A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
System reform doesnt start with the crimes you feel morally okay with. It starts with systemic issues.
I mean… yeah… but I don’t think you’re going to get far arguing that violent people who kill old ladies for sport should be given less time. You’ll win more hearts and minds with literally any other type of crime (except those against kids). She is an example of someone who does need to be separated from society, for the safety of vulnerable people.
You think this was a sport killing?
It was classed by the court as first degree manslaughter. She got angry, threw food, was “storming” down the street, saw an old lady on the other side of the street, called her a bitch, crossed the street and killed her, to placate her own rage. Yes, I would call that sport killing. It would be slightly different if the woman just happened to be in her way, but she wasn’t. She saw a target, made a decision, changed course, and killed her to meet her own emotional need. If she had been in a car and done this there wouldn’t be a question (unless of course the lady had been protesting something at the time, then game on!).
Thats… a wealth of assumptions. What youve detailed assumes a ton about the motive, but you didnt even detail a sport killing. Killing someone “to meet an emotional need” isnt killing for sport.
Youre also assuming that she knew pushing the lady over would be lethal, and that she started an argument with the express intent of justifying lethally shoving her.
She was drunk, bud. A drunk person incorrectly assuming a passer by is insulting them in some way and starting a fight over that assumption is so common its a writing stereotype.
Angrily starting a drunken argument on the street and then getting violent isnt killing for sport.
And, like… yeah if she had a murder weapon it sure would be different. If she had done it sober at 8 in the morning it would be different too.
E: it feels kinda dumb the say “thats not killing for sport” without saying why. Sport killing is killing for the fun of it. Like, intentionally hunting someone down and killing because you enjoy making someone die. Theres no evidence publicly available that she shoved the victim because she wanted to kill her, for the purpose of personal enjoyment.
Oh honey. I’m not your bud. Being drunk doesn’t make it ok to hurt or kill vulnerable people. Just because it’s a trope doesn’t make it ok… you… you know that, right? I’m worried that you don’t know that.
I kinda thought this was an ordinary conversation, but pretending youre insulted by bud and playing stupid that you think that knowing what killing for sport means must mean I think that this was a justified act… are you okay? Did you take a few hits of something in the past hour?
You understand that wrongful death is still a crime even when its not killing for sport, yes? Do I need to, like, walk you through every way a person can kill another person, and reassure you that each one is also bad?
Or are you gonna make up more baseless nonsense about how this lady secretly plotted and hunted a total stranger who she machiavellian-esquely knew would be outside the bar, just for the thrill?
That’s… a lot of assumptions, bud.
Kinda ironic, I guess.
Were you ever gonna elaborate on how you are so sure she killed out of premeditated glee, or are you hoping that just goes under the rug