Two get plea deal in deadly brawl

[enigma]

2nd amendment wrote:

<quoted text>
With any luck the next time Gulich tries something like this it will be with an armed citizen who will put him away for good.

2nd, would you mind if I post your comment in re: Andrew Gulich on the Sean Mitchell thread?
Thank you

[2nd amendment]

enigma wrote:

<quoted text>
2nd, would you mind if I post your comment in re: Andrew Gulich on the Sean Mitchell thread?
Thank you

I think I made a similar comment in that thread.

I have zero tolerance for violence outside of self-defense.

[Ahem]

Lady Day wrote:

Ahem
The other kid didn't particpate and wasn't charged, although he could have been for not acting to stop the fight or call the police.
I did not know that a person has an obligation (legally) to try to stop the fight.
In the Kutztown case, the three guys from Allentown, the driver and people in car were not charged even though they were at the scene of the murder of Kyle Quinn. Is this police discretion or the DA's discretion whether to charge? I believe in the circumstances presented in this case they had a moral obligation to call the police/try to break up fight.
Thank you kindly

It IS a matter of law that if we come into the knowledge of a crime, even in the planning stage, we are obligated to report it to a law enforcement agency, or we can be found to be a criminal co-conspirator if its found out that we did know and didn't act to interfere with or stop the act.
It IS a matter of discretion when it comed to using that law to persons as you've already described.
I believe that if it was used more forcefully, more people would get involved in reporting criminal acts and end them sooner.
Right now, the threat of charging uncooperative witnesses after the fact is the most its used for in getting cooperation.
I think that the judges aren't willing to enforce the law in cases of mere observation by someone who 'didn't want to get involved'.
It started happening more in the 1960's. Remember people in NY seeing a rape or nurder, and then not telling the cops that they witnessed it, even though they had called it in?

[Ahem]

cereal city wrote:

thanks for taking your time ahem,, I understand alot better as well.

Thank you both for your comments, I was getting a bit frustrated with the others' although I understand why.

[Ahem]

2nd amendment wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not at all ok with any plea deal in violent cases.

I agree with you, and unfortunately the justice we get is filtered by people who look at the process with an institutionalized mindset.
To them it largely a numbers game that even the defense lawyers are aware of and are 'in the know' about in order to play in it.
One big happy family...

Its too bad that it corrupts the wise guys and cops at the street level who know how little effect their actions will be brought to true justice. It dilutes our policing.

[2nd amendment]

Ahem wrote:

<quoted text>
It IS a matter of law that if we come into the knowledge of a crime, even in the planning stage, we are obligated to report it to a law enforcement agency, or we can be found to be a criminal co-conspirator if its found out that we did know and didn't act to interfere with or stop the act.

Can you cite a law or case law to back this up?

[Lady Day]

2nd amendment wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you cite a law or case law to back this up?

Hi 2nd,
I cannot speak for Ahem but I believe the notorious case from the 60's that he mentions is the Kitty Genovese murder case.
Here is so info on this case. I do not recall anything in the PA Codes Code.
"For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens."
the Genovese murder led to reform of the NYPD's telephone reporting system; the system in place at the time of the assault was often inefficient and directed individuals to the incorrect department. The melodramatic press coverage also led to serious investigation of the bystander effect by academic psychologists. In addition, some communities organized Neighborhood Watch programs and the equivalent for apartment buildings to aid people in distress.
Genovese had driven home in the early morning of March 13, 1964. Arriving home at about 3:15 a.m. and parking about 100 feet (30 m) from her apartment's door, she was approached by Winston Moseley, a Business Machine Operator.[2] Moseley ran after her and quickly overtook her, stabbing her twice in the back. When Genovese screamed out, she screamed, "Oh my god he stabbed me! Help me!" it was heard by several neighbors; but on a cold night with the windows closed, only a few of them recognized the sound as a cry for help. When one of the neighbors shouted at the attacker, "Let that girl alone!", Moseley ran away and Genovese slowly made her way towards her own apartment around the end of the building. She was seriously injured, but now out of view of those few who may have had reason to believe she was in need of help.

Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were certainly not given a high priority by the police. One witness said his father called police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up and was staggering around."[6]

Other witnesses observed Moseley enter his car and drive away, only to return ten minutes later. In his car, he changed his hat to a wide-rimmed one to shadow his face. He systematically searched the parking lot, train station, and small apartment complex, ultimately finding Genovese, who was lying, barely conscious, in a hallway at the back of the building. Out of view of the street and of those who may have heard or seen any sign of the original attack, he proceeded to further attack her, stabbing her several more times. Knife wounds in her hands suggested that she attempted to defend herself from him. While she lay dying, he sexually assaulted her. He stole about $49 from her and left her dying in the hallway. The attacks spanned approximately half an hour. During his last attack in the hallway, a neighbor just up the stairs opened the door and watched the attack without doing anything to stop the attacker.
*2nd Ammend it would be interesting to find the crime statute or case a case in PA law.
Have a Good Day!
Ahem, if you are reading this, thank you for taking you time to explain my above questions. It seems to make things much clearer. Even if unfair.

[2nd amendment]

Lady Day wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi 2nd,
I cannot speak for Ahem but I believe the notorious case from the 60's that he mentions is the Kitty Genovese murder case.
Here is so info on this case. I do not recall anything in the PA Codes Code.
"For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens."
the Genovese murder led to reform of the NYPD's telephone reporting system; the system in place at the time of the assault was often inefficient and directed individuals to the incorrect department. The melodramatic press coverage also led to serious investigation of the bystander effect by academic psychologists. In addition, some communities organized Neighborhood Watch programs and the equivalent for apartment buildings to aid people in distress.
Genovese had driven home in the early morning of March 13, 1964. Arriving home at about 3:15 a.m. and parking about 100 feet (30 m) from her apartment's door, she was approached by Winston Moseley, a Business Machine Operator.[2] Moseley ran after her and quickly overtook her, stabbing her twice in the back. When Genovese screamed out, she screamed, "Oh my god he stabbed me! Help me!" it was heard by several neighbors; but on a cold night with the windows closed, only a few of them recognized the sound as a cry for help. When one of the neighbors shouted at the attacker, "Let that girl alone!", Moseley ran away and Genovese slowly made her way towards her own apartment around the end of the building. She was seriously injured, but now out of view of those few who may have had reason to believe she was in need of help.
Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were certainly not given a high priority by the police. One witness said his father called police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up and was staggering around."[6]
Other witnesses observed Moseley enter his car and drive away, only to return ten minutes later. In his car, he changed his hat to a wide-rimmed one to shadow his face. He systematically searched the parking lot, train station, and small apartment complex, ultimately finding Genovese, who was lying, barely conscious, in a hallway at the back of the building. Out of view of the street and of those who may have heard or seen any sign of the original attack, he proceeded to further attack her, stabbing her several more times. Knife wounds in her hands suggested that she attempted to defend herself from him. While she lay dying, he sexually assaulted her. He stole about $49 from her and left her dying in the hallway. The attacks spanned approximately half an hour. During his last attack in the hallway, a neighbor just up the stairs opened the door and watched the attack without doing anything to stop the attacker.
*2nd Ammend it would be interesting to find the crime statute or case a case in PA law.
Have a Good Day!
Ahem, if you are reading this, thank you for taking you time to explain my above questions. It seems to make things much clearer. Even if unfair.

Were any of the bystanders charged and convicted of anything? Moral bankruptcy isn't a crime. Just look at Washington.

That aside, I can assure you that I do not conform to the "no snitch" mentality. If I'd have been that tennant opening the door it would have been with my gun blazing.

[Ahem]

2nd amendment wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you cite a law or case law to back this up?

I'll have to look it up in Pa. Title 18, the Crimes Code.
It has always been a legal obligation since old English Common Law. It is in the current codes though, we had to know this for our District Justice certification.
Its discussed extensively in our 'search and seizure' rules that establish the probable cause or reasonable existence of a crime.
I'll post it as soon as I get it.

[Ahem]

Pa. Title 18, PART I., CHAPTER 3

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP4/18PA306.htm...

see '(f) Exceptions' below:

§ 306. Liability for conduct of another; complicity.
(a) General rule.--A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both.

(b) Conduct of another.--A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:

acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct;
he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by this title or by the law defining the offense; or
he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense.

(c) Accomplice defined.--A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:

with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he:
solicits such other person to commit it; or
aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.

(d) Culpability of accomplice.--When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense.

(e) Status of actor.--In any prosecution for an offense in which criminal liability of the defendant is based upon the conduct of another person pursuant to this section, it is no defense that the offense in question, as defined, can be committed only by a particular class or classes of persons, and the defendant, not belonging to such class or classes, is for that reason legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity.

(f) Exceptions.--Unless otherwise provided by this title or by the law defining the offense, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if:

he is a victim of that offense;
the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission; or
he terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense and:
wholly deprives it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense; or
gives timely warning to the law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense.

(g) Prosecution of accomplice only.--An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted.

[2nd amendment]

Ahem wrote:

Pa. Title 18, PART I., CHAPTER 3
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP4/18PA306.htm...
see '(f) Exceptions' below:
§ 306. Liability for conduct of another; complicity.
(a) General rule.--A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both.
(b) Conduct of another.--A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:
acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct;
he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by this title or by the law defining the offense; or
he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense.
(c) Accomplice defined.--A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he:
solicits such other person to commit it; or
aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.
(d) Culpability of accomplice.--When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense.
(e) Status of actor.--In any prosecution for an offense in which criminal liability of the defendant is based upon the conduct of another person pursuant to this section, it is no defense that the offense in question, as defined, can be committed only by a particular class or classes of persons, and the defendant, not belonging to such class or classes, is for that reason legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity.
(f) Exceptions.--Unless otherwise provided by this title or by the law defining the offense, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if:
he is a victim of that offense;
the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission; or
he terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense and:
wholly deprives it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense; or
gives timely warning to the law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense.
(g) Prosecution of accomplice only.--An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted.

Thanks.

As I interpret this law if I were to happen upon someone commiting a crime and did nothing, I could NOT be held accountable.

Again, if I were to witness a serious crime I would do something. I don't abide by the "no snitch" mentality of today's youth.

[ho hum]

Culpability of accomplice is shaky case law at best, ask the fine DA that tried this case... Addey didn't like it and called Greek out on it several times. Thus the reason plea bargain looked so attractive... remember four were there, one wasn't charged at all though he never tried to stop his 'friends' from fighting or try to get help... neither of the two adults could be implicated for what the other did which shoots LOTS of holes in the accomplice culpability theory. Not saying you don't know your stuff Ahem, but I did argue that not knowing all the facts make it tough for armchair judges to pass judgement

[Justice]

I still don't understand why both of these men were presented to the court or jury for that matter at the same time.

[Get over it]

the trial is over the family agreed to the plea, so let it go already!!!!

[For Some Reason]

Have they been sentenced yet? Or did they decide their fate in the plea? Why did this have to go to trial?

Get over it wrote:

the trial is over the family agreed to the plea, so let it go already!!!!

[Lady Day]

For Some Reason wrote:

Have they been sentenced yet? Or did they decide their fate in the plea? Why did this have to go to trial? <quoted text>

They probably will not be sentenced until next month.

[No hablo Espanol aqui]

2nd amendment wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks.
As I interpret this law if I were to happen upon someone commiting a crime and did nothing, I could NOT be held accountable.
Again, if I were to witness a serious crime I would do something. I don't abide by the "no snitch" mentality of today's youth.

Lady's question only was in regards to the other kid that wasn't charged.
I said that he could have been. Hence the law about that aspect of it.