<p>13-year-old</a> boy charged in death of Columbia student</p>
<p>The readers' comments speak for themselves.</p>
<p>Tragic. Tragic. Tragic. I am sick to read of this.</p>
<p>Yeah, BWOG reported on it too:
The</a> Bwog: BREAKING: Student fleeing muggers hit by car, dies</p>
<p>I was beyond astonished at the racist tone of some of the <em>student</em> commenters. Hopefully this isn't an accurate representation of the Columbia student body as a whole. I can understand that people would be angry, but some of the generalizations being made were truly offensive and inflammatory.</p>
<p>"Columbia student murder"</p>
<p>This is a ridiculous title, the boy was charged with manslaughter. As heinous as the outcome was, the accused mugger boy had no intention of killing the man, so it's clearly not murder. It's more of a freak accident - both tragic and very unfortunate.</p>
<p>"I was beyond astonished at the racist tone of some of the <em>student</em> commenters"</p>
<p>It's very possible that many of those aren't even students at columbia. Also when people anonymously comment they often don't mean everything they say. Anonymous comments allow and propagate insensitivity, you'll see much of the same on any anonymous forum regardless of the subject. Youtube any atrocity (if they haven't already banned comments).</p>
<p>Why isn't the felony-murder doctrine applicable?</p>
<p>"Why isn't the felony-murder doctrine applicable?"</p>
<p>I know very little of the exact legal system, but go ask the cops, they'd charge the kid with felony-murder if he was actually involved in a murder.</p>
<p>Intuitively it only makes sense that the boy is not charged with murder, because he did not murder the man. The driver of car killed the man and the boy had nothing to do with that specifically, the boy neither directed nor pushed him in the direction of the car, the man made a mistake by running into the car. This is why you don't blame suicide on people who might have been saddening the victim.</p>
<p>yes if the boy wasn't mugging him - none of this would have happened in the first place - hence manslaughter. But perhaps the man was running an errand for someone, in this case, should that someone also be partially blamed?</p>
<p>To me it's a clear case of possible manslaughter.</p>
<p>Robbery/Mugging is a dangerous felony - like arson or assault, carrying with it the intention of major harm - and I think the doctrine should apply in this case. Maybe someone with more expertise could shed light on the situation.</p>
<p>As a reference for comparison, many New Yorkers will recall this very recent case, which, unfortunately also happened near Columbia (on 125th Street) and involved a student who was murdered:</p>
<p>4 Harlem Teenagers Charged in Student's Death During Robbery
Published: April 10, 2006
"The police have arrested four Harlem teenagers and charged them with the robbery and murder of a New York University student who died earlier this month after he was chased onto 125th Street and hit by a car."
"The youths, two 13-year-olds and two 15-year-olds, will be charged as adults"
"The police say they believe that another of the youths punched him in the face. Moments later, Mr. Hehman broke free. With his attackers shouting and in pursuit, he darted into 125th Street, heavy with traffic, and was hit by a car."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/nyregion/10harlem.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/nyregion/10harlem.html</a></p>
<p>Poster X it seems clear to me that you are searching extensively (and with little success) for ways to hurt columbia's reputation on this forum, nevertheless:</p>
<p>arson or assault is far more dangerous than mugging, mugging does not carry the intention of major harm, it carries the primary intention of getting money out of you, personal gain vs. malevolence.</p>
<p>In the article you brought up, the victim was chased onto a busy street after being beaten up. The assailants much more directly caused his death.</p>
<p>The crime you cited was also nowhere near columbia - 125th and lexington is all the way on the east side of manhattan across town. There is unfortunately no justification to connect columbia or it's nearby surrounding areas to a crime there. nice try.</p>
<p>yeah, posterX has tried this stuff before. I think the only time he posts here is when he's got a few URLs for irrelevant news stories only dimly connected to the point he's trying to make, which usually is "Columbia isn't safe".</p>
<p>I'd also point out that if you want the perspective of Columbia students, take a look at comments on the Spectator's article. I don't know a single Columbian who reads the NY Daily News for something other than Yankees coverage.</p>
<hr>
<p>As for this particular story, this is the essence of tragedy. Someone who was a credit to his community and his ancestors, cut down in the prime of his life by something totally needless. The driver who hit him probably won't be able to drive without nightmares for years. It's hard to think of what higher purpose any of this can serve.</p>
<p>If there's one silver lining I can offer, though, it's that these kind of incidents are so rare in Columbia and most parts of manhattan, that the victims are individuals and each case is a big story, rather than the victims being a statistic and everyone just hoping it doesn't happen to them. This is thankfully unusual and more of a freak occurrence than most of us - save maybe the racist - would otherwise believe.</p>
<p>^^Agreed.^^</p>
<p>Good post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Robbery/Mugging is a dangerous felony - like arson or assault, carrying with it the intention of major harm - and I think the doctrine should apply in this case. Maybe someone with more expertise could shed light on the situation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely agree with PosterX, despite the fact that he's been an obnoxious anti-Columbia troll in the past. The assailants could easily be indicted for murder in NY, and they should be.</p>
<p>Felony-murder is 2nd Degree Murder in NY:</p>
<p>
[quote]
§ 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:</p>
<hr>
<p>Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits
or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the
first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in
the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree,
or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance
of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another
participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than
one of the participants
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's no requirement of intent to kill. All you need to intent to commit the robbery, and the requisite intent for murder is inferred.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As heinous as the outcome was, the accused mugger boy had no intention of killing the man, so it's clearly not murder. It's more of a freak accident - both tragic and very unfortunate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not a freak accident. Victims get harmed all the time trying to get away from crimes. There was an incident in Harlem last year that was just like this one -- 4 black kids tried to mug some dude on 125th street, and he ran away and was hit by a car.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Intuitively it only makes sense that the boy is not charged with murder, because he did not murder the man. The driver of car killed the man and the boy had nothing to do with that specifically, the boy neither directed nor pushed him in the direction of the car, the man made a mistake by running into the car. This is why you don't blame suicide on people who might have been saddening the victim.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is half-a$sed backwards logic. Are you suggesting that one needs to commit a physical act in the vicinity of the victim before he's culpable of muder? Are you unaware that accomplices / conspirators can be held liable for a murder? Are you aware of RICO, which basically allows an entire criminal enterprise (e.g., a mob family or a gang) to be culpable for a murder they had no knowledge of?</p>
<p>"It's not a freak accident. Victims get harmed all the time trying to get away from crimes. There was an incident in Harlem last year that was just like this one -- 4 black kids tried to mug some dude on 125th street, and he ran away and was hit by a car."</p>
<p>"Are you suggesting that one needs to commit a physical act in the vicinity of the victim before he's culpable of muder?"</p>
<p>The extent of involvement in his eventual death needs to be investigated, but yes, perhaps murder in the second degree charges should be levied.</p>
<p>Yes, PosterX, if only New York City were as wonderful as New Haven...</p>
<p>frickin yale-tards...</p>
<p>Intent is central to a murder charge. Mens rea, the mentation needed to establish the guilty mind. It seems to me, mugging or assault is the proper charge. Not murder or homicide unless it is some form of negligent manslaughter which thru plea bargaining is reduced to the proper charge. Please note that the prosecutors may come in high for political/social reasons and then quietly diminish the charges.</p>
<p>"Please note that the prosecutors may come in high for political/social reasons and then quietly diminish the charges."</p>
<p>Ramaswami, did that happen in the similar case in 2006 where the NYU student was murdered on 125th street? Can you point to any examples? Just trying to understand what you mean exactly.</p>
<p>Also, as far as anyone "searching extensively" for information on this, this was a front page story in New York City for several days.</p>
<p>I don't know if that happened in the previous case but it is a tack prosecutors take especially in high profile cases.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, PosterX, if only New York City were as wonderful as New Haven...</p>
<p>frickin yale-tards...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is everyone attacking the messenger? The guy was totally right on the felony-murder thing, and everyone except me poo-poo'd him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Intent is central to a murder charge. Mens rea, the mentation needed to establish the guilty mind. It seems to me, mugging or assault is the proper charge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The whole point of felony murder is to say that someone has a "guilty intent" for murder by virtue of their intent to commit a very serious crime. You certainly don't need "intent to murder" here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The extent of involvement in his eventual death needs to be investigated, but yes, perhaps murder in the second degree charges should be levied.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The DA will easily get an indictment on the facts that have been reported in the media.</p>
<p>Do a search for PosterX threads and you'll see why I gave him/her/it a thorough poo-poo-ing...</p>
<p>you'll notice a borderline absurd "Yale-good Not-Yale-bad two-legs-bad four-legs-good" theme</p>
<p>columbia2002, I went back and read your post on what is reqd for felony-murder. If that is correct, as I assume it is, then felony-murder is applicable, the lack of intent to commit murder would be irrelevant. I stand corrected. Thanks for educating me.</p>