Burned Alive During 18th Birthday

[Therumancer]

Yeah but , rehabilitation from what? It's a prank gone wrong . An accident if you will . You know teenagers , dumb as bricks . I blame Jackass . Anyways . I think this is fair . It was an accident , but the fact that he fled from the scene , instead of , you know , doing something is punishable by law ( as far as i know ) .

Also , while iv'e never been to prison , 3 years is a long time . People don't seem to realise that .

I think I misread it, or am just stupid. But was it him or someone else that wrote "Gay Boy" on the dead guys head? Because it kinda changes a few things.

But yeah, 3 years is a really damn long time

The basic course of events as far as we know is that these guys were attending the victim's 18th Birthday party, and were screwing with him. They doused him in tanning oil and wrote "gay boy" on his forehead with lipstick. He was lit on fire when they were holding a lighter to his testicles.

The low sentence here is because there was no intent to kill or even do serious harm, granted it WAS maybe a case of assault, and maybe a hate crime. But even allowing for that at the end of the day to convict these guys of anything serious they would have had to prove they knew the guy would go up like a torch, when at worst their intent, motivation aside, was just to beat on him. That kind of assault doesn't carry much of a sentence in general (whether anyone agrees to it or not) and it seems they went for what they could get the dude for and the most serious penelty allowed under the law.

Just explaining it, as I understand it.

I'll also say that this is horribly reported going by the links and such, and weighted towards drawing the reader in a paticular direction the writer intends, that is that it was a horrible hate crime and that this sentence is kind of a travesty. Of course there are a lot of questions here that aren't answered that spring to mind immediatly. For example if these guys allegedly were tormentors of the victim, why were they at his Birthday party, if one was to assume they barged in, one has to ask where the other guests, friends, family, the victim's gay lover (since I'm guessing he was a practicing homosexual), etc... all were. Obviously the guy had enough friends/family for there to be a party by the article, so really... one has to really wonder about this. If someone walked into your house during your Birthday do you think they would write crap on your forhead, douse you in tanning lotion, and hold an open flame to your nuts when you were presumably unwilling, and nobody would say or do anything? If these guys were hated and barged in, nobody would have say oh... called the police.

To me it seems like a bit of horseplay gone wrong, with the media trying to twist it into a hate crime to get attention. Horseplay is mentioned as a defense in the article, but then kind of dismissed by it's author, yet it's apparent those doing the investigation didn't think it was something quite as outrageous as the author did, and
neither did the judge. When your dealing with young 20-something kids, they frankly tend to be morons, and a lot of people get hazed during their birthdays or whatever, if I'd have to guess these guys weren't quite the enemies the article makes them out to be, everyone was screwing around, including the "victim" who was probably laughing his ass off due to the apparent lack of a struggle in a party full of people (as opposed to the hazing of an unwilling victim), and the whole "human torch" thing was unexpected, after all it happened with tanning oil, as opposed to what you'd expect from an attempt to light someone up, where the assailant would just flat out use lighter fluid.

At any rate there are enough questions here where yeah, 3.5 years, which will probably turn into a lot less, probably isn't unreasonable. I wouldn't even be surprised if it gets overturned during some kind of appeal (I have no idea how accurate the article is on the sentencing to be honest, since it seems to gloss over a lot of details). As a "hate crime" I'm just not buying it because of where it went down.

 

[Therumancer]

If this is a 'rarnk gone wrong' then Darwin strikes again.

If "Darwin had struck again" then the crazy fuck would be dead. Not the innocent autistic kid.

Seriously, this is fucking messed up.

I wrote more about it in my previous post (which I imagine people will argue with on it's own) but to be honest when your dealing with the 18-20 crowd that think they are indestructable, this is pretty much par for the course. Too many accidents and complaints are why there have been increasing laws about "hazing" on campuses and such, but it still goes on, especially when your dealing with "victims" who are more or less willing and being messed with by people they know and are at least comfortable with.

For some of the more outlandish things out there, we have things like "ballooning" where someone's scrotum is inflated using saline solution (I think, I've never looked into it too heavily since I think it's too messed up), the roasting of the nutsack (to an extent) is old, as is of course people doing things like lighting their own farts and/or trying to "breathe fire".

As I said in my previous post this seems like it probably was horseplay gone wrong, because if I read that correctly this happened at the victim's birthday party. The substance that went up was tanning oil, not say lighter fluid which is what someone would use in an intentional assault, and it's not like there was apparently a struggle as they wrote on his forehead. After all if these guys whom he "hated" decided to crash this guy's party, and then stared beating on him, doncha think someone would have objected? OR the guy would have called the cops, or whatever the hell else.

The way it sounds to me is that the guy was flamboyantly gay, and being autistic, not all that well together in the head. He wound up getting killed screwing around. It happens. If some dude winds up dying during a frat party, dressed in lingerie, covered in whip cream, and the unfortunate victim of say having inhaled wrong while trying to do a fire breathing trick (or lighting their colon on fire trying to shoot fire from their butt), that's an unfortunate example of youthful stupidity, not murder, or a hate crime.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

This guy's 20... If he doesn't know that holding an open flame next to oil is a bad idea then we better make damned sure this dipshit isn't breeding. Since most places don't accept the death penalty like I do, I'd say prison is a good half-way point, but 3 and a half years is way too little time.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I don't know what makes me more sad - the story itself or some of the responses to it.

This was one of the first things I came across after finally sitting down... I think that's already enough internet for tonight.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

3 and a half years is not enough for, in a way, deliberately burning someone to death. If that was coupled with life in the padded room and a straitjacket in the mental hospital, it'd be a diffirent story.

Seriously.

 

[J Tyran]

I was shocked that a murder charge wouldn't stick, torturing somebody before setting them on fire? Its hard to imagine how anyone could have thought that setting him on fire would turn out any other way than the way it did, 20-30% burns can usually be enough to be fatal. Beating him up and he died? You might believe that they never intended to kill him under those circumstances but not smearing him in accelerant and setting it alight.

Even with a manslaughter charge the fact they taunted him, beat him and wrote homophobic rants all over his body essentially equates to torture. They deserve 10-15 years minimum for what they did.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't wish for an execution or anything of unfair punishment, but honestly all these guys have been getting very light punishments. Not to mention all the culprits were teenagers from 14-20 years old. It's like a pattern, most of this unjustified crimes were done by young people. We really need to have the parents or society educate people more or do something- it's so sickening and I teared for the poor soul who lost his life over a 'prank'... to me, that was beyond what a prank should be it's disgusting.

Yeah, second that. People talk about harsher punishments, but IMHO, getting people (especially in their age group) to accept what they did was very wrong and that they need to be punished at all is a better idea.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Glad to hear man- because really are we any better for executing or better yet, torturing people? Two wrongs don't make a right and that goes a long way. Let's say I got a hold of this guy and he was strapped to my chair. If I were to throw oil over his body, light him on fire thus results to him dying.. am I really going to feel better about myself and the fact justice was served?

Also, if you do that, he becomes the victim. The guy killed on his birthday becomes almost irrelevant, it'd be about how terrible revenge is, not how terrible the original death was.

Seriously why are all these young people doing the worst of things? Some of these stories are the worst I heard happen in a long time it baffles me.

The guy being burned alive, yeah, but the gang-rapes, TBH, not at all. That happens all the time, for some reason people cared about this one.

A week or two ago, there was an almost identical incident making the headlines, with a school or community representative basically saying "we're not bad, this stuff happens all the time". Not to mention the 11 year old Texas girl before that, or the cheerleader who got in trouble for not cheering for her rapist. And those are just high profile cases I can remember of the top of my head.

 

[blackrave]

It's a prank gone wrong . An accident if you will .

Come on, according to the news story the guy and his buddies crashed this poor autistic kid's 18th birthday, made him strip naked, wrote all kinds of homophobic crap all over his body and then held a lighter to his groin, not to mention the piece of shit fled like a coward instead of trying to help when he realized what he'd done.

Sure they might have never intended to kill or harm him but in my eyes that is WAY too far for a prank and this piece of shit deserves to burn in hell, or at least be imprisoned for significantly longer than 3.5 years.

^THIS

It isn't as much "prank gone wrong", as "torture gone wrong"
I say at least 5y
3.5y was too little for such cruel behavior

 

[jurnag12]

If he set another guy on fire adn got 3,5 years and the minimum for manslaughter is five years...what?

I really can't tell if 3.5 years is long enough, since I've never been to a prison in my whole life, or even met a criminal (or atleast, someone who said they were a criminal).

Prison is about rehabilitation, and if he can rehabilitate in 3.5 years, then it's long enough.

Yeah but , rehabilitation from what? It's a prank gone wrong . An accident if you will . You know teenagers , dumb as bricks . I blame Jackass . Anyways . I think this is fair . It was an accident , but the fact that he fled from the scene , instead of , you know , doing something is punishable by law ( as far as i know ) .

Also , while iv'e never been to prison , 3 years is a long time . People don't seem to realise that .

Yes, because we don't want the poor guy to go to prison for a whole 3 years for BURNING A PERSON TO DEATH.

I refuse to believe that ANYONE can be stupid enough to not realize that setting a person on fire is A) In NO situation an acceptable prank, or B) can lead to serious physical harm, because you just SET A PERSON ON FUCKING FIRE.

 

[linkmastr001]

It does sound like a prank gone wrong, but what's the prank? Write homophobic sayings on this kid's body and light his groin on fire? HOW IS THAT FUNNY??? That's not a prank, that's mutilation. I think he should get more. I'll give the lad some credit though, he did plea guilty, but I think he should have gotten more from that.

What about the other people who egged him on?? They should get something too.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

3.5 years (of which he'll serve maybe 21 months) is beyond idiotic. He's not a minor, and even if he were, these sorts of stories need to have "went to prison for 10 years" endings in order to protect potential victims moving forward. That's the true tragedy here; we can't unkill this kid, but how many future hateful acts of violence are not being prevented when the penalty amounts to a slap on the wrist?

Just to clarify, the U.S. prison system's primary goal is not rehabilitation, it's primary goal is to keep people incarcerated and out of the public. It should be rehabilitation but it's not, because, 3.5 years is just enough time for the kid to ruin his life and fall into the crimonogenic effect, where the odds are that he will be back to prison will be high enough.

Actually, I believe the purpose of the U.S. prison system is retribution, which serves a very important function in the mental well-being of a society. People need to believe, in their heart of hearts, that doing wrong generates powerful negative consequences. Yes, it's vengeful and nasty and arguably evil, but that's the way human beings work. If you let folks off the hook because "two wrongs don't make a right", you end up with chaos - because there will ALWAYS be assholes who take advantage.

The "punishment fetishist" argument is a particularly frustrating one for me. We jail and ruin loads of people on shaky ground, but the horrendous and unnecessary suffering of an innocent victim generally doesn't qualify. Also, the term "accident" tends to fly out the window when it occurs within the context of abject cruelty and harassment. We've seen plenty of "accidents" surrounding race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation. I guess I'm of the mind that, if we're going to err on one side or the other, we should probably favor the person who isn't here to fucking defend himself anymore. After all, this isn't a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. We know what happened and who did it. They should have let the book hit him right between the eyes.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Dear God... thats just spine chilling. A hate crime has never sounded more disgusting, and might I add
WHY ARE WE ACTING MORE AND MORE LIKE CAVEMEN as the years of manslaughter go on? Just... ew.

OT: I bet FOX news will have a stiffy when they air this story. If they have the dignity to air something this disturbing... oh wait, FOX...

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Acknowledgement is one thing, differing punishments is another.

Two scenarios:

A man comes home early to find another man in bed with his wife. White hot fury grips him and he throws one punch hand right into the centre of his face. The cheater drops, hits his head and dies instantly. The perp immediately regrets his decision and is sickened. He immediately calls the police and attempts to give medical assistance to the victim.

A man stalks another man to his house before spinning him around and launching a vicious punch right to his face, killing him immediately. Hes pretty happy it took less effort than he expected and skips away merrily after dragging the body into a bush.


Honestly tell me these two deserve the same punishment. Its total insanity to say they do. One is obviously not a danger to society at large and one is. Despite the outcome of their crime being the same the motivation and reaction tell us a lot about if the person is safe and able to reintegrate into society properly and provide society with the service of his work and taxes. It would just hurt us to remove a helpful moral person from society for vengeance when the chances of a purposeful re offence is as likely as yours. The former scenario probably needs some therapy to deal with the guilt. The latter probably needs some iron bars for the rest of his days just to keep us safe.

Even if the point of the justice system is NOT rehabilitation the next best definition is to protect us from dangerous individuals. If an individual is never going to be more dangerous than you or i theres no good justification to lock them away.

In this case i think a slightly more harsh punishment was needed but i dont know enough about the situation. We have one of two extremes to be honest and both change in my mind what is and isnt appropriate:

1. Boys gate crash a hated minorities party and brutally cover him in slurs before setting him alight as a torture totally against his will. They then flee in cowardice aware the boy will certainly die.

2. A friend invited to the party writes slurs on his friend in a joking birthday haze (my LGBT friends called me a "breeder" as a joke on a special occasion and i returned the favor, it can totally exist in good humor) before also jokingly holding a lighter to him, too drunk or high on adrenaline to realise the consequences. At all times the victim consents. Terrified in watching his friend burn he flees in blind panic as most young people do when faced with sudden horrific images right in their face. The idea that their friend will die as a result doesnt occur.

Personally i think what happened was closer to 1 than 2 but i cant honestly say which one it was without more unbias information. If the jury found 2 was the exact scenario i think the punishment is fair. The closer to 1 it was the closer it needs to be to something like 20 years.

 

[wulf3n]

Honestly tell me these two deserve the same punishment.

The way I see it the action is what they're being punished for, not intent. Whether you were just stupid, had a momentary lack of control or actively sought to kill someone, you still killed someone.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Honestly tell me these two deserve the same punishment.

The way I see it the action is what they're being punished for, not intent. Whether you were just stupid, had a momentary lack of control or actively sought to kill someone, you still killed someone.

No matter how you spin it punishing the former is taking a working,tax paying, morally good person out of society because you want to punish him the same for no reason. If you can justify hurting society like that for zero benefit im all ears. However it does no good and only harm to remove that person from society. Its not entirely about intent. Its about if removing that person from society will harm it or help it. If someone is dangerous it helps society. If someone is totally not dangerous and will never be dangerous again theres no good reason to remove them. All it will do is remove a good person from the outside who provides both a service and funding for societies needs.

 

[wulf3n]

If you can justify hurting society like that for zero benefit im all ears.

I'm sure society will be fine.

If someone is totally not dangerous and will never be dangerous again theres no good reason to remove them.

By that logic, there's no point punishing them at all it will only "harm" society.

Besides, prove that someone is "not dangerous and will never be dangerous again"

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

By that logic, there's no point punishing them at all it will only "harm" society.

Besides, prove that someone is "not dangerous and will never be dangerous again"

Yeah if someone does something by accident there is little point in punishing them at all. It was a total accident. The guy in this case obviously has some issues because he got so angry. He likely needs something to remedy that. Because if their justification is reasonable and human and something youre equally as likely to do again theres equal justification to put you away also. Jail doesnt change the past. Its about protecting the future.

You havnt made a single point. I asked "Theres only harm from removing him, theres no good" and youve still presented zero good. Since anything is larger than zero the tiny amount of harm done outweighs the no good and thus removing him serves no purpose other than to waste money feeding him in an over crowded prison and remove his tax payer money/services/general good he might do for society for the sake of nothing. Youve still presented nothing. Give a single good reason to put him away. Anything at all that isnt based on "I like it when people are in jail" or whatever. Its pretty blatant youre either fixated on vengeance or just want these people put away because it "Makes you feel good". Thats not how it works. The justice system exists to protect us. If it puts people away with no goal of protecting us its failed utterly. It most certainly isnt about giving people jollies by putting away people who will likely as not never harm society again.

I believe the entire purpose of court is to determine that. Some people make mistakes. Some people need help. Some people are the victims of accidents that cause terrible things to happen by their hand. Your logic doesnt apply anywhere at all and its utterly rediculous. Im VERY happy society doesnt run the way you wish it did. Lets take parenting:

A kid breaks all my things on my shelf on purpose.

A kid falls and hits his head on my shelf knocking it down and breaking it.

By your logic they both deserve punishment. But they dont. Im not teaching anything by punishing the kid who did it by accident. They KNOW breaking things is wrong and would never do it on purpose. Ever. The former obviously does not. And since im an adult i dont need to take revenge on a child. Theres no reason to punish him or her at all whatsoever. I cant think of a single scenario where your logic makes the tiniest bit of sense at all.

 

[wulf3n]

Because if their justification is reasonable

Besides self-defence[and war to some extent] what could possibly be considered "reasonable" FYI Slept with my wife isn't reasonable.

something youre equally as likely to do again theres equal justification to put you away also.

Exactly, now how do you determine whether someone will or will not kill again? The only way I know of is to look at precedent.

Give a single good reason to put him away.

Here's an oldie but goodie "deterence".

Its pretty blatant youre either fixated on vengeance or just want these people put away because it "Makes you feel good".

Yup, that's me in a nutshell vengeance fuelled nutter who get's a kick out of seeing people in jail.

Thats not how it works. The justice system exists to protect us.

Sure that's one aspect, but there's also Rehabilitation and Deterrence.

Lets take parenting:

Lets do.

A kid breaks all my things on my shelf on purpose.

A kid falls and hits his head on my shelf knocking it down and breaking it.

Uhuh.

By your logic they both deserve punishment.

Correct.

But they dont.

Your opinion

Im not teaching anything by punishing the kid who did it by accident.

On the contrary, you're teaching them that actions have consequences.

They KNOW breaking things is wrong and would never do it on purpose. Ever.

Yet there's still a broken shelf that needs to be fixed.

And since im an adult i dont need to take revenge on a child.

Since when has it ever been about revenge?

Theres no reason to punish him or her at all whatsoever.

Except to teach that actions have consequence, and that you need to be aware that practically everything you do can affect someone else, and that you need to be careful.

I cant think of a single scenario where your logic makes the tiniest bit of sense at all.

Oh, well in that case I guess there mustn't be a scenario. I retract my opinion.