This is sad...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Fateweaver**

According to the rest of the world we aren't supposed to be proud of that fact.

I for sure like 5,6 and 10.

**Rico**

Well in light of recent asshattery on the upper echelons of our fine Democracy my pride is being shaken too. Oh well.

In an attempt to steer this thread back on topic, what's the most punishment these bystanders can get?

Rico...

**Orkeosaurus**

Depends on the State's laws.

According to Garret there isn't a punishment for not stopping a crime.

**Fateweaver**

So long as you didn't vote for our current asshat..i mean Overlord than you should still be proud of who you are at least.

I think it could be considered contributing to the cause...misdemeanors I believe. Depends on Cali laws.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

Ok, Im all for owning weapons but not if you live in LA. You guys have lost your gun privileges for not killing your cities mass quantities of weapons violators with your own weapons. You should be ashamed. Massive culls happen all the time in the third world, how about we practice a little moral relativism

.

**Frazzled**

garret wrote:
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The only appropriate punishment would, of course, be for those who stood there and watched and those who participated to be: first, gang raped for two hours straight (eye for an eye), second, have their genitals severed and shoved into their mouths, third, have their stomachs split open and entrails pulled out so they can slowly die and feel that weird ghostly feeling you get whenever something is moving around inside your abdominal cavity.

yup but the laws here saw that you cannot prosecue someone who just sttod there.

Actually the were a couple of prosecutors on the talking heads who came up with some ideas. Because the victim is underage anyone who took pictures could be charged with child pornography and so forth. I'm down with inventive charges in this instance.

**Orkeosaurus**

Frazzled wrote:anyone who took pictures could be charged with child pornography and so forth.

While I can't condone jailing people for not doing anything (I just don't like where it might lead), I fully support this. Not just because you'd have to be a douchebag to stand around not doing anything, but because it's seriously unfair for this girl to now have videos circulating of the incident.

Drop teh hammer.

**dogma**

Couldn't these guys get criminal negligence? Not necessarily for not doing anything physical to stop the rape, but for failing to notify authorities in a clear case of child endangerment.

**Kilkrazy**

You would have to prove they had a clear idea that the girl in question was a minor.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:Couldn't these guys get criminal negligence? Not necessarily for not doing anything physical to stop the rape, but for failing to notify authorities in a clear case of child endangerment.

Criminal negligence? I think you're mixing civil and criminal there dogma. Generally there's no duty to report. Cali has a duty law but its 14 or under only. But as noted, if a prosecutor wasn't a wienie, they could create some justice here.

Ayah on the civil front these people could and rightly should be, boned.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Criminal negligence? I think you're mixing civil and criminal there dogma.

I thought negligent child endangerment was a criminal offense in most places? Though I suppose no one present at the scene had legitimate custody or care of her.

**Kanluwen**

Kilkrazy wrote:You would have to prove they had a clear idea that the girl in question was a minor.

Given that they said one of her friends took her out to the area in question to drink...

I think they can prove that with him knowing, they can pin it on the rest too.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Criminal negligence? I think you're mixing civil and criminal there dogma.

I thought negligent child endangerment was a criminal offense in most places? Though I suppose no one present at the scene had legitimate custody or care of her.

Ah yes. That one would not be applicable in this circumstance.