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.

  • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are people doing more time than her for having weed on their person or passing a bad check to buy groceries or pay rent. Let’s start there, not with people who kill old ladies because they’re mad about being asked to leave an establishment that is closing.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need to reform the system completely. Saying we need to start with only one crime is being shortsighted. It’s all fucked, and it’s fucked so some people can profit off of it. I agree those people serving more time is worse, but it’s a symptom of a rotten system, not something we can fix one case at a time.

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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!).

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?