hell, lets just double it). I mean, with the whole good behavior thing and parole, he'll be out much sooner, I'm sure.[/i]



There is a white homosexual guy.
There is an Indian guy who commited the crime.
There is an Asian girl who helped the Indian guy.

Now, who are you talking about again?

[i]Indians are Asian too <trollface.jpg>[/i]



Homicide? I don't really see it as a homicide case.
[/quote]

[Catterjune]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1286402262' post='4684388']
No one said anything about a murder charge. It was second-degree murder, which is essentially involuntary or "accidental" or indirect murder.
[/quote]

You live in 2010 and you didn't think to google what you were talking about before making an idiot of yourself?

[quote]Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.[/quote]

Source: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

Was it his intention to get the guy to commit suicide? I don't think you could prove that. Was the act of filming 'dangerous conduct' and 'obvious lack of concern for human life'? I don't think you'd find anyone who would agree.

It was invasion of privacy. That is all.

[Dark]

This case goes beyond just invasion of privacy, and I don't think you can disagree. It can be easily proven in a court of law that the reason the guy committed suicide was because of the event, and as such, the Indian man should be charged for the unintentional and indirect death of the homosexual. A simple psychological case can easily show that the reason anybody died was because of the invasion of privacy, and right now his charges only extend as far as to cover the invasion of privacy. Meaning he has not been charged whatsoever for the death of his roommate, which he undeniably caused.

And even if it wasn't second-degree murder (I was under the impression that it meant indirect/unintentional murder, so I guess I was wrong), having the sentence set at five years makes no sense whatsoever.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Source?


There's always discrepancies in someone's summation of a story, especially if said story is already a summary.

[Catterjune]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1286487666' post='4686473']
This case goes beyond just invasion of privacy, and I don't think you can disagree.
[/quote]
Sure I can. Unless his actions DIRECTLY lead to it (might wanna look up the word directly, especially with all the emphasis added to it) then there's nothing here other then invasion of privacy.

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1286487666' post='4686473']
It can be easily proven in a court of law that the reason the guy committed suicide was because of the event, and as such, the Indian man should be charged for the unintentional and indirect death of the homosexual.
[/quote]
I think you need to look up the law, because "unintentional" and "indirect" have different connotations in the legal circuit. It doesn't matter what you, personally, think is just or unjust here. What maters is, specifically, the law here, and the law (while siding against the Inidan man for invasion of privacy) doesn't seem to indicate the man committed murder, homicide, manslaughter, or anything around that general vein. He can be sued in civil court for compensation by the family, but that's about as far as I think this could go.

tl;dr - You are wrong.

[Fusion X. Denver]

I think Pika may be right.
But if so, that's a perfect case of the flaws in our judicial system.
Which should be attended to and fixed, but sadly, lots of people have too much on their plates to do so.

[NeoDemonX]

[quote name='JG.' timestamp='1286026085' post='4673147']
Asians and Europeans, we're smarter than you so-called great Americans.
[/quote]

Also let me add on that, Canadians are smarter then Americans we their neighbours and ya USA does and is affecting Canada in a way. We are a little Americanize but he keep our own personality and culture. Also one war that got started by USA was the Cold War with USSR or Russia, this war lasted 40 years and at one point their was almost WWIII. And you guys only think of yourselfs and think that you own the world.

And about the gay guy who kill himself, they was 4 other people that also kill themselfs because what happen to them. And these people are the age of 13 to 17 and plus the person who is 19 who this topic is about. I don't really like Gays but I am friends with some and I have a friend on this site who everyone knows too.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Because every Canadian, every Asian, every European, and every American are all without exception (oh unless it's a celebrity you like. Then you'll make a hypocritical exception) their nation's respective stereotypes.

And the actions of people in the past totally make people who weren't even alive then subject to judgment for said actions, as do current events retroactively affect the character of people from a long time ago.


Thank you internet in your infinite wisdom.

[Blake]

[quote name='NeoDemonX' timestamp='1286492317' post='4686726']
Also let me add on that, Canadians are smarter then Americans we their neighbours and ya USA does and is affecting Canada in a way. We are a little Americanize but he keep our own personality and culture. Also one war that got started by USA was the Cold War with USSR or Russia, this war lasted 40 years and at one point their was almost WWIII. And you guys only think of yourselfs and think that you own the world.

And about the gay guy who kill himself, they was 4 other people that also kill themselfs because what happen to them. And these people are the age of 13 to 17 and plus the person who is 19 who this topic is about.

I don't really like Gays but I am friends with some and I have a friend on this site who everyone knows too.
[/quote]
THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THE OP. NOT AMERICA.

Also, WHAT?!

There was no fighting in the Cold War! It was just LARGE amounts of tension! Saying it almost led to WWIII is like saying that we don't deserve to hold our beliefs dear. How about we take away what you Canadians believe, hm? Then, when you try to say you disapprove of something, OH WELL! Shut up! No one wants to hear it! We should all love each other, because there is no way that people disagree.

We don't think we own the world. You blame us, yet the USSR was just as much to blame. We were one of 2 Super Powers, who happened to believe different things, so there was tension. GO FIGURE. We do stuff to help, not hurt, the war.

Only 4 other people committed suicide <.< ONLY? 4? Do you realize people commit suicide everyday?

@Ammy: Thank God someone else is here to say it as well.

[Icefrog]

[quote name='Tainted Black' timestamp='1286493090' post='4686754']
THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT THE OP. NOT AMERICA.

Also, WHAT?!

[b]There was no fighting in the Cold War! It was just LARGE amounts of tension![/b] Saying it almost led to WWIII is like saying that we don't deserve to hold our beliefs dear. How about we take away what you Canadians believe, hm? Then, when you try to say you disapprove of something, OH WELL! Shut up! No one wants to hear it! We should all love each other, because there is no way that people disagree.

[/quote]

Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan all want to have a word with you.


Also, I don't know why we're talking about America's hat.

[Blake]

[quote name='Icefrog' timestamp='1286509843' post='4687511']
Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan all want to have a word with you.


Also, I don't know why we're talking about America's hat.
[/quote]
All three of those wars are considered their own. They are not considdered as part of the Cold War, in and of themselves.

[Catterjune]

[quote name='Tainted Black' timestamp='1286533350' post='4687741']
All three of those wars are considered their own. They are not considdered as part of the Cold War, in and of themselves.
[/quote]
Learn2ProxyWar please

[Icefrog]

[quote name='Tainted Black' timestamp='1286533350' post='4687741']
All three of those wars are considered their own. They are not considdered as part of the Cold War, in and of themselves.
[/quote]

I f***ing lol'd.
What are they teaching kids these days?

[Dark]

[url="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm"]http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm[/url]

[i]prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person[/i]

A psychological study can be enacted showing that the homosexual had no tensions at home or at school, thus proving that the act of the live streaming caused him to commit suicide, which means he was "killed" by that event by the Indian.

[i]the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life[/i]

It wasn't dangerous to human life or it didn't disregard human life, per se, but it definitely violated human property and rights in general. This is an iffy clause, but you can still somewhat get around it.

[i]the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others[/i]

Well, the Indian knew that this guy was an in-the-closet homosexual (which is exactly why he live streamed it), and he expected a response (a real-life troll, in a sense), so he knew it could have been a threat to the homosexual's life. Especially if you could prove that the homosexual was emotionally "off", that would show that the Indian guy knew what he was getting himself into.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment[/url]

[i]A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person[/i]

Okay, live streaming someone engaging in sexual intercourse is pretty risky, considering that, not only was it an invasion of privacy, but this guy obviously didn't want the world to know he was homosexual for some reason or another. And the Indian guy knew live streaming would elicit some emotion; that's why he did it.

[i]The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.[/i]

So, it was unintentional "murder", you could call it.

So not only was it invasion of privacy, it can easily be proven that the cause of the homosexual's death was the fault of the Indian guy's.

Furthermore, you realize that he is only about to get five years in prison, and that will be chopped down to three or two on parole. He killed someone, essentially, albeit it being indirect and unintentional. I'm not asking for a life-term or anything out of the ordinary, but he should at least get five years without parole, or ten years with parole. And there are laws that can back this up, so it's not a random accuasion or conviction.

[Sorrow.]

So your saying the Cold War are different Wars? What?

[Dark]

Do you guys have any sort of attention span? This thread is not about bashing America (although I'd love to find the millions of things wrong with China and Europe, or where-ever you guys are bitching from), nor is about the Cold War. [b]FEEL FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD, I WON'T STOP YOU, I PROMISE[/b].

[Catterjune]

[quote]A psychological study can be enacted showing that the homosexual had no tensions at home or at school, thus proving that the act of the live streaming caused him to commit suicide, which means he was "killed" by that event by the Indian.[/quote]
[Citation needed]

[quote]It wasn't dangerous to human life or it didn't disregard human life, per se, but it definitely violated human property and rights in general. This is an iffy clause, but you can still somewhat get around it.[/quote]

What the hell are you going on about here? Video taping wasn't dangerous to human life or disregard human life. That is a requirement for involuntary manslaughter. Ergo, it was NOT under any circumstance involuntary manslaughter.

[quote]Well, the Indian knew that this guy was an in-the-closet homosexual (which is exactly why he live streamed it), and he expected a response (a real-life troll, in a sense), so he knew it could have been a threat to the homosexual's life. Especially if you could prove that the homosexual was emotionally "off", that would show that the Indian guy knew what he was getting himself into.[/quote]

How can you honestly say "he knew it could have been a threat to the homsexual's life"? He, a normal guy, expects people to act normally. Yeah, he'd be outed. He'd laugh it off and be pissed at his roommate for a while. End of story, or so he thought. Not his fault his roommate offed himself.

Secondly, your situation about him being emotionally off would then completely undercut your psychological study. If he didn't kill himself 'cause his roomate outed him, he might have killed himself for low grades, or when his boyfriend dumped him, or any other of things. It's not the Indian guy's fault his friend practiced no discretion and killed himself to escape from embarrassment.


[quote]Okay, live streaming someone engaging in sexual intercourse is pretty risky, considering that, not only was it an invasion of privacy, but this guy obviously didn't want the world to know he was homosexual for some reason or another. And the Indian guy knew live streaming would elicit some emotion; that's why he did it.[/quote]

But video taping does not create a substantial risk of physical injury, so you have no leg to stand on.

[quote]So, it was unintentional "murder", you could call it.[/quote]

Not in the slightest.


Like, are you even reading your quotes? It says plainly in black and white what IS and what IS NOT involuntary manslaughter. There is no room for quiet musing "well, TECHNICALLY so and so" because it most absolutely is not the case.



[i]In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;[/i]

Difficult to prove, but let's say for the sake of the argument it was entirely because of his actions. That's one.

[i]Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and[/i]

Filming is not dangerous to human life, and the discussion pretty much ends right here. There is no "best two out of three" when it comes to murder. You need all three for it to be considered manslaughter.

[i]Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.[/i]

I assume he, being a normal person, would think the gay guy would just punch him in the arm and call it a day. Apparently, he decided to dive off a bridge. Tragic? Sure. His fault? Not in the slightest.

[Tentacruel]

Does the guy being gay have anything to do with it? Oh yeah, gays are discriminated so it made it even more invasive to privacy.

Hm....

Do we do the politically correct thing and ignore orientation or do be realistic and place it as a factor?

Oh and btw, it was an awful thing to do, and sickens me.

[Blake]

[quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1286677097' post='4692492']
Does the guy being gay have anything to do with it? Oh yeah, gays are discriminated so it made it even more invasive to privacy.

Hm....

Do we do the politically correct thing and ignore orientation or do be realistic and place it as a factor?

Oh and btw, it was an awful thing to do, and sickens me.
[/quote]
Well, consider this:
A similar event happened with an Irish Immigrant at about 15 years old. She went out with the Captain of the Football Team. Other girls got jealous, tormented her. She committed suicide. They got charged for murder/manslaughter, or something to that effect.

[Fusion X. Denver]

Well hey, legality is legality, but the Indian still comes off as an asshat.

No one will want to be friends with him when this is over, the gay guy's parents will likely hate every fiber of his being for acting like an inconsiderate douchebag and of course this will be on his record for the rest of his life and any opportunities he may have had will no longer be available to him.

So even if he's guilty or not guilty of murdering the guy, most people who make judgments based on morality rather than legality will see it as unintentional murder. And most people do make judgments based on morality, what I've seen from Americans is they judge by their personal standards and usually don't care about technicalities with the law in judging situations. They may realize the Indian didn't mean to drive him to suicide, but they'll still think of him as a giant jerk and be done with him.

Even if you took out the suicide, the Indian was still a jerk for doing it and most people would think poorly of him. The fact the gay guy killed himself after being exposed will only cement the final nail into the coffin that is the Indian's credibility and reputation.

So regardless of his punishment, his life is f*cked and there's no fixing it. So he reaps what he sows.

[Catterjune]

[quote name='Tainted Black' timestamp='1286677248' post='4692503']
Well, consider this:
A similar event happened with an Irish Immigrant at about 15 years old. She went out with the Captain of the Football Team. Other girls got jealous, tormented her. She committed suicide. They got charged for murder/manslaughter, or something to that effect.
[/quote]
Link to story?