Jailed for life for scaring a woman to death!

[Hibbyradge]

:hmmm:

I'm not sure what I think about this verdict.

She was white and he's black right enough.

http://www.wcnc.com/home/related/Man-found-guilty-of-scaring-elderly-woman-to-death-70675642.html

[Sylar]

Hmmm - guilty of armed robbery, carrying a firearm in public, evading capture and obstructing the course of justice, but how do you classify the main sentence? Causing death via....?

If she had a heart attack because this boy ran past her, she evidently had some degree of underlying condition surely? OK, so he failed to phone an ambulance for the poor woman, but, as selfish an act as that was, it's surely not against the law?

Definitely something else afoot methinks :agree:

[RyeSloan]

Agreed that while he may have been the trigger (geddit!) for the heart attack it seems slightly harsh to say he was the sole cause for her death...

Some strange reporting htough to say her family was 'thrilled' at the verdict and of course the name of his friend...Quanterrious McCoy, surely that's not serious!!

[Dinkydoo]

I think it's safe to say that his presence was the main contributing factor in her death - but you can't totally blame him, can you?.....

If she was standing in line at the supermarket and had a heart attack simply because a little boy had blown up a paper bag and popped it, would he be looking at a "mandatory life sentence"?

I think not:confused:

Wheres the equality in that?

[Hibbyradge]

Agreed that while he may have been the trigger (geddit!) for the heart attack it seems slightly harsh to say he was the sole cause for her death...

Some strange reporting htough to say her family was 'thrilled' at the verdict and of course the name of his friend...Quanterrious McCoy, surely that's not serious!!


Watch the video. The boy is ectoplasmic. :agree:

[IndieHibby]

I think it's safe to say that his presence was the main contributing factor in her death - but you can't totally blame him, can you?.....

If she was standing in line at the supermarket and had a heart attack simply because a little boy had blown up a paper bag and popped it, would he be looking at a "mandatory life sentence"?

I think not:confused:

Wheres the equality in that?

He held her hostage, presumably at gun point, in her own home. She was old and female and he was young, male strong and clearly in no mood to be ****ed with.

She had a heart attack as a result of the (predictable) shock of this - she wouldn't have died had he not been there. He then could have phoned an ambulance, but, presumably calculated that that would put him at risk of being caught - "tough luck, grandma..."

I think we would call it manslaughter, but for the victims, I am not sure that the difference matters.

Anyone who thinks he has been hard done-by might need to stop siding with the criminal and think of the victim.

He had a choice. She did not.

[Hibbyradge]

He held her hostage, presumably at gun point, in her own home. She was old and female and he was young, male strong and clearly in no mood to be ****ed with.

She had a heart attack as a result of the (predictable) shock of this - she wouldn't have died had he not been there. He then could have phoned an ambulance, but, presumably calculated that that would put him at risk of being caught - "tough luck, grandma..."

I think we would call it manslaughter, but for the victims, I am not sure that the difference matters.

Anyone who thinks he has been hard done-by might need to stop siding with the criminal and think of the victim.

He had a choice. She did not.

Although you've made a number of assumptions, (he could have been telling her that he had no intention of harming her, for example, rather than "tough luck, grandma") you're probably right.

It could have been manslaughter as it it took place in the commission of an unlawful act.

He broke into her house and held her against her will. That's a crime and it resulted in her death.

I wonder if he would have been prosecuted for GBH, if she hadn't died from the heart attack.

[Killiehibbie]

Agreed that while he may have been the trigger (geddit!) for the heart attack it seems slightly harsh to say he was the sole cause for her death...

Some strange reporting htough to say her family was 'thrilled' at the verdict and of course the name of his friend...Quanterrious McCoy, surely that's not serious!!

Quanterrious was told to get real by police when he gave his name.:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Quanterrious McCoy, surely that's not serious!!

Quanterrious not only serious, but a very meaningful name indeed, as scientifically demonstrated by Kabalarians (http://www.kabalarians.com/Male/quanterrious.htm)

[ArabHibee]

Quanterrious McCoy - sorry but what a fantastic name! Its now taken over my other favourite, Xavier,

When you watch the video, the convicted's family can be seen loitering about at the back of the son-in-law of the lady who died. Look like they want to lynch him!!

[mickeythehibbee]

Although you've made a number of assumptions, (he could have been telling her that he had no intention of harming her, for example, rather than "tough luck, grandma") you're probably right.

It could have been manslaughter as it it took place in the commission of an unlawful act.

He broke into her house and held her against her will. That's a crime and it resulted in her death.

I wonder if he would have been prosecuted for GBH, if she hadn't died from the heart attack.

Would more likely be culpable homicide in the UK actually but it really amounts to the same thing.

He would almost certainly have been found guilty here as well and i think it's pushing it to say there was a racial element to it. It's known as the 'thin skull rule' where if someone, in the act of committing a crime commits a harm to someone whereby the harm is then multiplied due to factors unknown to the accused (e.g. an exceptionally thin skull which results in brain damage or in this case a heart condition), they can still be held fully liable for the death.

Even one's religous beliefs can be covered by the condition as shown in the case of R v Blaue where a woman who died after an assault due to refusing a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah's witness meant the man was still charged for her death, even though he couldn't possibly have predicted she'd refuse treatment.

:rules:

[Dinkydoo]

He held her hostage, presumably at gun point, in her own home. She was old and female and he was young, male strong and clearly in no mood to be ****ed with.

She had a heart attack as a result of the (predictable) shock of this - she wouldn't have died had he not been there. He then could have phoned an ambulance, but, presumably calculated that that would put him at risk of being caught - "tough luck, grandma..."

I think we would call it manslaughter, but for the victims, I am not sure that the difference matters.

Anyone who thinks he has been hard done-by might need to stop siding with the criminal and think of the victim.

He had a choice. She did not.

I think this quote below answers your post perfectly. I'm not "siding with the criminal", I'm simply of the opinion that you really shouldn't be held fully accountable for scaring someone to death, be it an accident (through making a loud noise..) or through another act that was meant to cause fear.

I don't think that he's being hard done to in any way shape or form, he committed armed robery ffs and held someone hostage. But to get done for giving someone the "fright of thier life", isn't justifiable - since amongst other things, there is no real way to prove that it was the cause of death.....

and as I've said, had it been kids playing in the street or having a tantrum in the supermarket, it would be a very different story..

None the less, he is a criminal and should be punished accordingly.


Although you've made a number of assumptions, (he could have been telling her that he had no intention of harming her, for example, rather than "tough luck, grandma") you're probably right.

It could have been manslaughter as it it took place in the commission of an unlawful act.

He broke into her house and held her against her will. That's a crime and it resulted in her death.

I wonder if he would have been prosecuted for GBH, if she hadn't died from the heart attack.

[IndieHibby]

Although you've made a number of assumptions, (he could have been telling her that he had no intention of harming her, for example, rather than "tough luck, grandma") you're probably right.

It could have been manslaughter as it it took place in the commission of an unlawful act.

He broke into her house and held her against her will. That's a crime and it resulted in her death.

I wonder if he would have been prosecuted for GBH, if she hadn't died from the heart attack.

I think for GBH there needs to be some physical scarring/ bloody injury. ABH can include anything down to a slap. I think...

(btw, I was aware of my assumptions, although like you I thought they were fairly safe...)

[Killiehibbie]

I think for GBH there needs to be some physical scarring/ bloody injury. ABH can include anything down to a slap. I think...

(btw, I was aware of my assumptions, although like you I thought they were fairly safe...)

GBH is 'really serious' bodily harm.

[IndieHibby]

I think this quote below answers your post perfectly. I'm not "siding with the criminal", I'm simply of the opinion that you really shouldn't be held fully accountable for scaring someone to death, be it an accident (through making a loud noise..) or through another act that was meant to cause fear.

I don't think that he's being hard done to in any way shape or form, he committed armed robery ffs and held someone hostage. But to get done for giving someone the "fright of thier life", isn't justifiable - since amongst other things, there is no real way to prove that it was the cause of death.....

and as I've said, had it been kids playing in the street or having a tantrum in the supermarket, it would be a very different story..

None the less, he is a criminal and should be punished accordingly.

Apologies, I wasn't referring directly to your post. In no way did I think you were siding with him, I was merely extending your point about not holding him fully accountable. I didn't make that clear....

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't guilt proven beyond "reasonable doubt" and therefore there does not need to be actual proof of the cause of the heart attack - it is reasonable to assume that, as she was fine before he invaded her home and died while he was there and he then refused the opportunity to do something about it, he holds responsibility for her death?

[IndieHibby]

and as I've said, had it been kids playing in the street or having a tantrum in the supermarket, it would be a very different story..


Yes it would. And rightly so. How can you equate those two things? One is reasonable and the other is not.

Or maybe you think people have a right to invade others homes? (Obviously I don't think that, but it seems that is what you are trying to do: equate kids in the street bursting a balloon/bag with armed invasion of a home).

Correct me if I am wrong...

[--------]

He held her hostage, presumably at gun point, in her own home. She was old and female and he was young, male strong and clearly in no mood to be ****ed with.

She had a heart attack as a result of the (predictable) shock of this - she wouldn't have died had he not been there. He then could have phoned an ambulance, but, presumably calculated that that would put him at risk of being caught - "tough luck, grandma..."

I think we would call it manslaughter, but for the victims, I am not sure that the difference matters.

Anyone who thinks he has been hard done-by might need to stop siding with the criminal and think of the victim.

He had a choice. She did not.


:agree:

Armed robbery is a felony. Evading capture is a felony. Breaking into someone's home is a felony. An elderly woman in frail health is confronted in her home by a guy in his teens, well over 6 feet tall, armed and agitated. She has a heart attack.

Now either she was just about to have the heart attack anyway (which makes Whitfield the unluckiest burglar of the year and surely would mean he could sue the woman's family for the distress caused to him by her death?)....

.... or his violent and unexpected (and felonious) intrusion into her home triggered the heart attack that led to her death. Which might have been prevented if he had called an ambulance.

She was dying in front of him, and he did nothing.

Whitfield's take on all this? "I didn't mean for nothing of this to happen. I'm a good kid. I just made a careless mistake." :bitchy:

Causing death while committing a felony. No problem with that. If he's done it in Airdrie, he'd have got five years - of which he'd only have to serve three, which would be reduced to eighteen months for 'good behaviour', and he might be released even earlier if the Prison Service needed his cell.

[Sylar]

Apologies, I wasn't referring directly to your post. In no way did I think you were siding with him, I was merely extending your point about not holding him fully accountable. I didn't make that clear....

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't guilt proven beyond "reasonable doubt" and therefore there does not need to be actual proof of the cause of the heart attack - it is reasonable to assume that, as she was fine before he invaded her home and died while he was there and he then refused the opportunity to do something about it, he holds responsibility for her death?

Is it? Millions of people all over the world have undiagnosed conditions or underlying medical complications which go unnoticed until it is too late, or are caught by something else. What's to say, that at her age, she didn't have a defective coronary condition? Granted, it is probably a fair assumption (if there can be such a thing) that this guy's presence was a catalyst and that his failure to act further exacerbated the incident.

I definately don't side with the guy, but there a lot of legally grey areas in this case, which sets a very dangerous precedent.

MickeytheHibee: I hadn't heard of either case before, but wow, another very "eggshell" legal case!

[Dinkydoo]

Apologies, I wasn't referring directly to your post. In no way did I think you were siding with him, I was merely extending your point about not holding him fully accountable. I didn't make that clear....

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't guilt proven beyond "reasonable doubt" and therefore there does not need to be actual proof of the cause of the heart attack - it is reasonable to assume that, as she was fine before he invaded her home and died while he was there and he then refused the opportunity to do something about it, he holds responsibility for her death?


To give the guy a life sentence based on this isn't really justice. Taking all other matters into account, yes, a life sentence seems reasonable - but for literally scaring someone to death, not intentionally..... come on.:confused:



Yes it would. And rightly so. How can you equate those two things? One is reasonable and the other is not.

Or maybe you think people have a right to invade others homes? (Obviously I don't think that, but it seems that is what you are trying to do: equate kids in the street bursting a balloon/bag with armed invasion of a home).

Correct me if I am wrong...


Not at all, it was simply an example of something else that could have potentially ended with the same result - death.

I'm not saying that he should be blameless, just that all things considered, it appears to have been an accident and if another accident such as having a heart attack caused by something a little more innocent, the person wouldn't probably be held responsible for her death.

My apologies for the lack of clarity in my responses - typing hurridly whilst on my lunch.

Although there appears to also be a lack in clarity within this case also - like other people have said, "grey areas".

[IndieHibby]

Is it? Millions of people all over the world have undiagnosed conditions or underlying medical complications which go unnoticed until it is too late, or are caught by something else. What's to say, that at her age, she didn't have a defective coronary condition? Granted, it is probably a fair assumption (if there can be such a thing) that this guy's presence was a catalyst and that his failure to act further exacerbated the incident.

I definately don't side with the guy, but there a lot of legally grey areas in this case, which sets a very dangerous precedent.

MickeytheHibee: I hadn't heard of either case before, but wow, another very "eggshell" legal case!

A catalyst is something that helps to speed up a process that would otherwise have take place anyway, albeit at a slower rate or not at all under the conditions present (i.e. sitting peacefully at home minding your own business). So if a reaction happens as a result of the presence of a catalyst, then the catalyst is pretty responsible for the reaction, no?

IF he had rung the bell to collect money for charity or enquire as to her good health, the shock of which catalysed her impending heart attack, then yes, it would be fair not to attribute him with the responsiblity for it.

But it is patently not the case that he was there under REASONABLE circumstances. It is not reasonable to say that beacause she was old, then she should have been able to cope with him invading her home.

THE LAW OF THE LAND STATES THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ENTER SOMEONES HOME ILLEGALY OR HOLD THEM HOSTAGE.

If you choose to do this, then you must also choose to accept the consequences. In this case he entered a frail womans home and she died of the shock OF THIS

Ergo, HE IS RESPONSIBLE

Would you seriously turn round to the family and say that the guy is not being charged in anyway relating to her death? How would you justify that? ("ermm...she was old and her ticker could have given out at any time")

Christ, if it were my gran/mother/sister I'd probably lamp you for attempting it....

[IndieHibby]

To give the guy a life sentence based on this isn't really justice. Taking all other matters into account, yes, a life sentence seems reasonable - but for literally scaring someone to death, not intentionally..... come on.:confused:





Not at all, it was simply an example of something else that could have potentially ended with the same result - death.

I'm not saying that he should be blameless, just that all things considered, it appears to have been an accident and if another accident such as having a heart attack caused by something a little more innocent, the person wouldn't probably be held responsible for her death.

My apologies for the lack of clarity in my responses - typing hurridly whilst on my lunch.

Although there appears to also be a lack in clarity within this case also - like other people have said, "grey areas".

Would you agree that it is reasonable to assume that if you are drunk you could kill someone if you drive?

Would you also agree that if you conduct an armed invasion of someone's home and hold them hostage, then you may give someone a bloody good scare?

Would you also agree that people vary in their responses to this kind of experience? Hence some people might literally be scared to death and/or illness?

[--------]

A catalyst is something that helps to speed up a process that would otherwise have take place anyway, albeit at a slower rate or not at all under the conditions present (i.e. sitting peacefully at home minding your own business). So if a reaction happens as a result of the presence of a catalyst, then the catalyst is pretty responsible for the reaction, no?

IF he had rung the bell to collect money for charity or enquire as to her good health, the shock of which catalysed her impending heart attack, then yes, it would be fair not to attribute him with the responsiblity for it.

But it is patently not the case that he was there under REASONABLE circumstances. It is not reasonable to say that beacause she was old, then she should have been able to cope with him invading her home.

THE LAW OF THE LAND STATES THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ENTER SOMEONES HOME ILLEGALY OR HOLD THEM HOSTAGE.

If you choose to do this, then you must also choose to accept the consequences. In this case he entered a frail womans home and she died of the shock OF THIS

Ergo, HE IS RESPONSIBLE

Would you seriously turn round to the family and say that the guy is not being charged in anyway relating to her death? How would you justify that? ("ermm...she was old and her ticker could have given out at any time")

Christ, if it were my gran/mother/sister I'd probably lamp you for attempting it....


:agree:

:top marks

[HibsMax]

Having read the story I think the verdict is correct but the sentence seems a little harsh. He may have received some leniency if he bothered to stop and call an ambulance but he didn't. The prospect of leniency is my own assumption. There is no doubt in my mind that he is responsible for her death - she would still be alive today if he didn't burst into her home. It makes no difference if she did have a pre-existing heart condition. A shock like this to anyone would put them under considerable stress, never mind if you are a 79-year old woman. It's a shame since the kid had a clean record before this. It doesn't say "without chance of parole" so I think he'll probably get out before he's too old. Interesting case.

[--------]

Having read the story I think the verdict is correct but the sentence seems a little harsh. He may have received some leniency if he bothered to stop and call an ambulance but he didn't. The prospect of leniency is my own assumption. There is no doubt in my mind that he is responsible for her death - she would still be alive today if he didn't burst into her home. It makes no difference if she did have a pre-existing heart condition. A shock like this to anyone would put them under considerable stress, never mind if you are a 79-year old woman. It's a shame since the kid had a clean record before this. It doesn't say "without chance of parole" so I think he'll probably get out before he's too old. Interesting case.


Well he certainly seems to have been exerting himself to make up for lost time, Max.

Clean becasue he was behaving himslef, or clean because he just hadn't been caught?

I think David Simon records a similar case in "Homicide: Life on the Killing Streets".

[Dinkydoo]

Would you agree that it is reasonable to assume that if you are drunk you could kill someone if you drive? Yes

Would you also agree that if you conduct an armed invasion of someone's home and hold them hostage, then you may give someone a bloody good scare? Yes - but to thier death....... probably not. By the same token, would you expect to scare someone to death by setting off a firework in an area that you shouldn't? Because you shouldn't have done it does that then make you fully acccountable; or like everything in life should we take other factors into consideration when sentencing someone to life in prison.

Is it fair to assume that simply because you've got a firearm and intend to use it to scare someone out of thier possessions, you should expect someone to end up dead..?

Is it ever fair to make an asumption - as life is far too complicated to take into account every single probable outcome.

Would you also agree that people vary in their responses to this kind of experience? Hence some people might literally be scared to death and/or illness?

Yes




I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Although to be fair the disagreement isn't great.

I agree that he should spend life in jail and take responsiblity for his actions although this case is an absoloute minefield imo.

The way the verdict has been worded is what I really disagree with. It's resulted in this guy getting life for scaring someone to death and mentiones nothing around the sentencing for carrying a firearm, armed robbery, taking someone hostage..... only that because it's resulted in death unintentionally, he's to get life in jail.

[HibsMax]

Well he certainly seems to have been exerting himself to make up for lost time, Max.

Clean becasue he was behaving himslef, or clean because he just hadn't been caught?

I think David Simon records a similar case in "Homicide: Life on the Killing Streets".
Neither one of us knows the answer to that question, Doddie, so it's best not to make veiled assumptions. ;)

[--------]

Neither one of us knows the answer to that question, Doddie, so it's best not to make veiled assumptions. ;)


You're absolutely right, Max. I'm afraid I have a very low opinion of human nature.

Perhaps it's because of the case in the High Court in Edinburgh a few years back, when after his counsel had entered an eloquent plea on his behalf of 'Not Guilty' to the charge of taking a car without the owner's consent, citing in particular the fact that his client was a first offender with a hitherto unblemished redord, the accused was asked if he had anything to say on his own account, and HE asked for 126 previous similar offences to be taken into account.

Apparently that's what his big brother always did when HE was in court for TWOCing....