12 year old convicted of "2nd degree murder"

The coffee case was actually reasonable is the sense, that the coffee was proven to be at an unnecessary heat if I remember correctly.

Don't quote me on that.

No, you're right. I know that much, she was saying that the McDonalds coffee was hotter than she'd get it elsewhere. Apparently that's legally valid, which is all well and good then, but I'm pointing out what I perceive to be the bare silliness of it.
 
Anyways, jail won't help this kid, it will harm him even more.

Give the kid lots of counseling; he needs it. Harsh prison environment aint gonna cut it. Look at Norway's model of prison. Far better.
 
That's an interesting topic, 10 year kills his dad but the dad was f'd up.

If his dad was abusive, he was probably just scared and being 10 years old, knew he'd be stuck with this asshole for a good 8 years or so and decided he couldn't take it and ended his dad's life. Obviously not the wisest choice but then again he was just a messed up kid. I think under those circumstances he shouldn't be sent to juvie, he'd probably benefit better spending many years in a mental health facility.
 
they took into account all the years of abuse and neglect he had...even back to him in his mother she was a drug abuser....its all in the article

Yeah i read rhe artlicle and still don't see how this isn't upgraded to 1st degree. The kid says planned it and thought he wouldn't get in trouble cause he saw it on a tv show before. He wasn't worried about it being ok to do but worried if he get in trouble for doing it. It also says he stabbed his Kindergarden teacher with a penicle.
 
No, you're right. I know that much, she was saying that the McDonalds coffee was hotter than she'd get it elsewhere. Apparently that's legally valid, which is all well and good then, but I'm pointing out what I perceive to be the bare silliness of it.

It's not that the coffee was simply hotter than anywhere else, it was that McDonald's knew the coffee was to hot, had settled multiple cases of burns, and still continued to serve hot coffee. Hot coffee should not immediately cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns that require skin grafts.

Further more, she tried to settle for a very reasonable sum of $20,000, which was essentially medical bills and money to cover her lost salary, and McDonald's counter-offered with $800.

This case is always used as an example of the ridiculousness of the US legal system when, in reality, McDonalds was punished for their negligence as they should be.
 
Yeah i read rhe artlicle and still don't see how this isn't upgraded to 1st degree. The kid says planned it and thought he wouldn't get in trouble cause he saw it on a tv show before. He wasn't worried about it being ok to do but worried if he get in trouble for doing it. It also says he stabbed his Kindergarden teacher with a penicle.

Maybe he pled guilty to a lessor charge? Knowing he'd probably get 1st degree, the lawyer may have convinced him to cut it short and go for 2nd.
 
That's sad, there's no great way to deal with that. He needs mental care, not punitive incarceration. That should be obvious but somehow I imagine he's going from Juvie to lockup and is going to be a product of the prison system, after being a product of racism and violence. The kid is a victim, he should be treated like one.
 
When you are going to judge an entire legal system by a case you apparently have no understanding of it [sic], it takes away your credibility.

Apparently? In which way was it apparent that he didn't understand the case? Because from what I read, he described the case succinctly enough.
 
Apparently? In which way was it apparent that he didn't understand the case? Because from what I read, he described the case succinctly enough.

LOL. If you consider his version of events succinct than I see no point in continuing this conversation.
 
It's not that the coffee was simply hotter than anywhere else, it was that McDonald's knew the coffee was to hot, had settled multiple cases of burns, and still continued to serve hot coffee. Hot coffee should not immediately cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns that require skin grafts.

Further more, she tried to settle for a very reasonable sum of $20,000, which was essentially medical bills and money to cover her lost salary, and McDonald's counter-offered with $800.

This case is always used as an example of the ridiculousness of the US legal system when, in reality, McDonalds was punished for their negligence as they should be.

I disagree. Negligence in serving hot coffee hot? If I get a hot drink, that is clearly served in a cup which says: "Caution: Hot!", and then I spill it on myself, causing burns, how is that in any way the fault of restaurant?

It would be like if I went to a Steakhouse, and then, using a knife which was labeled "Danger: Sharp!" (Which it shouldn't need to be, it should be assumed that the fucking thing is sharp), accidently cut myself. Then I try and sue the steakhouse because, well, I didn't think it was going to be that sharp!
 
I disagree. Negligence in serving hot coffee hot? If I get a hot drink, that is clearly served in a cup which says: "Caution: Hot!", and then I spill it on myself, causing burns, how is that in any way the fault of restaurant?

It would be like if I went to a Steakhouse, and then, using a knife which was labeled "Danger: Sharp!" (Which it shouldn't need to be, it should be assumed that the fucking thing is sharp), accidently cut myself. Then I try and sue the steakhouse because, well, I didn't think it was going to be that sharp!

That's a terrible fucking analogy and shows you didn't even read the article you linked to.
 
I disagree. Negligence in serving hot coffee hot? If I get a hot drink, that is clearly served in a cup which says: "Caution: Hot!", and then I spill it on myself, causing burns, how is that in any way the fault of restaurant?

It would be like if I went to a Steakhouse, and then, using a knife which was labeled "Danger: Sharp!" (Which it shouldn't need to be, it should be assumed that the fucking thing is sharp), accidently cut myself. Then I try and sue the steakhouse because, well, I didn't think it was going to be that sharp!

I thought the Caution:Hot didn't come until after this case. That was what I heard, at least. Am I wrong? I don't drink coffee.
 
I thought the Caution:Hot didn't come until after this case. That was what I heard, at least. Am I wrong? I don't drink coffee.

Actually, I think you're right. Which is why I made the comparison that knives shouldn't need to be labeled as "Sharp", it's part of the function of the tool known as "Knife", just as "Hot" is part of the function of the beverage known as "Coffee". Unless it's Iced Coffee.

Then again, if I ordered Coffee and they gave me Iced Coffee, I'd sue; obviously being facetious to illustrate a point.
 
10 years old.
Abusive father.
Guilty? Yes.

Punishment? Counselling.

The kid just acted instinctively. Pre meditated or not I don't think they need to ruin his life because hos father was a pos.
 
10 years old.
Abusive father.
Guilty? Yes.

Punishment? Counselling.

The kid just acted instinctively. Pre meditated or not I don't think they need to ruin his life because hos father was a pos.

exactly...years of counseling for him AND his sister
 
I disagree. Negligence in serving hot coffee hot? If I get a hot drink, that is clearly served in a cup which says: "Caution: Hot!", and then I spill it on myself, causing burns, how is that in any way the fault of restaurant?

It would be like if I went to a Steakhouse, and then, using a knife which was labeled "Danger: Sharp!" (Which it shouldn't need to be, it should be assumed that the fucking thing is sharp), accidently cut myself. Then I try and sue the steakhouse because, well, I didn't think it was going to be that sharp!

It would be more like if that knife was so unnecessarily sharp that it completely cut through your entire finger instead of giving you a typical cut that would be reasonably expected. And that the steakhouse had known that their samurai knives were doing a lot of damage yet didn't care to replace them with normal, adequate steak knives.
 
It would be more like if that knife was so unnecessarily sharp that it completely cut through your entire finger instead of giving you a typical cut that would be reasonably expected. And that the steakhouse had known that their samurai knives were doing a lot of damage yet didn't care to replace them with normal, adequate steak knives.

Again, disagree. How could a knife ever be "unnecessarily sharp"? The entire point of most knives is to be as sharp as possible to facilitate easy cutting.

Fuck, now I want steak. *Looks up Samurai Steakhouses in my area*
 
Back
Top