19 year old beat to death in Pacific Mall

[darren9]

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/28479

A group of black, white, Indian and Chinese punks beat a guy to death in the Pacific Mall karaoke bar a few days ago.

[x86asm]

Officers learned the two victims were speaking to another man in the bar when they were confronted by six men brandishing two handguns and a microphone as weapons.

A microphone? :|

[alv077]

Holy crap. Those are some tall asians... compared to me, anyways :(

[RBK]

That's interesting it happened at MHQ and not at CM.

[edgedamage]

The men are described as:

· Suspect 2: white, wearing a black and white hate;

Never trust a white guy wearing a "White hate"

[nx6288]

this kinda stuff was bound to happen at pacific mall sooner or later.

[4flava]

Holy crap. Those are some tall asians... compared to me, anyways :(

Lol, you must be really short then.. how tall are you anyways? ..just curious..

I don't think they're tall at all.. 2 are 5'8" and 1 is 5'10".. that's tall??

[B40]

A microphone? :|

There are microphones all over karaoke bars, they're cordless and make a quick easily accessible weapon.. it's just like someone picking up a beer bottle and using it.

[kevin01]

And here they are.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_11620.aspx

[TapemanPL]

There are microphones all over karaoke bars, they're cordless and make a quick easily accessible weapon.. it's just like someone picking up a beer bottle and using it.

and cordless microphones are pretty darn heavy too

[PSiBeR]

Heard about this couple days ago.. lol they are tall for asians. I'm only 5'6 >:(
Saw the video and suprised they walked down the escalators silently, and pass the security gaurds with no hesitation.

I mean, wouldn't some MHQ workers would have noticed 2 teens beaten up, and quickly, yell and call security?

But then again being asian myself, I probably woulda walked the otherway and pretended nothing happened.

[sucka]

well there's not much of a diff b/w 5'6 and 5'8, you can barely tell the diff without taking out the ruler. :lol: .....

What a bunch of suckers, i give them a few days before they all surrender. You can't really run when you're shown clearly on security camera .... and plastered on forums around the world :cheesygri

[yao416]

The men are described as:

· Suspect 2: white, wearing a black and white hate;

Never trust a white guy wearing a "White hate"




· Suspect 2: white, wearing a black and white hate;


What is white hate? :S

[yao416]

Heard about this couple days ago.. lol they are tall for asians. I'm only 5'6 >:(
Saw the video and suprised they walked down the escalators silently, and pass the security gaurds with no hesitation.

I mean, wouldn't some MHQ workers would have noticed 2 teens beaten up, and quickly, yell and call security?

But then again being asian myself, I probably woulda walked the otherway and pretended nothing happened.

The security gaurd look at them too -_-‘(on cp24)

[B40]

What is white hate? :S

hat... it's a typo

[alv077]

Lol, you must be really short then.. how tall are you anyways? ..just curious..

I don't think they're tall at all.. 2 are 5'8" and 1 is 5'10".. that's tall??

5'6... and a half x.x

blah =/ im going to get gel and get my hair up.

[MasterXan]

i'm Chinese and I just think the more fobby Chinese people aren't very united.

last week, some guy made off with a diamond at one of the jewellery stores there and he was caught on the security cam as well. it happened in broad daylight, around 1:30 p.m. but no one did anything. i mean come on! the # of civilians > the thief. The store was near the center too so he would've ran to a lot of people when heading for the door.

in this case, the security guard didn't do anything. what's a security guard there for? if civilians aren't united and security guards don't do jack ****, who's to trust?

[sucka]

Why do people need to do anything? ... trust me that place is rigged with so many security cameras, it puts eaton centre to shame. You can't hide at that place .... not even in the corners. :lol:

[yao416]

hat... it's a typo

O_o like New Era hats?

[veejam]

lol at those stupid kids walking calmly out of pacific mall..they are probably pissing their pants now.

[YnD]

These asians were most likely Canadian born ones.

Its very rare for fobs to chill with white and black guys.

Surprisingly...at least one of every race as a suspect...

[Peckerwood]

1/3 of all homicides in Canada are done without a weapon of any kind.

But People dont kill People right?

[yao416]

lol at those stupid kids walking calmly out of pacific mall..they are probably pissing their pants now.

True say,
Id surrounder to the police asap if I were them.

[gamer123]

It doesn't matter how tall they are. They have two handguns, you can't do jack $h!t even if you are 7'6".

[MkmBandit]

I bet at least one of them is a member of this forum. If so, you're f****d.

[supermetroid]

These asians were most likely Canadian born ones.

Its very rare for fobs to chill with white and black guys.

Surprisingly...at least one of every race as a suspect...

Yeah because there are only 4 races in the world:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mrlooneytoon]

A South Asian guy? Wow, that's intense. Wonder what caused the targeted attack. Probably doesn't matter though.

[Siefer999]

i was there after the incident. i didnt know what was going on cause there was cops everywhere but they still let us get a room. 30 mins later AFTER we received our food + drinks, the cops told us that we have to leave. boss said we dint have to pay the bill.

EDIT: I am not a fob and I do not like kareoke because i do not sing anywhere other than in my shower.

[loho33]

someone must know 1 of the 7 guys

[Irb]

What kind of people actually goto MHQ? That place doesn't even serve alcohol.

[Emancipated]

It scares me to think that random thugs on the streets of TO are brandishing guns. What the hell is this, South Central L.A ? This sh1t isn't suppose to happen in Canada. Times sure have changed.

I'm getting old and have lost touch with the times, but hopefully not reality though I fear that's either coming or have passed me by without me noticing.

[4flava]

What kind of people actually goto MHQ? That place doesn't even serve alcohol.

+1

Got dragged there once and never went back.

Who the hell can sing when they're sober anyways?

[4flava]

It scares me to think that random thugs on the streets of TO are brandishing guns. What the hell is this, South Central L.A ? This sh1t isn't suppose to happen in Canada. Times sure have changed.

I'm getting old and have lost touch with the times, but hopefully not reality though I fear that's either coming or have passed me by without me noticing.

The unfortunate reality is that if you've got the dough then you can get a gun. It's actually quite easy, you've just gotta approach the right ppl to hook you up but unfortunately the "right ppl" are ones that'll take your life for fifty bucks.

[Stunt_101]

· Suspect 5: Asian, five-feet, eight-inches tall, 18 to 20 years with black spiked hair;

there taking aim at about 200,000 chinese teen thugs in the GTA LMAO

[Dragon120]

Sadly, this ***** is getting ridiculous...I can't believe our country is turning more like our southern neighbour. Whatever the cause of the incident, it doesn't warrant the victim being dead.

[bubble.tea]

It scares me to think that random thugs on the streets of TO are brandishing guns. What the hell is this, South Central L.A ? This sh1t isn't suppose to happen in Canada. Times sure have changed.
....

Scary reality.

Anybody have a solution?

[4flava]

Scary reality.

Anybody have a solution?

Let's take in the death penalty!

[tinlunlau]

i know one of the guys who work at MHQ Karaoke.
i oughta see what kinda info i can get from them.

[yao416]

I bet at least one of them is a member of this forum. If so, you're f****d.

LOL, Hope not :S,


someone must know 1 of the 7 guys

Maybe in Orbit or other place.


· Suspect 5: Asian, five-feet, eight-inches tall, 18 to 20 years with black spiked hair;

there taking aim at about 200,000 chinese teen thugs in the GTA LMAO


Sooner or later, cop will find him or he'll surrounder to the cop :D

[YnD]

It'll be easier to find the black guy within the group.
Then get the information on the rest of the suspects from him.

[CSR]

The victim had a reptuation of being a punk/wannabe gangster.

[yao416]

The victim had a reptuation of being a punk/wannabe gangster.

Well, atleast one on one with him :S
Not like f*cking 7vs1 +2 pistol :S

[mcg]

I really hate to see these kinds of things happen.. I saw this on the news on channel 36 a few days ago, but they didn't say anything about a death, until now.. damn.


and this - · Suspect 5: Asian, five-feet, eight-inches tall, 18 to 20 years with black spiked hair;

>> refers to me PERFECTLY... except i have glasses.. haha. That is some vague description...

[4flava]

Well, atleast one on one with him :S
Not like f*cking 7vs1 +2 pistol :S

Dude, this is not 1 one 1 ufc fighting... it's called GANG violence for a reason.

[4flava]

I really hate to see these kinds of things happen.. I saw this on the news on channel 36 a few days ago, but they didn't say anything about a death, until now.. damn.


and this - · Suspect 5: Asian, five-feet, eight-inches tall, 18 to 20 years with black spiked hair;

>> refers to me PERFECTLY... except i have glasses.. haha. That is some vague description...

So where were you on the day of the crime??.. were you wearing contacts????? :?:

[yao416]

So where were you on the day of the crime??.. were you wearing contacts????? :?:

4flava, contact the police ASAP LOL
*DANGER TO PUBLIC*

[Stunt_101]

The men are described as:

· Suspect 2: white, wearing a black and white hate;

Never trust a white guy wearing a "White hate"

and never trust an asian wearing a "blue baseball had"

[mcg]

Oh noes you got me there =(


So where were you on the day of the crime??.. were you wearing contacts????? :?:

[yao416]

and never trust an asian wearing a "blue baseball had"

Another typo?
What does that mean? :S

[infinite.chaoz]

The security gaurd look at them too -_-‘(on cp24)

Another typo?
What does that mean? :S

[yao416]

Another typo?
What does that mean? :S

Well your pretty stupid for not knowing then.

[infinite.chaoz]

Another typo?
What does that mean? :S

Likewise

[billdozer]

Well your pretty stupid for not knowing then.

YOU'RE

[Jkim]

Def. gang related...i know that victim, went to my hs in gr.10 n got kicked out...or dropped out.
he was in FD (fukense dragon)

[mcg]

Is ****ense dragon a gang name...?

[Jkim]

Is ****ense dragon a gang name...?

yeah? but i dunno if they exist anymore...
when i read it the 1st time i didn't know if it was that Owen...but when ppl on my msn list had written RIP O.S i knew it was him..quite shocking

[billdozer]

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509802709&hiq=owen%2Csha

victim's facebook RIP

[YnD]

Def. gang related...i know that victim, went to my hs in gr.10 n got kicked out...or dropped out.
he was in FD (fukense dragon)

Well that what happens when your involved... and your cocky or trash talk (assuming he did).

Dangerous place Toronto is these days.

[felix]

These asians were most likely Canadian born ones.

Its very rare for fobs to chill with white and black guys.

That's what I was thinking too. Plus CBC's are usually taller (at least from people i know).

[infinite.chaoz]

Well that what happens when your involved... and your cocky or trash talk (assuming he did).

Dangerous place Toronto is these days.

Could it be that he was singing off-key at MHQ? Besides, that place seems pretty "complicated" since its so secluded from rest of the mall. Hardly anyone walk down there.

[JAC]

As least the gangs are getting multi-cultural.

[ShadowVlican]

As least the gangs are getting multi-cultural.
:lol:

the world is not ready for multi-culturalism :twisted:

[vrus]

As least the gangs are getting multi-cultural.

I knew this was coming :lol:

[Flyer]

The descriptions for suspects 4 through seven pretty much describes 99% of pmall...

[Talamasca]

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509802709&hiq=owen%2Csha

victim's facebook RIP

It's weird looking at a dead person's FB profile. And I guess someone knows his password since there was activity just yesterday (and a big update the day before the attack).

[ah_long]

That's interesting it happened at MHQ and not at CM.

because all the poor minors w/o brains go to MHQ, and CM is catered to a more mature crowd..


The victim had a reptuation of being a punk/wannabe gangster.

i thought the police had already announced that this isn't a simple robbery... what goes around, comes around... i doubt the victim didn't know this was coming to him

[Cafe_333]

The victim had a reptuation of being a punk/wannabe gangster.
Def. gang related... he was in FD (fukense dragon)Flame all you want, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less stupid punk off our streets. Yeah it's tragic that he died, but what do you expect when you get involved with gangs. He obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash, and/or pissed off the wrong people, to get such a severe beating. Considering the location, he may not have known his attackers beforehand which only leads me to believe he had a hand in stirring up shiet and elevated the tension with those guys. Whatever really happend, he had a hand in it, that's for sure. Gangs don't pick on people just for kicks. They don't hand out severe beatings without just cause.

[infinite.chaoz]

Flame all you want, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less stupid punk off our streets. Yeah it's tragic that he died, but what do you expect when you get involved with gangs. He obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash, and/or pissed off the wrong people, to get such a severe beating. Considering the location, he may not have known his attackers beforehand which only leads me to believe he had a hand in stirring up shiet and elevated the tension with those guys. Whatever really happend, he had a hand in it, that's for sure. Gangs don't pick on people just for kicks. They don't hand out severe beatings without just cause.

I hear ya. More gang-on-gang violence with little to no collateral is just what Toronto needs. Since the justice system can't do much in persecuting punks, might as well let them punish themselves. Think of it as a more economical and efficient version of capital punishment.

[sixer]

I hear ya. More gang-on-gang violence with little to no collateral is just what Toronto needs. Since the justice system can't do much in persecuting punks, might as well let them punish themselves. Think of it as a more economical and efficient version of capital punishment.

Ya, and let's kill everyone in Jail, forget the back of cruisers, let's just cap everyone when there caught committing a crime, leave them on the road for the coroner to pick them up.

Forget about petitioning to get changes done to the young offenders act.

Maybe the only political party that's never been given a change can change things. Vote Green, just to piss of Infinite Chaoz because he doesn't think they could do an equal if not better chance then the current government we've always had in place.

ps. Persecuting means to opress a certain group of people, the word you were looking for was prosecuting :)

[Emancipated]

It made it easier to feel sympathy to think the kid was an upstanding citizen and to cast the attackers as cowardice because of the sheer numbers against one. But regardless of the victim's less than impressive reputation, a group of thugs beating someone within an inch of their life or in this case, an inch too far, is simply unacceptable in this society. Never mind guns, but in this day and age, getting into a fight with anyone is a zero sum game. Someone is either going to get severely beaten up or have their life taken away. Kids, the ones that run around in a gang, are brandishing knives and other god knows what. We need to step up with this ridiculous young offenders act. If you find yourself in the unfortunate scenario of being picked on by a youth gang and confrontation escalates, you end up stabbed or beaten to death while they only get a few years in juvi?

Times have changed; kids do not play ball hockey and hang out at arcades (which would have fallen on the "gang/bad influence" side of the spectrum in my days) -- today, they are like a pack of wolves on the prowl to beat up, rob people, and generally up to no good with far greater consequences.

[DJNocturnal]

It made it easier to feel sympathy to think the kid was an upstanding citizen and to cast the attackers as cowardice because of the sheer numbers against one. But regardless of the victim's less than impressive reputation, a group of thugs beating someone within an inch of their life or in this case, an inch too far, is simply unacceptable in this society. Never mind guns, but in this day and age, getting into a fight with anyone is a zero sum game. Someone is either going to get severely beaten up or have their life taken away. Kids, the ones that run around in a gang, are brandishing knives and other god knows what. We need to step up with this ridiculous young offenders act. If you find yourself in the unfortunate scenario of being picked on by a youth gang and confrontation escalates, you end up stabbed or beaten to death while they only get a few years in juvi?

Times have changed; kids do not play ball hockey and hang out at arcades (which would have fallen on the "gang/bad influence" side of the spectrum in my days) -- today, they are like a pack of wolves on the prowl to beat up, rob people, and generally up to no good with far greater consequences.

You have no clue how many wannabe gangsters hang out at the Pacific Mall arcade lol.

I agree with the young offenders act. I actually dont have a problem if they simply just hand out death penalties for taking another persons life.

[billdozer]

Ya, and let's kill everyone in Jail, forget the back of cruisers, let's just cap everyone when there caught committing a crime, leave them on the road for the coroner to pick them up.

Forget about petitioning to get changes done to the young offenders act.

Maybe the only political party that's never been given a change can change things. Vote Green, just to piss of Infinite Chaoz because he doesn't think they could do an equal if not better chance then the current government we've always had in place.

ps. Persecuting means to opress a certain group of people, the word you were looking for was prosecuting :)

wow, must you tell everybody to vote Green in every post you make? Talk about shoving political propoganda down everybody's throats...give it a rest already, geeze.

LOL, sixer, is this you?
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/2215/untitledfu9.png

And it's chance, not change :)

[Stunt_101]

You have no clue how many wannabe gangsters hang out at the Pacific Mall arcade lol.

I agree with the young offenders act. I actually dont have a problem if they simply just hand out death penalties for taking another persons life.

i totally agree with DJNocturnal. if u have the guts or is stupid enough to take someone's life away, then the same should happend to that person.
this will dramatically decrease the number of homicide as well as teen violence and hopefully violence overall. Canada needs a new set of laws regarding crime prevention before this place becomes a hell hole

[Talamasca]

You mean the friend add? That's probably not on his head. When YOU add someone and then the person accepts, THEN it shows up on your newsfeed. So he probably added that person and she accepted it yesterday (after he died I guess).

Oh, I didn't know that. Good to know.

I do agree though that the victim didn't seem like the most upstanding citizen. He didn't deserve what happened to him but he wasn't completely innocent either. His friends' wall posts on FB form a general idea of what they were about. That one girl in particular seems really messed up.

[infinite.chaoz]

wow, must you tell everybody to vote Green in every post you make? Talk about shoving political propoganda down everybody's throats...give it a rest already, geeze.

LOL, sixer, is this you?
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/2215/untitledfu9.png

And it's chance, not change :)



Maybe the only political party that's never been given a change can change things. Vote Green, just to piss of Infinite Chaoz because he doesn't think they could do an equal if not better chance then the current government we've always had in place.


Ha, strong word from a hippie. You need to mellow out man. Just because you can't win an argument in the other thread, don't have to go psycho. Go hug a rainbow, its quite groovy. BTW let me know where the hippie freak-out is meeting next at your commune.

[kitbor]

Black + white + South Asia + Asia, where else you can see this kind of interracial co-op. Canada is truly the multi-cultural country. Only if they chose to do something constructive.

[teknoluv]

Holy crap. Those are some tall asians... compared to me, anyways :(


lol they are tall for asians.
When I was a teen back in Hong Kong during the 70s, I was usually the tallest person IN THE STREET being 5' 10-11". Not any more, even in the late 80s there. I guess you guys have not met too many "Asians" lately.

[MP3_SKY]

175-180cm is about above average for an Asian.

over 182cm or 6" feet is considers tall in my dictionary.


I'm just 6". :cheesygri

Back to the topic...not a thread about height here....


Someone in MHQ should know there is a fight inside, no? They should called Police right away and the 7 guys just went away slowly like that?

Anyhow, they will caught those guys soon with the face showed in the camera.

[demha88]

things ar doing great , familys doing good..just no skool yet...hope one day i'll go bck skool lol..

from his facebook

[B40]

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/06/04/4232617-sun.html

[Jkim]

from his facebook

I think someone edited that part for him...Lol knowing his past, I doubt he'll want to go back to school.

Even thou he was in a gang or what not, and confronted people.

RIP

[Nameless87]

I think someone edited that part for him...Lol knowing his past, I doubt he'll want to go back to school.

Even thou he was in a gang or what not, and confronted people.

RIP

i think you shuld stop assuming things about owen. u didnt even knoe him in da first place, wats wrong wid him wanting to go bak 2 skool? and who da fuk is guna log into his acc and change **** after he dies. i knew him in real life adn its fuked up how he had to die this way, and now you guys r making **** up..

[Dragon120]

i think you shuld stop assuming things about owen. u didnt even knoe him in da first place, wats wrong wid him wanting to go bak 2 skool? and who da fuk is guna log into his acc and change **** after he dies. i knew him in real life adn its fuked up how he had to die this way, and now you guys r making **** up..

English please?

[Flyer]

I just realized, my friend knows him XD

[wise]

Flame all you want, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less stupid punk off our streets. Yeah it's tragic that he died, but what do you expect when you get involved with gangs. He obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash, and/or pissed off the wrong people, to get such a severe beating. Considering the location, he may not have known his attackers beforehand which only leads me to believe he had a hand in stirring up shiet and elevated the tension with those guys. Whatever really happend, he had a hand in it, that's for sure. Gangs don't pick on people just for kicks. They don't hand out severe beatings without just cause.


Maybe in this case your assumptions may be true, but that doesn't mean it's always true. I call BS on your last two sentences. Unless you have an extremely odd way of defining "for kicks" and "just cause". Enough people get beat up for how they look, or what colour clothes they're wearing, or what stares they're supposedly giving, or for even walking through an area they 'shouldn't' walk through. Or get beat up because they're being extorted. Is beating a kid up for not handing over money considered "just cause"? These all fall under your category of "pissing off the wrong people", but they hardly justify the repercussions that sometimes follow. BS statements. You obviously were fortunate enough not to run across people who bring trouble to you, but that doesn't mean such things don't exist outside your safe little bubble. People who say that if you don't go looking for trouble, trouble won't find you, obviously never heard of reality.

[gretzky99]

i think you shuld stop assuming things about owen. u didnt even knoe him in da first place, wats wrong wid him wanting to go bak 2 skool? and who da fuk is guna log into his acc and change **** after he dies. i knew him in real life adn its fuked up how he had to die this way, and now you guys r making **** up..

Was your buddy a member of RFD? :confused:

[UrbanPoet]

Maybe in this case your assumptions may be true, but that doesn't mean it's always true. I call BS on your last two sentences. Unless you have an extremely odd way of defining "for kicks" and "just cause". Enough people get beat up for how they look, or what colour clothes they're wearing, or what stares they're supposedly giving, or for even walking through an area they 'shouldn't' walk through. Or get beat up because they're being extorted. Is beating a kid up for not handing over money considered "just cause"? These all fall under your category of "pissing off the wrong people", but they hardly justify the repercussions that sometimes follow. BS statements. You obviously were fortunate enough not to run across people who bring trouble to you, but that doesn't mean such things don't exist outside your safe little bubble. People who say that if you don't go looking for trouble, trouble won't find you, obviously never heard of reality.


This is true... But then again... You never know...
It coulda been some kid mouthing off to the wrong person.

[wise]

This is true... But then again... You never know...
It coulda been some kid mouthing off to the wrong person.

All it takes to prove his last two sentences wrong is one example of mine being true. Just one. And I know, b/c I don't live in a bubble and know for a fact this happens. There are people who just go out looking for trouble. The people that suffer from people like that aren't always to blame. That's ridiculously absurd. That's like blaming all women who get raped. Or all victims of robbery. Each and every time. Sometime the victims are stupid and get themselves into trouble. Sometimes they don't do enough to get themselves out. But can you blame each and every one everytime it happens? I think not.

Cafe 333's statements basically say if you get beat down by a gang it's b/c it's justified since you must have done something to deserve it somehow. If you apply the same logic to victims of other crimes such as my example of rape and robbery you can see how stupid that reasoning is.

[UrbanPoet]

All it takes to prove his last two sentences wrong is one example of mine being true. Just one. And I know, b/c I don't live in a bubble and know for a fact this happens. There are people who just go out looking for trouble. The people that suffer from people like that aren't always to blame. That's ridiculously absurd. That's like blaming all women who get raped. Or all victims of robbery. Each and every time. Sometime the victims are stupid and get themselves into trouble. Sometimes they don't do enough to get themselves out. But can you blame each and every one everytime it happens? I think not.

Cafe 333's statements basically say if you get beat down by a gang it's b/c it's justified since you must have done something to deserve it somehow. If you apply the same logic to victims of other crimes such as my example of rape and robbery you can see how stupid that reasoning is.

Well sometimes when you look @ cases like this and you see the nature of the conflict.
it was a 7 on 1 beat down.......

Usually people plan 7 on 1 beat downs on people that talk trash or threaten your group in some way. Thats how it works usually...
for example... try finding a news article about a RANDOM gang beating.
It rarely happens even in "ghetto Toronto" aka the "New York of Canada".

[YnD]

Well sometimes when you look @ cases like this and you see the nature of the conflict.
it was a 7 on 1 beat down.......

Usually people plan 7 on 1 beat downs on people that talk trash or threaten your group in some way. Thats how it works usually...
for example... try finding a news article about a RANDOM gang beating.
It rarely happens even in "ghetto Toronto" aka the "New York of Canada".

Usually only a group of blacks in Scarborough or Jane and Finch will commit a RANDOM gang beating just to rob someone's wallet and cell phone.

[UrbanPoet]

Usually only a group of blacks in Scarborough or Jane and Finch will commit a RANDOM gang beating just to rob someone's wallet and cell phone.

but the p-mall attack didnt seem so random... seemed like it was planned.
witnesses said the victim was talking to a suspect before teh attack.

[Stunt_101]

but the p-mall attack didnt seem so random... seemed like it was planned.
witnesses said the victim was talking to a suspect before teh attack.

UrbanPoet is right, whut kinda gang or group of unlawful citizens will enter in a kareoke bar and just rob a random room and risk the fact that they could be caught on cam (with the police said they are on cam). why not just rob someone getting off work 1am in the morning? it would be so much easier wouldn't it?

[Cafe_333]

Maybe in this case your assumptions may be true, but that doesn't mean it's always true. I call BS on your last two sentences. Unless you have an extremely odd way of defining "for kicks" and "just cause". Enough people get beat up for how they look, or what colour clothes they're wearing, or what stares they're supposedly giving, or for even walking through an area they 'shouldn't' walk through. Or get beat up because they're being extorted. Is beating a kid up for not handing over money considered "just cause"? These all fall under your category of "pissing off the wrong people", but they hardly justify the repercussions that sometimes follow. BS statements.Well now we're just playing with semantics aren't we? ;) I stand by the fact that gangsters don't pick on people for 'kicks' or in other words, just for fun. There is always a reason behind it. I suppose my pairing of the word of 'cause' with 'just' was inaccurate, but if you're going to be nitpicky about semantics then I am sorry, I meant that gangs don't pick on people without cause. While it may not be just cause for law abididing citizens, it is justified for them. I'm not saying it's right, I'm only merely saying that there is always a reason, as stupid as it may be, there is a reason. Gangs simply don't target people for no reason whatsoever.


You obviously were fortunate enough not to run across people who bring trouble to you, but that doesn't mean such things don't exist outside your safe little bubble. People who say that if you don't go looking for trouble, trouble won't find you, obviously never heard of reality.You don't know me, so don't pass judgement.


Cafe 333's statements basically say if you get beat down by a gang it's b/c it's justified since you must have done something to deserve it somehow. If you apply the same logic to victims of other crimes such as my example of rape and robbery you can see how stupid that reasoning is.Apples and oranges of a comparison here. The only thing my logic stated in the last two statements was that gangs don't pick on people for fun and they don't do it without a reason of some kind. I don't see how this is wrong. Please don't take me out of context - I never said he deserved it. I only said he had a hand in provoking the outcome. I'm referring to the degree in severity of the punishment that was handed to him. A life threatening beating means he must have done something to piss them off enough to push them that far - especially considering how it was pre-meditated as UrbanPoet described.

[infinite.chaoz]

UrbanPoet is right, whut kinda gang or group of unlawful citizens will enter in a kareoke bar and just rob a random room and risk the fact that they could be caught on cam (with the police said they are on cam). why not just rob someone getting off work 1am in the morning? it would be so much easier wouldn't it?

I disagree, you can't really use common sense to describe the action of these people. They rob who they feel like with thinking much of getting caught. The days of robbing people while wearing ski-masks is over. The more air-time they get on crime-stoppers and the more attention they get from police, the more street creds they get from their posse. Can't say this was a random act, since they do seem to know each other.

[Cafe_333]

Can't say this was a random act, since they do seem to know each other.I don't think he was saying it was a random act. It was a rhetoric meant to imply that it was not a random act. ;)

[Yukikaze]

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/28657

[DJNocturnal]

I disagree, you can't really use common sense to describe the action of these people. They rob who they feel like with thinking much of getting caught. The days of robbing people while wearing ski-masks is over. The more air-time they get on crime-stoppers and the more attention they get from police, the more street creds they get from their posse. Can't say this was a random act, since they do seem to know each other.

Totally true. Now they can be like "Hey im on tv and they cant find me lol"

I wouldnt be surprised if one of those 7 guys were on his Facebook friend list though. This seems well planned, and had one backstabber of the victim.

[YnD]

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/28657

Yup as the article stated ... "Targeted"...

I stand by... "Most gangs dont attack random people"... well the smart ones at least... There must be a motive in most cases... or some sort of conflict...

If its Malvern gangs or Jane and Finch... (mostly black)... I beg to differ. Theyll rob you on the street for your cell phone and wallet.

[Narci]

Videos and Pictures:

http://www.police.york.on.ca/media.asp

[UrbanPoet]

Yup as the article stated ... "Targeted"...

I stand by... "Most gangs dont attack random people"... well the smart ones at least... There must be a motive in most cases... or some sort of conflict...

If its Malvern gangs or Jane and Finch... (mostly black)... I beg to differ. Theyll rob you on the street for your cell phone and wallet.

robberies are different.
even the most ghetto dumbest thug will choose a isolated area.

[YnD]

Videos and Pictures:

http://www.police.york.on.ca/media.asp

That is one ugly tamil dude.

[PCDawg]

The video and cameras shows the faces quite clear.

For sure there are people out there that recognizes them. It should be any day now that the individuals goto a police station with their lawyers.

I bet perhaps there might be some rfd members that know the suspects as well but are keeping mum...

[wise]

Well now we're just playing with semantics aren't we? ;) I stand by the fact that gangsters don't pick on people for 'kicks' or in other words, just for fun. There is always a reason behind it. I suppose my pairing of the word of 'cause' with 'just' was inaccurate, but if you're going to be nitpicky about semantics then I am sorry, I meant that gangs don't pick on people without cause. While it may not be just cause for law abididing citizens, it is justified for them. I'm not saying it's right, I'm only merely saying that there is always a reason, as stupid as it may be, there is a reason. Gangs simply don't target people for no reason whatsoever.

Are you familiar with what a tautology is? True by definition. Saying gangs don't pick on people without cause using your definition and understanding of cause, is no different than saying a rose is a rose. Well but of course it's a rose since that's the name of it.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Obviously there are causes and effects and every action must have a causal precedent. The problem with the way you're defining it is that nothing can be called "random" anymore. If a gang walks by a person and beats him up for wearing red (see recent Staples employee example), then to them, wearing red was the "reason" for beating employees up. To most people they would call that random. Something that normal people wouldn't consider provocation or grounds for violence. Something that isn't really reasonable to call the victim's fault. When you say gangs don't target people without reason whatsoever, you're looking at it through the logic of the gangs. Obviously most people who do things do so for their own personal reasons whatever they may be. Otherwise they wouldn't do them. There's nothing new there. Despite what you seem to think, this is a discussion about random versus justified beatings.

In your original post you came across strongly as saying that gangs always have a justification for their violence. Now in this post you're saying the post was just about you stating that they have a reason, whether it be deemed right by the average citizen or not. Well gee thanks but that gets us nowhere but in circles doesn't it? That's precisely what I'm saying. I don't care what they think warrants violence against people, since obviously if they do it they consider themselves to have a "good enough" reason for doing it. What I'm saying is that the attitude in your initial post which came across as saying victims must have done something to DESERVE it is wrong. So either you're implying that they do things to deserve it since the gangs beating them have good reason, or you're just stating something for the sake of stating it that has no relevance to the issue whatsoever. It initially seemed like the former one, in which case I disagreed with you. However, if the second is true, like you seem to be trying to point out in your second post, then I don't see what the point is. Yes gangs think they have good reasons for beating people up. So what? The issue is still that it's not often justified. And yes you do justify and criticize the victims of such incidents. Here let me remind you what you said:


Flame all you want, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less stupid punk off our streets. Yeah it's tragic that he died, but what do you expect when you get involved with gangs. He obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash, and/or pissed off the wrong people, to get such a severe beating. Considering the location, he may not have known his attackers beforehand which only leads me to believe he had a hand in stirring up shiet and elevated the tension with those guys. Whatever really happend, he had a hand in it, that's for sure. Gangs don't pick on people just for kicks. They don't hand out severe beatings without just cause.









Please don't take me out of context - I never said he deserved it. I only said he had a hand in provoking the outcome. I'm referring to the degree in severity of the punishment that was handed to him. A life threatening beating means he must have done something to piss them off enough to push them that far - especially considering how it was pre-meditated as UrbanPoet described.


oh really? another reminder of what you said:


Flame all you want, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less stupid punk off our streets. Yeah it's tragic that he died, but what do you expect when you get involved with gangs. He obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash, and/or pissed off the wrong people, to get such a severe beating. Considering the location, he may not have known his attackers beforehand which only leads me to believe he had a hand in stirring up shiet and elevated the tension with those guys. Whatever really happend, he had a hand in it, that's for sure. Gangs don't pick on people just for kicks. They don't hand out severe beatings without just cause.


One doesn't need to read between the lines to understand your original post. You're saying he's "ONE LESS STUPID PUNK OFF OUR STREETS". You're saying it's good that he died b/c he obviously has to be a punk to incur the wrath of a gang beating this severe, since "they don't hand out severe beatings without JUST cause". You claim you don't know what really happened but apparently you're positive "he had a hand in it, that's for sure"/"he had a hand in stirring up shiet". Again you're blaming the victim for "making" people beat him. When Staples employees get beaten up for wearing red uniforms did they "have a hand in it, that's for sure" too? Victim gets beaten and so he has to have "obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash" according to you.

You're listing ways you think he 'asked to get beaten up' and you are jumping to the conclusion that since he must have done those things you inferred that he did, he's a "stupid punk" you're happy with being off our streets now that he is DEAD. And you try to claim you didn't say he deserved it? Give me a break. You are saying he's to blame because he obviously had to do "punk" things that justified him getting beat down, and you don't like him for that. Regardless if you're aware of it or not, you think it's justified. Otherwise you would not be happy about him DYING and thinking he's a "stupid punk" that's now off our streets. You don't know if he's a punk and you don't know the reasons for those guys beating him down. What you do know is that he got beaten to death. Yet you're happy he's dead and labelling him one less "stupid punk" on our streets. And you have the audacity to claim you didn't say he deserved it. He might be a punk and he might have asked for it. Or he might have not. Regardless, I stand by what I said. Blaming victims based on assumptions and conjecture is stupid. And that's precisely what you have done.

[Dragon120]

From the videos, I only see 6 people and in one of the videos, the security guard saw everyone of them clearly as they were going down the escalator.

I bet these kids must be crapping in their pants now...

[billdozer]

From the videos, I only see 6 people and in one of the videos, the security saw everyone of them.

I bet these kids must be crapping in their pants now...

prolly hiding out in their parents basements. hope all 7 of them get charged with 1st degree murder.

[UrbanPoet]

prolly hiding out in their parents basements. hope all 7 of them get charged with 1st degree murder.

itll probably be 2nd degree since the victim died from his injuries later on.

[B40]

itll probably be 2nd degree since the victim died from his injuries later on.

Doesn't matter when the person dies. It's all about intent.

BTW, one person has been caught as someone posted on the previous page: http://www.yorkregion.com/article/28657

[UrbanPoet]

Doesn't matter when the person dies. It's all about intent.

BTW, one person has been caught as someone posted on the previous page: http://www.yorkregion.com/article/28657

they stole cash and goods..
so it could be argued that it was just an intended robbery/assault with one punch to many... and remember... Canadian justice system! they wont do that much time for it anyways...

[B40]

they stole cash and goods..
so it could be argued that it was just an intended robbery/assault with one punch to many... and remember... Canadian justice system! they wont do that much time for it anyways...

"Investigators say they no longer believe robbery was the motive but that Sha was targeted."

They will be charged with 1st degree...

[UrbanPoet]

"Investigators say they no longer believe robbery was the motive but that Sha was targeted."

They will be charged with 1st degree...

or manslaughter.

[hardcandy1911]

This thread is getting old.

[Stunt_101]

This thread is getting old.

u just renewed it

[BladeX]

cafe333 just got rocked

[tinlunlau]

or manslaughter.

manslaughter is unintentional murder.
i really doubt that.

[mcg]

I'd say 1st deg. murder. Unless their lawyers can push it to 2nd.

[UrbanPoet]

shall we bet on the verdict?

[B40]

prolly hiding out in their parents basements. hope all 7 of them get charged with 1st degree murder.


shall we bet on the verdict?

Are you talking about what they're charged with or what they're sentenced to? Being charged and sentenced are completely different...

[UrbanPoet]

Are you talking about what they're charged with or what they're sentenced to? Being charged and sentenced are completely different...

sentencing.

[Siefer999]

cafe333 just got rocked

yes. +1

[Cafe_333]

cafe333 just got rocked
yes. +1Why don't you two wait to see what I have to say before jumping to such a conclusion?

[Cafe_333]

What I'm saying is that the attitude in your initial post which came across as saying victims must have done something to DESERVE it is wrong.
And you try to claim you didn't say he deserved it? Give me a break.No, you're completely taking me out of context. Your pinning me on blaming the victim and the assumption that I think he deserved it. Wrong, I do not blame the victim, and I do not think he deserved it. I never said either of these.

In my original post, I came across strongly saying that the gangsters must have had a strong enough reason to beat him to the brink of death. Because of the severity of the beating, I believe there was a strong reason or cause that ties the victim into having a direct involvement with the outcome. Yes, I don't know what actually happend, but he must have done something enough to piss them off a great deal. Why do I believe this? Because the fact there was premeditation. He could have chosen to walk away. There was an earlier confrontation with one suspect and instead of choosing to walk away, the situation escalated to the point where the suspect wanted to come back for him along with some buddies to seek retaliation. So the context here is that the victim was not completely innocent in this. This does not mean that I blame the victim for what had happend, but he definately had a hand in the outcome because it prevoked premeditation - which btw is a completely different situation than the staples incident because there was no planning involved but rather an act of will (which by legal definition is different from premeditation).

I was not trying to change the position of my argument in my second post. The second post was only clarifying the last two lines of my original post which from that standpoint was through the logic of the gangs. Just semantics and since you agree there's nothing new here, there's no reason to nitpick about it - or to take it out of context as an insinutation that I am changing the position of my argument.

I never said that he deserved it. I simply just don't like thugs and punks. While I feel it's one less problem in our streets, it does not mean I think he deserved it. Am I happy that it's one less punk? Absolutely. Does this mean I think he deserved it or that I'm happy he died? Absolutely not. Nobody deserves to die regardless of what they did, but this doesn't change how I feel about punks in general. I still don't like them, and it's one less problem in our streets as far as I'm concerned. Nothing wrong with what I feel. It also does not mean they should all be killed or deserve to be killed.

As there was an earlier confrontation and a prevoked premeditation, he was involved in some way. Do I blame him for it? No. Do I expect something to happen to him as a result of his involvement? Yes. While I feel it's one less punk off our streets, I don't think he deserved to die. Next time, try directly quoting me when I actually use the word blame or deserve in describing what I feel about the victim. Otherwise stop trying to make up your own interpretations of what my opinion is. Accusing me based on assumptions that I stood for otherwise is just stupid. Which is precisely what you have done.

[phomp]

woah.... I have not gone through this whole thread but I have not seen anyone blaming this on 50 cent or rap music yet.. im surprised.

BTW, I dont know who the victims were or any info on them but has that been released?

I mean your saying its one less problem off the streets, but are you assuming he was a "problem" on the streets or is there proof other than this incident. For all you or I know, this kid could be a student, he may not be a problem on the streets at all.. Im just curious

[Cafe_333]

BTW, I dont know who the victims were or any info on them but has that been released? I mean your saying its one less problem off the streets, but are you assuming he was a "problem" on the streets or is there proof other than this incident. For all you or I know, this kid could be a student, he may not be a problem on the streets at all.. Im just curiousIt's been mentioned that the victim was a 19 year old drop out and was a punk (or wannabe punk) from an asian gang. He was a gangster that clashed with another gang that night. Details of the story can be found here:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_11620.aspx

[wise]

No, you're completely taking me out of context. Your pinning me on blaming the victim and the assumption that I think he deserved it. Wrong, I do not blame the victim, and I do not think he deserved it. I never said either of these.

I am not taking you completely out of context. You provided the context that I merely read. If you look at what you said in your original post there isn't much left open that needs interpreting to be honest. Your second and third posts are different but that's not my fault you chose to say the things you said in your original post. So don't blame me for calling you out on it. You said it and then you try to act like you didn't and blame others? I didn't put words in your mouth buddy. If you want to sitck your foot in your mouth now you can, but don't try to run from what you said. I already illustrated how you DID blame the victim. Now I will illustrate how you CONTINUE to do so:



Because of the severity of the beating, I believe there was a strong reason or cause that ties the victim into having a direct involvement with the outcome. Yes, I don't know what actually happend, but he must have done something enough to piss them off a great deal.

He could have chosen to walk away. There was an earlier confrontation with one suspect and instead of choosing to walk away, the situation escalated to the point where the suspect wanted to come back for him along with some buddies to seek retaliation. So the context here is that the victim was not completely innocent in this.

As there was an earlier confrontation and a prevoked premeditation, he was involved in some way.

You know you keep saying you don't blame him but then you also keep saying things like you have above. I don't think you understand what the word "blame" even means to be honest. Here allow me to help you:


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

blame /bleɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, blamed, blam·ing, noun

–verb (used with object)

1. to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don't blame you for leaving him.

2. to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually fol. by on): I blame the accident on her.

3. Informal. blast; damn (used as a mild curse): Blame the rotten luck.

–noun

4. an act of attributing fault; censure; reproof: The judge said he found nothing to justify blame in the accident.

5. responsibility for anything deserving of censure: We must all share the blame for this deplorable condition.

—Idiom6. to blame, at fault; censurable: I am to blame for his lateness.



American Heritage Dictionary

(blām) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. blamed, blam·ing, blames

To hold responsible.
To find fault with; censure.
To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.

n.
The state of being responsible for a fault or error; culpability.
Censure; condemnation.

You are BLAMING the victim. Maybe your understanding of blame is different the way it seems to be with cause and reason but according to the accepted definition of blame set out in the English language, you are attributing responsibility of what happened to the victim, to the victim. Either in whole, or in part.

You "don't know what actually happened, but he MUST have done something to piss them off a great deal", "he COULD HAVE chosen to walk away. There was an earlier confrontation with one suspect and INSTEAD OF CHOOSING to walk away, the situation escalated..." (I can poke more holes in this one than swiss cheese but I'll leave you to think this is perfect reasoning), "as there was an earlier confrontation and a PREVOKED premeditation, he was INVOLVED in some way."



Next time, try directly quoting me when I actually use the word blame or deserve in describing what I feel about the victim. Otherwise stop trying to make up your own interpretations of what my opinion is. Accusing me based on assumptions that I stood for otherwise is just stupid. Which is precisely what you have done.

Next time maybe you should figure out what you really want to say in your posts before you say it. Because you seem to like blaming other people for going by what you say when you can't even make up your own damn mind. Every thing you say is attrubuting blame to the victim yet you keep insisting you are not blaming him. You strongly imply that he deserves it with your choice of words yet you insist you don't think so. You acknowledge you have no clue what happened and you weren't there and there are hardly any details of this case yet released yet you have already come to so many conclusions in your mind about what the victim MUST HAVE DONE to make people beat him to death. Like I said, you are blaming the vicitm for what happened to him before you even know if he's truly blameworthy or not. And that is stupid. Regardless if he has a reputation for being "a punk". You could theorize about how it might have led to this, but the problem is you are so absolute. You could be totally wrong, yet you keep stating things as if they were facts and you were actually privy to everything that occured.

You say this MUST have happened or it had to have been that way. Who are you Columbo? Nancy Drew? You obviously have a bias to blame victims in gang beatings because you think

A) gangs never beat people without (just) cause

and

B) some people are victims of gang beatings

so therefore

C) victims of gang beatings MUST have done something to MAKE gangs beat them up



Accusing me based on assumptions that I stood for otherwise is just stupid. Which is precisely what you have done.

Actually making assumptions to blame a victim for being beaten to death before you know the full story and facts about what occured is what's stupid. Which is precisely what you have done and keep doing. Oh yeah, and taking other people's lines is stupid too. Make something witty up yourself next time...since you obviously have a good enough imagination to reconstruct events that you weren't there to observe at all, and consider it the absolute true version of events that occured...


On last thing to seal the deal:



[B]...the victim was not completely innocent in this.

can you say self-pwned?

[Flyer]

woah.... I have not gone through this whole thread but I have not seen anyone blaming this on 50 cent or rap music yet.. im surprised.
I blame 50 cent or rap music :D

[phomp]

^^ kk cool.. lol

[alv077]

oO Asian rap?

God... I've heard that stuff before... I tried to rip my ears out..

[shopGirl]

I totally agree with Wise.

Cafe, you came off very strongly and your response to the death of this young 19 year old kid is very cold.

While he may have been a "punk", he was still young, and I believe some behaviour is part of growing up (ie, mouthing off, being cocky, normal guy fights) which a lot of us have experienced growing up. Regardless of what he may have said or the manner which he behaved to the other kids, he did NOT deserve to die. Think of his parents, relatives, friends, he probably a good son, asides from him not wanting to go to school or whatnot, this does not show how he was as a person. For you to say one less punk off the street is totally uncalled for. We all make mistakes in life and perhaps he was living a negative lifestyle but thats reality, and before we make any assumptions about whether he got what he deserved or not please reflect on your own life and how many times you may have said words in anger, or acted wrongly and all the chances people get to change, to learn, to improve...

It saddens me greatly to read the cold responses from everyone, he was ONLY 19! he did not kill anyone, he was only a kid! Everyone can think back to all the mistakes they made back then, and how much you know now ... what would you say Cafe, if that kid was your bro, just in the wrong crew ...does he deserve to die, is he another punk off our streets, or so much more than that?

You are entitled to your own opinion and yes, no one likes kids who cause trouble, or are involved in "gangs" but come on have a heart. Karma is a b!tch, those kids who killed him have their whole lives to regret it - do they deserve to die too and be off the streets or perhaps they too can change?

[alv077]

:| Generally speaking, people don't change.

[B40]

:| Generally speaking, people don't change.

I strongly disagree.

Cafe_333 got rocked again.

[bromance]

a group of people beating one person to death...... how asian

[Pete00]

3 of the suspects turned themselves in...charged with first degree murder.

[ShadowVlican]

3 of the suspects turned themselves in...charged with first degree murder.
link?

[Pete00]

link?

No link yet, just heard it on Global News.

[B40]

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/29198

[ShadowVlican]

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/29198
thanks

[mcg]

Well, they did the right thing by turning themselves in.

[Spare-Flair]

3 of the suspects turned themselves in...charged with first degree murder.

That's odd, I would think it was just a bunch of idiot kids with no sense of morality thinking they would just lay a beating on the guy and accidentally beat him to death.

2nd degree or manslaughter. If it's actual 1st, ie: premeditated beating to death of the victim, then that is beyond my capacity to describe how horrific this is and how bloody stupid and bastardly of those guys. They aren't doing the right thing, they are just trying to save their own a****, but at least showing some semblance of intelligence.

[YnD]

Well, they did the right thing by turning themselves in.

Yah surprising.

Still 3 more of them. I bet the black guy won't turn himself him.
They will have to hunt him down.

[Siefer999]

I strongly disagree.

Cafe_333 got rocked again.


yes. +1
x2

[Talamasca]

I hope the three already arrested squeal like pigs and name names and addresses as to who the other three unnamed suspects are.

[sucka]

Yah surprising.

Still 3 more of them. I bet the black guy won't turn himself him.
They will have to hunt him down.


Actually i'm surprise it took them so long to surrender .... those pics were pretty clear, so they had no chance to hide. Unless they lived life like nomads and don't go to school or work, people will know who they are.

[Stunt_101]

wasn't there seven initially?

[Cafe_333]

I am not taking you completely out of context.Wow, at least show some maturity in your posts than resorting to condescending tones - saying I am stupid for what I'm doing; referencing a dictionary? pwned? Come on... At least your post this time is only attempting to pin me blaming the victim. However you are not me, how can you possibly know what I am thinking? I do not blame the victim in this, I never have. What I do believe is that he could have avoided the sitation. However he didn't and therefore had a hand in the outcome, which led to a provoked premeditation. Am I making this fact up? I'll let you decide. So just what the heck do you think happend in the karaoke? When one person upsets the other, there are only two directions it can take. The following are the four possible scenarios:

1) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry, victim apologizes and victim walks away from the situation.
2) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry, suspect apologizes and victim walks away from the situation.

Well clearly none of the above two scenarios happend, so that only leaves these two possibilities:

3) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry and victim refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.
4) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry and Suspect refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.

When one person upsets the other, whatever the conflict was, he could have walked away. Period. However it's clear to me that the victim chose not to. So that led to the premeditation from the suspect. What is the point I am trying to prove here? He could have avoided it. It's not his fault that this happend to him, but he sure as hell could have avoided it. That is all I am saying, I do not blame him for being a victim of a gang beating. I blame the 7 gangsters for doing that to him.

I'm sorry, there is a 5th possibility, that the victim did something so wrong that apologizing or walking away was not possible, such as victim raped the suspect's sister. If the real reason fits this 5th profile, then well some blame goes to the victim here. However I am not saying this as you are right, I do not know the full story. My view is based on 3 or 4: not blaming the victim, but saying he certainly could have avoided it. I can be cold and say what a stupid punk, he could have walked away but decided to be Mr. Big Shot and get confrontational instead - which goes back to what I said in my first post ('he had a hand in the outcome'). I don't know what he did, but whatever he did do, escalated the situation because he chose not to walk away. Because of this, you say I am blaming the victim. I say just because he decided to be confrontational does not mean it was his fault he got killed. I do not blame him for being a victim.

Hmm... revelation here... I think I see what is going on - there is clearly a misundersatnding between us. While you think I am blaming him for becoming a victim of a gang beating, what I am actually doing is blaming him for being confrontational. You keep taking the latter and turning it into me saying it's his fault he got into a gang beating. So of course I will keep denying that. Could you at least fathom the possibility that you may have interpreted me incorrectly? I am merely blaming him for being confrontational when he could have walked away. I would not be wrong in saying that either because there was in fact a confrontation as witnessed by someone. I do NOT blame the victim for what happend. If anything at all, I blame him for being an ass - a stupid punk who decided to get confrontational. The 7 thugs are the ones to blame for the beating, not the victim at all here.

So just because you interpret my posts one way, does not mean it was the message I was trying to convey. That's the biggest problem in human communication - how one person interprets things may be completely different than how another person interprets it, so I think you should always give people the benefit of the doubt. Firing back with condescending posts that serve nothing but to belittle my position is just well... not very open minded.

So yes, you have been taking me completely out of context.

[Cafe_333]

Regardless of what he may have said or the manner which he behaved to the other kids, he did NOT deserve to die.
what would you say Cafe, if that kid was your bro, just in the wrong crew ...does he deserve to die, is he another punk off our streets, or so much more than that?As I have said already, I do not think he deserved to die and it was very tragic what happend to him. I do not blame him for being a victim either. However he could have avoided it. If my brother died then no, he would not be another punk off the street to me. I am allowed to have a double standard here because I see no reason why I should show any compassion to someone I do not know. I am sure rapists and murderers have brothers and families who love them too - but if they die there is no reason why I should show any compassion unless it is someone I know and care about. Everyone else, it's just another punk off the streets in my books. It's the same feeling whenever I hear in the news about a homicide followed by the line "the victim was known to police", as is the case here. Again it does not mean I think any gangsters deserve to die.

[AirBosh]

Wow, at least show some maturity in your posts than resorting to condescending tones - saying I am stupid for what I'm doing; referencing a dictionary? pwned? Come on... At least your post this time is only attempting to pin me blaming the victim. However you are not me, how can you possibly know what I am thinking? I do not blame the victim in this, I never have. What I do believe is that he could have avoided the sitation. However he didn't and therefore had a hand in the outcome, which led to a provoked premeditation. Am I making this fact up? I'll let you decide. So just what the heck do you think happend in the karaoke? When one person upsets the other, there are only two directions it can take. The following are the four possible scenarios:

1) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry, victim apologizes and victim walks away from the situation.
2) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry, suspect apologizes and victim walks away from the situation.

Well clearly none of the above two scenarios happend, so that only leaves these two possibilities:

3) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry and victim refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.
4) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry and Suspect refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.

When one person upsets the other, whatever the conflict was, he could have walked away. Period. However it's clear to me that the victim chose not to. So that led to the premeditation from the suspect. What is the point I am trying to prove here? He could have avoided it. It's not his fault that this happend to him, but he sure as hell could have avoided it. That is all I am saying, I do not blame him for being a victim of a gang beating. I blame the 7 gangsters for doing that to him.

I'm sorry, there is a 5th possibility, that the victim did something so wrong that apologizing or walking away was not possible, such as victim raped the suspect's sister. If the real reason fits this 5th profile, then well some blame goes to the victim here. However I am not saying this as you are right, I do not know the full story. My view is based on 3 or 4: not blaming the victim, but saying he certainly could have avoided it. I can be cold and say what a stupid punk, he could have walked away but decided to be Mr. Big Shot and get confrontational instead - which goes back to what I said in my first post. I don't know what he did, but whatever he did, escalated the situation because he chose not to walk away. Because of this, you say I am blaming the victim. I say just because he decided to be confrontational does not mean it was his fault he got killed. I do not blame him for being a victim.

Hmm... revelation here... I think I see what is going on - there is clearly a misundersatnding between us. While you think I am blaming him for becoming a victim of a gang beating, what I am actually doing is blaming him for being confrontational. You keep taking the latter and turning it into me saying it's his fault he got into a gang beating. So of course I will keep denying that. Could you at least fathom the possibility that you may have interpreted me incorrectly? I am merely blaming him for being confrontational when he could have walked away. I would not be wrong in saying that either because there was in fact a confrontation as witnessed by someone. I do NOT blame the victim for what happend. If anything at all, I blame him for being an ass - a stupid punk who decided to get confrontational. The 7 thugs are the ones to blame for the beating, not the victim at all here.

So just because you interpret my posts one way, does not mean it was the message I was trying to convey. That's the biggest problem in human communication - how one person interprets things may be completely different than how another person interprets it, so I think you should always give people the benefit of the doubt. Firing back with condescending posts that serve nothing but to belittle my position is just well... not very open minded.

So yes, you have been taking me completely out of context.

You are using "stepping on someones shoes as a scenario" I hope you don't become a lawyer and use that as a closing statement for the suspects.

You are just saying both the victim and suspect have big egos which lead to the attack. Yes that's part of growing up now days, kids with egos and the only way to resolve it is thru violents. Sad the beatings these days are more violent leading to death. 10 - 15 years ago group beatings only lead to broken bones, blood or black eye...

[kitbor]

Well clearly none of the above two scenarios happend, so that only leaves these two possibilities:

3) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry and victim refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.
4) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry and Suspect refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.



May I add more scenarios that you never thought of (or just conveniently ignore)?

5) The victim step on the suspect’s foot – the suspect got angry, the victim apologized but the suspect held the grudge. When the victim tried to leave, the suspect started to beat up the victim.
6) The suspect step on the victim’s foot – the victim didn’t get angry. The suspect apologized but the victim didn’t show the appreciation or response to the suspect’s apology. The suspect didn’t like the victim’s attitude and start to beat up the victim.
7) etc ….

It doesn’t make sense, does it? Of course, a murder doesn’t make sense most of the time. What make you come to the conclusion that the victim could, in anyway, prevent/avoid the attack? What if the suspect’ mind was already set to harm the victim? FYI, The suspects were charged for the first degree murder.

[march9]

this is gang related...the victim went to my school before.

[Spare-Flair]

this is gang related...the victim went to my school before.

Well...at least Canada is getting multicutural gangs.

[billdozer]

Well...at least Canada is getting multicutural gangs.

Repost.

Post 1000 :cheesygri

[Think]

It scares me to think that random thugs on the streets of TO are brandishing guns. What the hell is this, South Central L.A ? This sh1t isn't suppose to happen in Canada. Times sure have changed.

I'm getting old and have lost touch with the times, but hopefully not reality though I fear that's either coming or have passed me by without me noticing.

Pretty simple actually. Toronto sucks. I grew up there for a better portion of my youth and there were problems but not to the extent of these little punks. I know it has to do with many factors including the broken families, immigrants bringing there hatred and nationalism to this country instead of making Canada there true home, rap is crap as well as some other ******** music. The internet is a HUGE influence and only breeds disillusionment and hatred of all sorts. The acceptance of gays as a normal statue of behavior, adding the lack of discipline in the home and school system with lack of accountability...oh, and the acceptance of drugs especially marijuana as acceptable.

Let the flaming begin:!: :lol:

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/images/icons/icongta.gifhttp://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

[billdozer]

The acceptance of gays as a normal statue of behavior,

Paging B40 :lol:

[Think]

Paging B40 :lol:

lol...come on...expecting more flaming instead of calling up the Russian guard:lol:

[vladislav]

immigrants bringing there hatred


The internet is a HUGE influence and only breeds disillusionment and hatred of all sorts.


The acceptance of gays as a normal statue of behavior

rofl, do you hear yourself?

[Think]

rofl, do you hear yourself?


Yup, loud and clear. Terrible over generalization...I know;)

[MkmBandit]

Pretty simple actually. Toronto sucks. I grew up there for a better portion of my youth and there were problems but not to the extent of these little punks. I know it has to do with many factors including the broken families, immigrants bringing there hatred and nationalism to this country instead of making Canada there true home, rap is crap as well as some other ******** music. The internet is a HUGE influence and only breeds disillusionment and hatred of all sorts. The acceptance of gays as a normal statue of behavior, adding the lack of discipline in the home and school system with lack of accountability...oh, and the acceptance of drugs especially marijuana as acceptable.

Let the flaming begin:!: :lol:

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/images/icons/icongta.gifhttp://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif


Only those whose IQ has yet to break the double digit barrier would agree with your weak half-assed opinion.

[Stunt_101]

stop flaming cafe333

he didn't say the kid deserved it....read the whole story b4 u ppl flame
my opinion:

i think ppl who are in gangs are or at leasst should be expecting these kinda things to happend sooner or later, if u gonna live life on the dark side then u face life in the dark side. thats how it is....the victum was not a lawful citizen, the newletter from york region said "Mr Sha was a well known person to the police"

[ah_long]

The first suspect is male, Chinese, 18 to 20 years old, five-feet, seven-inches tall with a slender build, black short gelled spiked hair and was wearing a white and black jacket with a white tank top underneath and jeans.

lmao... now they are going to arrest 80% of asian kids in pacific mall

[Cafe_333]

May I add more scenarios that you never thought of (or just conveniently ignore)?
It doesn’t make sense, does it? Of course, a murder doesn’t make sense most of the time. What make you come to the conclusion that the victim could, in anyway, prevent/avoid the attack? What if the suspect’ mind was already set to harm the victim? FYI, The suspects were charged for the first degree murder.The 5th was already described in my post to a similar effect in that the victim did something so wrong (like victim raped suspect's sister) that an apology would just not be accepted (in this case victim gets some blame here). If there is a 6th it would have to be the opposite of 5: Victim did not wrong the suspect in anyway and the suspect wanted to beat him anyway. I thought of this 6th scenario already but didn't bother posting it -- it's impossible to happen because of the fact there was premeditation. Your 6th scenario btw just makes no sense at all because it is a self contradicting statement. The victim didn't get angry yet he held a grudge? If he held a grudge the end result would still be the same with him getting angry. There is no 7th or 8th or more. Just the first 5 I described. In the end it all comes down to the fact that the victim could have walked away but chose not to. Why can I draw this conclusion? Because there was prevoked premeditation. Instead of walking away from the situation, he chose to be confrontational instead. His choice to be confrontational led to the suspect premeditating to come back with people and beat him.


You are using "stepping on someones shoes as a scenario" I hope you don't become a lawyer and use that as a closing statement for the suspects. .Those were just hypothetical examples to illustrate my point. The analogy doesn't matter, it's the context of how one person wronged the other. I just didn't want to use "suspect wronged the victim, victim gets angry, " and "victim wronged the suspect, suspect gets angry", etc., etc. That just makes it hard to follow and visualize. It is far more effective to illustrate a point when you can use analogical situations, as simple or silly as it may be. Never thought I would have to explain that concept to anyone...

[Cafe_333]

stop flaming cafe333

he didn't say the kid deserved it....read the whole story b4 u ppl flame
my opinion:

i think ppl who are in gangs are or at leasst should be expecting these kinda things to happend sooner or later, if u gonna live life on the dark side then u face life in the dark side. thats how it is....the victum was not a lawful citizen, the newletter from york region said "Mr Sha was a well known person to the police"THANK YOU SO MUCH Stunt_101, finally one person with some understanding!!!! :)

[kitbor]

I have already thought of every scenario possible. ...

No you didn't. To say, you had already think of every scenarios possible was overstatement at its best. Crime doesn't make sense a lot of time. One would think, it's impossible for others human being to harm another human being. But we see/hear it everyday. And yes, the suspects could already made up their mind to harm the victim regardless of what the victim would have done. Doesn't make sense/ impossible, no it doesn't but it happens. The scenario in crime doesn't limit itself in only the logical sense. That why, it's too quick to even make the conclusion that the victim could avoid it.

[Think]

Only those whose IQ has yet to break the double digit barrier would agree with your weak half-assed opinion.

:twisted:

Sensitive little person aren't we:lol:

What now, are you going to tell your school teacher?:D

[Cafe_333]

No you didn't. To say, you had already think of every scenarios possible was overstatement at its best.
Doesn't make sense/ impossible, no it doesn't but it happens.Alright, if you feel it's an "overstatement at its best" I invite you to prove me wrong. I've broken it down to the simplest of terms. It begins with a conflict. There is a cause (stepping on shoe) and an effect (attempt of apology). With every conflict, it is followed by an outcome, and it can go two ways (positive outcome/negative outcome).

I've listed every possible scenario when:
1/3) Victim wrongs the suspect --> followed by either a positive or negative outcome.
2/4) Suspect wrongs the victim --> followed by either a positive or negative outcome

I've also listed extreme cases when:
5) Victim in extreme negative --> Victim does something so wrong that apology is not possible
6) Victim in extreme positive --> Victim does nothing wrong but Suspect beats him anyway (impossible in this case)

I know the 6th scenario happens, such as the staples employee beatings, however it is impossible in our case because of the fact there was premeditation. How hard is it for you people to read my posts?!?!??! The staples employees did nothing wrong, and they were beaten for wearing the wrong colors - this was an act of will. The Pacific Mall Victim was an act of premeditation (which by legal definition is different from will). The fact there was premeditation (meaning planned), means a conflict occured earlier (this we know). The fact that a conflict occured earlier, the victim could have walked away (scenarios 1/2). Instead, the victim chose not to walk away and chose to be confrontational instead (scenarios 3/4). If what happend fits scenario 5 better (such as victim raped suspect's sister), then well some blame goes to the victim here anyway. Scenario 6 needs to be an act of will, not premeditation. These are the only possible scenarios conceivable.

However since you seem so adamantly convinced that there are ALOT more scenarios, then please, enlighten us.

[express.items]

stop flaming cafe333

he didn't say the kid deserved it....read the whole story b4 u ppl flame
my opinion:

i think ppl who are in gangs are or at leasst should be expecting these kinda things to happend sooner or later, if u gonna live life on the dark side then u face life in the dark side. thats how it is....the victum was not a lawful citizen, the newletter from york region said "Mr Sha was a well known person to the police"

+1


THANK YOU SO MUCH Stunt_101, finally one person with some understanding!!!! :)

I can't believe you people are STILL flaming Cafe_333. Then in the Idiot on Motorcycle Crashes beside my school. (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=450995) thread, everyone is saying the victim (motorcycle driver) deserved it for being a douche/idiot/whatever.


Alright, if you feel it's an "overstatement at its best" I invite you to prove me wrong. I've broken it down to the simplest of terms. It begins with a conflict. There is a cause (stepping on shoe) and an effect (attempt of apology). With every conflict, it is followed by an outcome, and it can go two ways (positive outcome/negative outcome).

I've listed every possible scenario when:
1/3) Victim wrongs the suspect --> followed by either a positive or negative outcome.
2/4) Suspect wrongs the victim --> followed by either a positive or negative outcome

I've also listed extreme cases when:
5) Victim in extreme negative --> Victim does something so wrong that apology is not possible
6) Victim in extreme positive --> Victim does nothing wrong but Suspect beats him anyway (impossible in this case)

I know the 6th scenario happens, such as the staples employee beatings, however it is impossible in our case because of the fact there was premeditation. How hard is it for you people to read my posts?!?!??! The staples employees did nothing wrong, and they were beaten for wearing the wrong colors - this was an act of will. The Pacific Mall Victim was an act of premeditation (which by legal definition is different from will). The fact there was premeditation (meaning planned), means a conflict occured earlier (this we know). The fact that a conflict occured earlier, the victim could have walked away (scenarios 1/2). Instead, the victim chose not to walk away and chose to be confrontational instead (scenarios 3/4). If what happend fits scenario 5 better (such as victim raped suspect's sister), then well some blame goes to the victim here anyway. Scenario 6 needs to be an act of will, not premeditation. These are the only possible scenarios conceivable.

However since you seem so adamantly convinced that there are ALOT more scenarios, then please, enlighten us.

Cafe_333 is NOT saying Owen deserved it. I believe he is showing some sympathy. It was (albeit partially) Owen's fault... Owen probably did something to the guy (or the whole gang) which provoked all this. Maybe there was a confrontation in the mall and Owen instead of stepping down and leaving decided to further confront the gang which lead to his eventual beating/death.

If you heard someone was driving down the highway at 200km/h and died because they got into an accident, would you think they deserved it or at least partially at fault? Maybe Owen didn't deserve it and Cafe_333 isn't saying that he did. Cafe_333 is simply saying Owen had some responsibility for what happened to him.

[Siefer999]

police just called me to come in for questioning regarding this incident even though i was there after whatever went down. am i a suspect?

[wise]

Wow, at least show some maturity in your posts than resorting to condescending tones - saying I am stupid for what I'm doing; referencing a dictionary? pwned? Come on... At least your post this time is only attempting to pin me blaming the victim. However you are not me, how can you possibly know what I am thinking? I do not blame the victim in this, I never have. What I do believe is that he could have avoided the sitation. However he didn't and therefore had a hand in the outcome, which led to a provoked premeditation. Am I making this fact up? I'll let you decide.


- you didn't show any maturity in how you worded your initial post, and you were cold and insensitive to a person who you claim you didn't blame for his own death, who just died. So get off your high horse please.

- yes I think it is stupid to conclude your version of events is exactly what happened since you weren't there and know minimal facts about the situation. You're arguing things that you can't factually support yet you're insisting the victim must have done this and must have done that. That is stupid.

- I do not need to be you to discuss how you are thinking based on what you write on how you are thinking. Maybe what you're thinking is different from what you're saying but why would I need to discuss that when you are explicitly saying things in words which I can go by? For example, based on your words, and based on the meaning of blame in the English language, you are blaming the victim. Responsibility = blame. Blame just has a slightly more negative connotation. In this case you are saying the victim had some or all the responsibility towards his own death. Therefore blame is what you are doing.



So just what the heck do you think happend in the karaoke? When one person upsets the other, there are only two directions it can take. The following are the four possible scenarios:

1) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry, victim apologizes and victim walks away from the situation.
2) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry, suspect apologizes and victim walks away from the situation.

Well clearly none of the above two scenarios happend, so that only leaves these two possibilities:

3) Victim steps on Suspect's foot - Suspect gets angry and victim refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.
4) Suspect steps on Victim's foot - Victim gets angry and Suspect refuses to apologize and the situation escalates.

When one person upsets the other, whatever the conflict was, he could have walked away. Period. However it's clear to me that the victim chose not to. So that led to the premeditation from the suspect. What is the point I am trying to prove here? He could have avoided it. It's not his fault that this happend to him, but he sure as hell could have avoided it. That is all I am saying, I do not blame him for being a victim of a gang beating.

- Same as you, I don't know what happened in the karaoke. Which is why unlike you, I refrain from acting like I do and concluding on what MUST have occured based on assumptions and conjecture.

- I actually take back my imagination comment. You seem to lack any since you think your scenarios cover real world possibilities. There are so many variables that can alter your nice neat little choices that they seem like the possibilities only a very close minded and biased person could come up with.

- Whatever the conflict he could have walked away? Period? So whenever there is a conflict a person can just walk away so easily right? And if they get attacked by others it must mean that they didn't walk away or at least try to walk away. Wow. You really are Mr. Logic here. How is it clear to you that the victim chose not to? The only way it could be clear to you is if you are involved with the case, present when it happened, or heard directly from a person present when it happened.


I'm sorry, there is a 5th possibility, that the victim did something so wrong that apologizing or walking away was not possible, such as victim raped the suspect's sister. If the real reason fits this 5th profile, then well some blame goes to the victim here. However I am not saying this as you are right, I do not know the full story. My view is based on 3 or 4: not blaming the victim, but saying he certainly could have avoided it. I can be cold and say what a stupid punk, he could have walked away but decided to be Mr. Big Shot and get confrontational instead - which goes back to what I said in my first post ('he had a hand in the outcome'). I don't know what he did, but whatever he did do, escalated the situation because he chose not to walk away. Because of this, you say I am blaming the victim. I say just because he decided to be confrontational does not mean it was his fault he got killed. I do not blame him for being a victim.

- You don't need to do something SO wrong, to get into that situation. It doesn't have to be as extreme as raping the suspect's sister. In fact I think most people would think raping the suspect's sister would be "asking" for retaliation. It can be your example (1) where the victim steps on the suspect's foot and apologizes and walks away, but the suspect still beats him. Many things start with trivial events such as this in the real world. A accidental shove, an accidental stepping on a foot, a look, etc If you do these things to a person who's confrontational and always looking for an excuse to fight, has a ego and attitude problem, you will have an "escalated" situation even if you apologize and walk away. You're nice tidy non realistic reasoning conveniently ignores the attitudes and personalities of most people who would engage in beating to death of another individual. You can't always use logic of the average person to explain and reconstruct their actions and motivations. Yet you are doing so.

This once again proves you think gangs always have JUST CAUSE when beating down people. Your examples all blame the victim for getting beating down since he MUST have failed to apologize or gotten angry himself! Your first two situations COULD HAVE HAPPENED. And STILL have the victim getting beaten down afterwards. But according to you that's not possible :rolleyes: You sure have a neat circular self-fulfilling logic. The only time you consider this possiblity is when you say the victim MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING SO SERIOUS that apologizing or walking away wouldn't work. Again, you are supporting your belief that gangs must have just cause to beat people down. It never occurs to you that they might have the most trivial excuse to do so. Yet you keep denying this. Everything you say proves this. You can keep denying all you want, but every time you reply, you undermine your own protestation against this, and further prove me right about how you really think.


Hmm... revelation here... I think I see what is going on - there is clearly a misundersatnding between us. While you think I am blaming him for becoming a victim of a gang beating, what I am actually doing is blaming him for being confrontational. You keep taking the latter and turning it into me saying it's his fault he got into a gang beating.

- What I think is irrelevant. You by saying what you have said, according to the definition of blame, are blaming the victim in some way.

- You are blaming the victim b/c you are saying HE HAD TO HAVE BEEN CONFRONTATIONAL BECAUSE HE GOT BEATEN TO DEATH. Any other possibility is ignored and dismissed by you. If that's not blame I don't know what is. He could have not been confrontational and not done the things you keep accusing him and saying he MUST have done, and STILL GOTTEN BEATEN TO DEATH. But you're saying he must have contributed to this. He has some responsibility himself. According to your examples, you seem to think he must have had most of the responsibility himself since he could have easily avoided escalation by apologizing or walking away yet chose to do neither (according to you). So that implies almost total responsibilty for his own death. You are blaming him yet you don't want to admit it.



Firing back with condescending posts that serve nothing but to belittle my position is just well... not very open minded.

So yes, you have been taking me completely out of context.

I find it highly ironic that you accuse others of not being open minded when you have such one-sided closed minded logic when it comes to what could have occured to lead to this guy being beaten to death. You ignore any possibilities or scenarios where he might have less responsibilty or less a "hand in making" that happen, and claim he must have done certain things and not have done other things to ESCALATE and MAKE it happen. Don't accuse others of not being open minded since your mind is so closed it's unbelievable.

Like I said before and I'll say again, you provide the only context. I didn't take you anywhere that you didn't put yourself. The only problem here is not my interpretation but how you seem to contadict yourself and refuse to acknowledge it. You're like those people who say one thing but do another. Then expect people to ignore your actions and just believe your words.

[wise]

The 5th was already described in my post to a similar effect in that the victim did something so wrong (like victim raped suspect's sister) that an apology would just not be accepted (in this case victim gets some blame here). If there is a 6th it would have to be the opposite of 5: Victim did not wrong the suspect in anyway and the suspect wanted to beat him anyway. I thought of this 6th scenario already but didn't bother posting it -- it's impossible to happen because of the fact there was premeditation.

In the end it all comes down to the fact that the victim could have walked away but chose not to. Why can I draw this conclusion? Because there was prevoked premeditation. Instead of walking away from the situation, he chose to be confrontational instead. His choice to be confrontational led to the suspect premeditating to come back with people and beat him.


Since when does premeditation have to always be justified? Again you do not understand the issue is about random versus justified beating. There obviously is a cause for it, the issue is if it's a JUST cause or not. 6th scenario can happen WITH premeditation.

It does not come down to the fact that the victim could have walked away and chose not to.

For example, victim opens car door and accidently hits suspect's car unknowingly. Victim goes into karaoke place. Suspect follows victim and confonts him about it. Victim apologizes. Suspect claims that's not enough. Suspect is pissed off his car got hit and no amount of words can satisfy him enough to not be angry. Victim asks suspect what he wants. Suspect calls his friends from where he is and they go beat victim to death, or suspect leaves and comes back with his friends and they beat victim to death.

Or the accidental car hitting could have occured days or weeks earlier. And the suspect confronted the victim the fateful day after getting his friends to go beat him. Suspect goes into the karaoke place to make sure the victim is there and confronts him. No matter what the victim says about the car he is in for a beating anyways that day since the suspect came with his friends for that exact purpose.

[wise]

I know the 6th scenario happens, such as the staples employee beatings, however it is impossible in our case because of the fact there was premeditation. How hard is it for you people to read my posts?!?!??! The staples employees did nothing wrong, and they were beaten for wearing the wrong colors - this was an act of will. The Pacific Mall Victim was an act of premeditation (which by legal definition is different from will). The fact there was premeditation (meaning planned), means a conflict occured earlier (this we know). The fact that a conflict occured earlier, the victim could have walked away (scenarios 1/2). Instead, the victim chose not to walk away and chose to be confrontational instead (scenarios 3/4). If what happend fits scenario 5 better (such as victim raped suspect's sister), then well some blame goes to the victim here anyway. Scenario 6 needs to be an act of will, not premeditation. These are the only possible scenarios conceivable.

However since you seem so adamantly convinced that there are ALOT more scenarios, then please, enlighten us.


What if the gang didn't beat down the staples employees right away for wearing red? What if they went home, called up some more gangbanger pals and went back later that day or a few days later to beat them up?

People like YOU would be insisting they MUST have done something to contribute to it and they DIDN'T walk away from it since it was PREMEDITATED.

Yes my example is of PLANNED PREMEDITATED GANG BEATING on innocent victims. Premeditation means nothing. Just because an attack is premeditated does not mean the victim(s) must have done something to contribute to it more than if it were non premeditated. Your logic is flawed.

[express.items]

+1 to what Wise is saying...

I never thought about it like that, I just assumed the gang wouldn't randomly attack someone, therefore the victim had some fault in the matter. I suppose this still holds true (somewhat) as the gang probably won't randomly go into bar and attack some stranger; however, maybe Owen did something, did try to walk away from it (apologized or whatever) but the gang still decided to beat him, etc.

However, given Owen's previous "gang-related" background it is easy to assume (albeit may not be the case) that he was too being confrontational about the situation and rather than backing off he escalated the situation.

Arguing/flaming aside, is it not logical that Owen would have been with other people at the karaoke place? I don't see why he (or anyone for that matter) would go to such a place on their own, wouldn't he go with friends to hang out? Where do they come to play in this situation, I'd assume they would've witnessed the event... why didn't they jump in to help? Why did police get called at 8:40am when the videotape shows the suspects leaving around 8:05. Is it possible that Owen's "crew" had a hand in this?

[shopGirl]

I am still siding with Wise....

I would like to point out, first off if Police claim Owen "was known to police" does not actuallyprove anything.

Someone can be known to police thru a lot of traffic infractions, getting caught smoking weed, caught underage drinking - this does not necessarily mean he was a wanted criminal.

A lot of violence these days are unprovoked, especially at that young age when its raging egos and hormones.

Express, u pointed out that Owen was alone when this happened, which makes it even more obvious it was an unfair fight. If Owen and his friends were trying to start something, the attack might have been more even..rather than 7 on 1.

Its shocking that you guys make assumptions like blahblah victim steps on foot and does not apologize, to me thats bs. Fights happen through-out the city with MANY MANY innocent victims. Robberies, bullying, etc.

Like I said before, he did not deserve to die REGARDLESS of if he provoked a fight, did not apologize, gave the other people bad looks and whatever other "what if" examples you gave.

Cafe, you asked why you should feel compassion for someone you never knew, but would feel different if he was your friend or family. I'm glad not everyone in the world feels that way - only feeling compassion for your immediate family and not the human race around us.

I don't think any of us are saying the victim was not part of a gang, or bad words were exchanged but again, did it have to result in his death - No. We don't know him and we never will find out the truth.

I hope you can open your mind and see what the rest of us are trying to point out.

[501]

LOL @ MHQ... they are obviously underage. but kids these days... so violent. they didn't use a bottle because MHQ doesn't serve alcohol :lol: ...trust me when you fight at a K... first thing you see is probably and should be a beer bottle. MHQ = amateur Karaoke. these kids won't do **** at a grown up K... they will get their ass handled.

RIP to the victim.

[mcg]

LOL @ MHQ... they are obviously underage. but kids these days... so violent. they didn't use a bottle because MHQ doesn't serve alcohol :lol: ...trust me when you fight at a K... first thing you see is probably and should be a beer bottle. MHQ = amateur Karaoke. these kids won't do **** at a grown up K... they will get their ass handled.

RIP to the victim.

Well from that comment, I assume grown ups in grown up Kbars are equally as violent as underage kids in an amateur Kbars. Just a shame!

[Dragon120]

http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Crime/article/223366

4th suspect arrested...3 more to go...

[Cafe_333]

In my initial post I was not directing it towards anyone, nor was I attempting to belittle anyone by being condescending. So trying to compare my action to that of yours is not in the same context. So it does not matter if I was cold in my first post. As I have stated in an earlier post, I do NOT need to demonstrate sympathy towards a gangster off our streets. I fail to see why I should. It's still one less punk off the streets as far as I'm concerned.

Laying Blame:
=============
Quit sticking words into my mouth and claiming them as my own. It's pretty clear to other people here what my message is. According to my examples I do think he had some responsibility. I made no secret of this, so why are you accusing me of not wanting to admit it? Like I said in my first post, he had a hand in the outcome. I have never changed my position on this respect. Stop trying to make it seem like I am. As far as blaming goes, I can agree with you there - I am most definately in fact blaming the victim "in some way" as you put it. I have not made a secret of this either. HOWEVER, the context of what I blame him for is clearly different. You can't get it through your narrow mind when you keep trying to change what I am blaming him for. If I am guilty of blaming the victim for anything, it is for his choice of confrontation instead of choosing to walk away. I do NOT blame him for being a victim. If you want to keep flagging me for blaming the victim "in some way", shouting that I give him "some responsibility to himself", then wow, why are you stating the obvious? I have always claimed this myself and you'll have no argument from me there. Do I blame the victim in some way? Absolutely. I only blame him for being a stupid punk who decided to be a confrontational ass rather than walk away. If you continue to believe I am blaming him for being a victim of the CRIME, then I invite you to show me how.

That said, I do not blame him for being a victim of the crime, because those 7 thugs didn't have to kill him. I blame the CRIME on the 7 thugs. Could the victim have avoided escalating the situation? Absolutely. So if you can fathom the distinction, then we'll be making progress.

The Confrontation:
==================
No, I never assumed the idea that "he got beaten to death, therefore he must have been confrontational". This is a fact because he was seen engaging one suspect earlier in the night. This was actually WITNESSED by somebody. So stop making it seem like I am making this up, I am simply reilliterating what is a hard fact. Is this so hard to understand?

As for walking away, yes he could have. Instead he chose to be confrontational. Don't twist the timeline around by asking if he could walk away when he is being attacked. I am referring to the confrontation, before there was existence of any premeditation - before he was even attacked. He had a chance to walk away, but he chose to be confrontational instead.

Possible Scenarios:
===================
With any conflict, there are only in total 6 possible scenarios that I have outlined. If you disagree with the fact that there can only be 6 scenarios, I invite you to prove otherwise by providing an analogy that would not fit any of the 6 scenarios. The fact of the matter is, with any conflict, there is a cause and an effect, followed by either a positive or negative outcome. Okay, fine, I admit, I did not argue Scenario 6 very well. I stated in Scenario 6 that "victim did not wrong suspect, suspect attacks him anyway". The point I was trying to make in Scenarios 5 and 6 is the context of it -- that Scenario 5 is the result of premeditation when apology is not possible and that Scenario 6 is the result of will when apology is not possible. Do not accuse me of changing things around right now because I am not changing the context of my Scenarios in 5&6. So allow me to restate them:

5) There is conflict, peaceful resolution not possible to suspect, and suspect attacks victim out of premeditation.
6) There is conflict, peaceful resolution not possible to suspect, and suspect attacks victim out of will.

Because I did not word these scenarios well is why your accidental shove and car door analogies appear to work. However both of your analogies actually fall under Scenario 6 because both conflicts stemmed from an act of will. This includes your staples analogy, it doesn't matter when they get attacked, it was stemmed from an act of will (wanting to seek immediate retaliation for an accidental shove, hitting his car door, or wearing the wrong colors).

Now that I've clarified things, what you have really been asking me all along is how do I know if Scenario 6 didn't actually happen? Because the pacific mall incident was an act of premeditation because they were seen talking earlier. This is key - there was confrontation, before the existence of premeditation. The attack was stemmed from premeditation, not will. Therefore it cannot fall under Scenario 6. This leaves 3,4,or5. I won't assume 5 because that is blaming the victim without knowing the full story. Therefore I am saying 3or4 - there was a confrontation before the existense of any premeditation. As there was confrontation, he could have walked away. If you disagree, I invite you to prove otherwise by providing an analogy that would not fall under any of the six scenarios.

[Stunt_101]

For example, victim opens car door and accidently hits suspect's car unknowingly. Victim goes into karaoke place. Suspect follows victim and confonts him about it. Victim apologizes. Suspect claims that's not enough. Suspect is pissed off his car got hit and no amount of words can satisfy him enough to not be angry. Victim asks suspect what he wants. Suspect calls his friends from where he is and they go beat victim to death, or suspect leaves and comes back with his friends and they beat victim to death.

Or the accidental car hitting could have occured days or weeks earlier. And the suspect confronted the victim the fateful day after getting his friends to go beat him. Suspect goes into the karaoke place to make sure the victim is there and confronts him. No matter what the victim says about the car he is in for a beating anyways that day since the suspect came with his friends for that exact purpose.

the person (suspect) could've done the crime himself with a gun to finish him (victum) off and not get his friend in sh1t (if we're talking about ur example)

u must have done something wrong for someone to bring 7 guys just to hit on one guy...they purposely brought 7 guys just to basically scare him (victum) and teach him a lesson, i don't believe their intention was to kill him

[Cafe_333]

I am still siding with Wise....
I hope you can open your mind and see what the rest of us are trying to point out.- I respect your position, however news reports do not make mention of someone being known to the police if they were only caught jay walking or having some speeding tickets or anything as ridiculous as you have mentioned.

- Owen was not alone when it happend. There was a 20 year old friend.

- Yes fights happen all the time, however the pacific mall incident was the result of a conflict, which can only be one of the 6 scenarios I described. Robberies are not conflicts and do not apply.

- Actually many people will feel the same way as me. Many people will NOT feel compassion when they hear about a gangster getting killed in the news. I have compassion for the human race, don't take me out of context. I just don't have compassion for someone I do not know who is a gangster.

- Nobody including myself is arguing with you when you keep saying he does not deserve to die. Not sure why you are bringing that point up. I hope you are not trying to insinuate that I think he does either.

- And just *what* the heck are the rest of you trying to point out???? That he didn't deserve to die? Try reading my posts carefully, I have always said that he didn't deserve to die.

[Cafe_333]

+1
I can't believe you people are STILL flaming Cafe_333. Then in the Idiot on Motorcycle Crashes beside my school. (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=450995) thread, everyone is saying the victim (motorcycle driver) deserved it for being a douche/idiot/whatever.
If you heard someone was driving down the highway at 200km/h and died because they got into an accident, would you think they deserved it or at least partially at fault? Maybe Owen didn't deserve it and Cafe_333 isn't saying that he did. Cafe_333 is simply saying Owen had some responsibility for what happened to him.Thanks for your support express.item - everyone in that thread are blaming the kid for what happend and are all saying he deserved it. It would not be any different had the kid died. Here I'm not even saying Owen deserved it, nor am I blaming him for being the victim of the crime. I only say he had some responsibility for what happend.

[masterhapposai]

I am still siding with Wise....

I would like to point out, first off if Police claim Owen "was known to police" does not actuallyprove anything.

Someone can be known to police thru a lot of traffic infractions, getting caught smoking weed, caught underage drinking - this does not necessarily mean he was a wanted criminal.

A lot of violence these days are unprovoked, especially at that young age when its raging egos and hormones.

Express, u pointed out that Owen was alone when this happened, which makes it even more obvious it was an unfair fight. If Owen and his friends were trying to start something, the attack might have been more even..rather than 7 on 1.

Its shocking that you guys make assumptions like blahblah victim steps on foot and does not apologize, to me thats bs. Fights happen through-out the city with MANY MANY innocent victims. Robberies, bullying, etc.

Like I said before, he did not deserve to die REGARDLESS of if he provoked a fight, did not apologize, gave the other people bad looks and whatever other "what if" examples you gave.

Cafe, you asked why you should feel compassion for someone you never knew, but would feel different if he was your friend or family. I'm glad not everyone in the world feels that way - only feeling compassion for your immediate family and not the human race around us.

I don't think any of us are saying the victim was not part of a gang, or bad words were exchanged but again, did it have to result in his death - No. We don't know him and we never will find out the truth.

I hope you can open your mind and see what the rest of us are trying to point out.

sorry, you're being naive

those words "known to police" are always indicating heavy criminal activity.

[Stunt_101]

sorry, you're being naive

those words "known to police" are always indicating heavy criminal activity.

+1

[express.items]

- I respect your position, however news reports do not make mention of someone being known to the police if they were only caught jay walking or having some speeding tickets or anything as ridiculous as you have mentioned.

- Owen was not alone when it happend. There was a 20 year old friend.

- Yes fights happen all the time, however the pacific mall incident was the result of a conflict, which can only be one of the 6 scenarios I described. Robberies are not conflicts and do not apply.

- Actually many people will feel the same way as me. Many people will NOT feel compassion when they hear about a gangster getting killed in the news. I have compassion for the human race, don't take me out of context. I just don't have compassion for someone I do not know who is a gangster.

- Nobody including myself is arguing with you when you keep saying he does not deserve to die. Not sure why you are bringing that point up. I hope you are not trying to insinuate that I think he does either.

- And just *what* the heck are the rest of you trying to point out???? That he didn't deserve to die? Try reading my posts carefully, I have always said that he didn't deserve to die.

+1


sorry, you're being naive

those words "known to police" are always indicating heavy criminal activity.

+1

[wise]

You can't get it through your narrow mind when you keep trying to change what I am blaming him for. If I am guilty of blaming the victim for anything, it is for his choice of confrontation instead of choosing to walk away.

Could the victim have avoided escalating the situation? Absolutely. So if you can fathom the distinction, then we'll be making progress.


- I think you're the one with the narrow mind since you can't seem to avoid concluding the victim MUST HAVE been confrontational. I still do not understand why you keep insisting on that. Police releases do not mention him being confrontational. All we know is the victim and his 20 yr old friend were talking to one suspect when 6 others came in and beat them both. Key word was talking. Nobody mentioned anything about argument or confrontation. You mentioned in earlier posts that there was a confrontation earlier on and then he was beaten later for it. There was no earlier on. This was all in the same timeframe. None of the released facts lead one to believe he could have walked away, had the option of walking away, or didn't try to walk away. I could go up and talk to you and while talking, my friends come up and beat you to death. Does that mean you didn't try to walk away?

- The victim could have TRIED to avoid escalating the situation. That does not mean it HAS TO WORK. You don't know if he tried or not. Maybe he did. And maybe it didn't work b/c it takes both parties for it to work. If he tried and the other party didn't try, it means nothing. Just because the outcome was escalated/bad, doesn't mean he did what you're INSISTING he did. You're insisting he escalated it. Like I said, facts released were that they were talking. How do you know he wasn't trying to talk things out?

- Since you can't FATHOM this, progress will never be made. You already made up your mind. This doesn't even have to do with just this incident. Your assumptions now and those in your first post, speak in general terms regarding these type of situations. You feel that anytime a person is a victim of gang violence that they MUST have escalated it to that point themselves, or DONE NOTHING to avoid it. That is highly ignorant. You claim you don't blame the victims for the crimes, but you blame them automatically for MAKING THEMSELVES victims of the crimes. You're playing on semantics here and in substance there really isn't a difference. You insist they are responsible no matter what. However you wish to split hairs, such attribution of blame is unfair and closed/narrow minded.

http://www.police.york.on.ca/Press/[2007-05-31]%20SERIOUS%20ASSAULT%20IN%20THE%20TOWN%20OF%20MARK HAM.pdf



No, I never assumed the idea that "he got beaten to death, therefore he must have been confrontational". This is a fact because he was seen engaging one suspect earlier in the night. This was actually WITNESSED by somebody. So stop making it seem like I am making this up, I am simply reilliterating what is a hard fact. Is this so hard to understand?


Talking to somebody makes it a FACT that he was being confrontational and escalated the situation?



As for walking away, yes he could have. Instead he chose to be confrontational. Don't twist the timeline around by asking if he could walk away when he is being attacked. I am referring to the confrontation, before there was existence of any premeditation - before he was even attacked. He had a chance to walk away, but he chose to be confrontational instead.


Where you there? You're talking like you were there and know EXACTLY what happened and what was said and what was done. If you do please enlighten us all since we haven't read about it yet in the news.





5) There is conflict, peaceful resolution not possible to suspect, and suspect attacks victim out of premeditation.
6) There is conflict, peaceful resolution not possible to suspect, and suspect attacks victim out of will.

Now that I've clarified things, what you have really been asking me all along is how do I know if Scenario 6 didn't actually happen? Because the pacific mall incident was an act of premeditation because they were seen talking earlier. This is key - there was confrontation, before the existence of premeditation. The attack was stemmed from premeditation, not will. Therefore it cannot fall under Scenario 6. This leaves 3,4,or5. I won't assume 5 because that is blaming the victim without knowing the full story. Therefore I am saying 3or4 - there was a confrontation before the existense of any premeditation. As there was confrontation, he could have walked away. If you disagree, I invite you to prove otherwise by providing an analogy that would not fall under any of the six scenarios.


My car examples can still be applied. Your problem is that you're still assuming premeditation means victim didn't do all that he could to avoid getting beaten down. Another problem is you keep thinking walking away effectively ends conflict. What he walked away once before the fateful event occured? What if the suspect(s) sought him out again b/c they didn't want to let him just walk away from it? Furthermore, sometimes you wouldn't think of walking away. Like in my car examples, the victim could be talking to the suspect not knowing just how angry the suspect is, or that the suspect already has made up his mind to have him beat down. If you're talking to somebody about a problem and trying to resolve it, do you just decide to not talk about it anymore and walk away? That itself is even more of a action to ESCALATE things further.

For example, you accidentally hit my car unknowingly and

1) I confront you right away about it. You apologize and try to talk it out with me. I don't care b/c I'm so mad you hurt my baby. I am a car loving fanatic. I call my friends up and the come in and beat you down. You tried to talk things out. You didn't escalate anything. You could have walked away. But in such a situation it seems pretty unrealistic. You're in the middle of trying to resolve things with me. Why would you just walk away? You don't know what's coming.

or

2) I confront you right away about it. You apologize and walk away. I'm mad you didn't do enough and get my friends to beat you down.



The point is, if the other party is unreasonable and angry, even over a minor thing, what a victim does won't matter at all. His fate might have already been decided before he is confronted, and thus, whatever he says, if he tries to walk away, or even if he succeeds in walking away - might not change anything. You are blaming the victim and making assumptions about his actions or lack of actions based on the outcome of events. BASED ON HOW HIS ATTACKERS ACTED. What you still don't realize, is that his attackers might not be people who think and act reasonably. Just b/c a situation escalated to violence, does not mean the victim helped it get there, or didn't do enough to prevent it from getting there. Responsibility could be wholly in the hands of the PERPETRATORS.

[Cafe_333]

The article linked in the first post of this thread made mention that Owen was seen talking to one of the suspects earlier, unfortunately that link no longer works (nor does a google cached article of it). That doesn't matter, my basis was never based on the account of one witness. The police report only mentions the crime, not the events leading up to it - however, the report and the timeline of events does prove there was in fact an 'earlier'.

So let's talk facts here. The suspect knew where Owen was. They met inside the karaoke room. They were talking. This means Owen chose to confront him over whatever conflict they had. The fact that they were talking before hand demonstrates a confrontation before the existence of any premeditation. I stated there was a confrontation earlier on, and he was beat later for it. For me, it can not be possible that they were talking and then six men suddenly showed up out of no where to beat him. You stated there was no earlier on. For you, they could just be talking and then men materialized out of thin air to beat him, which in this case how could the victim walk away? That is what's so wrong about your argument: If all this occured within the same timeline, how in the world would the six men know where to find Owen in the first place without an 'earlier on'. They knew where Owen was and exactly which room he was in. There was definately an earlier on, and he was beat later for it. There was a confrontation before the existence of premeditation.

"Victims of gang violence must have escalated it or done nothing to avoid it"? Don't take me out of context. I have never made this generalization for all gang violence. In the event of a premeditated attack, choosing to engage the suspect over an earlier conflict is choosing to be confrontational. The situation escalated as a result and it led to his beating. "The victim could have tried to avoid escalating the situation, that he could have tried and the other party didn't try"? Well then that still falls under Scenario 6 - the event of a conflict, peaceful resolution not possible, suspect attacks the victim out of will. This does not match the Pacific Mall incident because that was an attack out of premeditation.

Your car door example still does not apply - that still describes Scenario 6. It doesn't matter if the victim wanted to walk away. The context here is that no matter what the victim could do on his end, peaceful resolution was not an option for the suspect, and an attack is stemmed by an act of will. Well this does not match the pacific mall incident - it was an attack stemmed from premeditation - there was a conflict before the existence of premeditation. Your car door analogy however is stemmed from an act of will - wanting to seek immediate retaliation for hitting his car door.

Your constant twisting of context in attempts to make me look wrong just isn't working. Try taking the correct context of my arguments and then we'll be making some progress.

[yao416]

wise and cafe_333 why you guys even bother writing essays?
shiieeeeeet

[wise]

The article linked in the first post of this thread made mention that Owen was seen talking to one of the suspects earlier, unfortunately that link no longer works (nor does a google cached article of it). That doesn't matter, my basis was never based on the account of one witness. The police report only mentions the crime, not the events leading up to it - however, the report and the timeline of events does prove there was in fact an 'earlier'.

Again keyword: talking.

Also, I forget what the link was, but I'm assuming it was from a news source. Newsources are not as accurate as actual police reports. Go look at the link I supplied of the facts of the case. I haven't read anything regarding an earlier event. All the news sources I have read mentioned one suspect talking to the two victims when 6 others came in armed. Regardless, like I said before, this discussion is about the principles you apply in making absolute statements regarding such situations, and not limited to this situation itself.


So let's talk facts here. The suspect knew where Owen was. They met inside the karaoke room. They were talking. This means Owen chose to confront him over whatever conflict they had. The fact that they were talking before hand demonstrates a confrontation before the existence of any premeditation.

Talking, what you term confronting, doesn't mean the victim was confrontational though. In earlier posts you insist he must have had some attitude during this talk. I don't see how you can be so sure of this. You still have not shown how this has to be a fact.

The fact they were talking b4 him getting beaten does not necessarily mean there was a "confrontation" BEFORE premeditation. Like I pointed out in my examples, the premeditation could have occured before the first suspect even talked to the victim.


I stated there was a confrontation earlier on, and he was beat later for it. For me, it can not be possible that they were talking and then six men suddenly showed up out of no where to beat him. You stated there was no earlier on. For you, they could just be talking and then men materialized out of thin air to beat him, which in this case how could the victim walk away? That is what's so wrong about your argument: If all this occured within the same timeline, how in the world would the six men know where to find Owen in the first place without an 'earlier on'. They knew where Owen was and exactly which room he was in. There was definately an earlier on, and he was beat later for it. There was a confrontation before the existence of premeditation.

Re-read my examples again. I gave you scenarios where this could plausibly occur. You're not reading properly. Or if you are, you are deliberately neglecting to explain how my examples couldn't work.


"Victims of gang violence must have escalated it or done nothing to avoid it"? Don't take me out of context. I have never made this generalization for all gang violence.

I would normally quote you again but I'm tired of having to point out where you keep saying one thing then disputing that you said it. You're a very confused individual. Instead, since you have so much time to always want the last word anyways, you can go re-read your own earlier posts and find examples of how you provided your own context. Yes, this never gets old apparently.



In the event of a premeditated attack, choosing to engage the suspect over an earlier conflict is choosing to be confrontational.

This is only true in your own mind b/c of your very limited deliberately narrow use of the word confrontational. Being confrontational is an attitude. Talking does not always mean confrontational. You only see it that way b/c you are forcing it to be that way. See my post mentioning tautologies.



"The victim could have tried to avoid escalating the situation, that he could have tried and the other party didn't try"? Well then that still falls under Scenario 6 - the event of a conflict, peaceful resolution not possible, suspect attacks the victim out of will. This does not match the Pacific Mall incident because that was an attack out of premeditation.

Drop the "out of will" versus "out of premeditation" BS. Go back and re-read my examples and explain to me why each one wouldn't apply. You keep using your own forced definition of things to prove your own arguments. Prove it instead by logically explaining it. Not relying on your own narrow definitions.



Your car door example still does not apply - that still describes Scenario 6. It doesn't matter if the victim wanted to walk away. The context here is that no matter what the victim could do on his end, peaceful resolution was not an option for the suspect, and an attack is stemmed by an act of will. Well this does not match the pacific mall incident - it was an attack stemmed from premeditation - there was a conflict before the existence of premeditation. Your car door analogy however is stemmed from an act of will - wanting to seek immediate retaliation for hitting his car door.

See reply above. My other car door examples do not speak about immediate retaliation. I gave you premeditation examples as well.



Your constant twisting of context in attempts to make me look wrong just isn't working. Try taking the correct context of my arguments and then we'll be making some progress.

I'm not twisting anything to make you look like anything. In every post I've made, I use your own words. I don't provide mine. You and nobody else provided the context of your contradictions and illogical arguments. I've provided very valid criticisms of your logic and reasoning, provided sound examples that effectively negate your arguments, and time and time again provided your own words as support for your constant contradictory statements. This is why most posters also agreed with me. You only had two supporters, one of which ended up agreeing with me later too. Why don't you try to refute my points with sound reasoning instead of dictating what this or that means and offering that as proof when they are limited by your own biases. I have given very valid examples for you to work with and you have replied with nothing substantial on them. How about you stop replying to my posts if you can't do anything but keep singing your own song? If you keep complaining no progress is being made then stop posting. Your original post claimed you were prepared to get flamed for what you wrote yet you seem not to be able to take it. Unless you address the things I have asked of you here lack of progress has no culprit but yourself. You're the one that hasn't progressed one step.

[shopGirl]

I agree, when stated "known to police" could imply criminal activity.

However, I did not say it could have been as simple as jay walking or whatever. Getting caught with drugs, caught in a group fight or something other than HEAVY criminal activity would make one known to police.

I did not know the victim, therefore I will not defend him by saying he was all innocent and was not caught up in a negative lifestyle, on the other hand we can also not confirm he was a "gangster".

The end, I'm done with this debate.
RIP.

[Cafe_333]

If I am going to get flamed for my position I am just as ready to defend it. I have already explained why your car door example would not work - it is still an attack stemmed from will. If you can't comprehend that, then I'll have to break it down in detail for you to understand. In your first car door analogy, you are so upset I hurt your baby that talking was not an option for you. I may be the one who wants to talk things out, but you didn't want to. Peaceful resolution was simply not an option and I am attacked (later on if you like) as a result. This falls under scenario 6, an attack stemmed from will. This does not fit the Pacific Mall incident because there was confrontation before the existense of premeditation. You can claim talking all you like, but because there was a conflict between the two of them, it was a confrontation. It doesn't matter either way as you'll see later on how I lay blame for being confrontational versus talking that leads up to asking for it. It can not be attempting to talk for a peaceful resolution and was suddenly beaten - as I have demonstrated earlier, it can not occur within the same timeline because of the existence of premeditation. Alright, your second example showed premeditation. However all your second example does is champion my position by demonstrating premeditation. Again I will break it down for you. Your second example could fall under Scenario 3/4 or 5.

Scenario 3/4 (Conflict, Victim rejects Peaceful Resolution, Attack out of Premeditation):
You are upset that I damaged your vehicle. We talk, you want compensation, and I denied it, stating that an apology was enough, and I walk away. You feel I did not do enough and get your friends to beat me. I blame the victim here for being confrontational - I chose to stand up to you and refused to pay for damages. (I am not twisting the analogy here, I am only demonstrating an example of confrontation using your analogy.)

Scenario 5 (Conflict, Peaceful resolution not possible, Attack out of Premeditation):
You are upset that I damaged your vehicle. You confront me right away about it, and all I did was say sorry and walk away. This of course upsets you and feel I did not do enough and get your friends to beat me. I may not have been confrontational as you put it, and there was only talking - albeit a little bit. The defining point here is that you wanted to confront me FIRST, before you wanted to attack me. You were allowing an oppurtunity for me to "do enough", allowing an oppurtunity for peaceful resolution. It was in the event that I failed to adequately own up to my mistake that you THEN wanted to retaliate. This proves premeditation, however I blame the victim asking for it. When I make a large dent in your vehicle and all I did was say sorry and walk away without offering to pay damages, I am definately asking for it.

Anyway, your second car door example fits scenario 5 best - there was talking before the existence of premditation. Here the victim is so wrong that he asked for it anyway. Whatever happend at Pacific Mall, falls under the scenarios 3 to 5 because there was premeditation. 1/2 obviously did not happen and 6 is will. So why am I pushing the will versus premeditation issue here? Distinguishing the two are important as acts of will would lay no blame whatsoever on the victim, similar to the Staples incident (Scenario 6). Attacks from premeditation would put some responsibility to the victim for being confrontational (Scenario 3/4). Attacks because victim asks for it is Scenario 5. So if what really happend at Pacific Mall falls under 3/4 then I was right all along, the victim chose to be confrontational. If it falls under 5, then it doesn't matter, he asked for it - a claim I never made anyway. You claim there are other possibilities other than the six I have outlined, but have yet to provide ANY examples that prove this. So far all you have done was provide me with two car door analogies that fell within the six, the first not even matching the Pacific Mall incident while the second only blames the victim asking for it. If you can provide me with other possibilities then I invite you to do so.

[NDman]

Really, Cafe_333. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but you are so tunnel-visioned on the "previous confrontation" that it's getting rather comical. Your insistance on them having confrontation means you failed to acknowledge, or even consider, that there existed other possibilities (as wise pointed out).

Then to the Staples employee attack, you may want to read up on the news a little to find out. e.g.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/13414235/detail.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/50838.html
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070530/NEWS/705300319/1033/NEWS01

All based on the same release, btw.


One Staples employee was standing outside the store when the suspects began yelling gang slogans and challenged him to fight, according to police. He started to walk into the store when they attacked him with their fists. Another employee who came to his aid was also assaulted.

...

"It's the same thing we keep running into," said Sgt. Jim Stephenson, head of the Petaluma police gang unit. "Guys going after colors.
Confrontational? The news release hardly suggested that. The employee walked away, and then got attacked. "Guys going after colors" is a just cause, too? Don't think so either.

[Coke355mL]

I can't believe the debate has been going as long as it have. I just finished reading all of your posts and I'm sorry but I completely agree with Cafe_333 on this one. There is just so much back & forth that I have to give my take on this. Somebody has to step in and settle things. You are preventing progress when you keep taking things out of context, wise. None of your criticisms have truly been valid, untill you twist the context into what you deemed fit as Cafe's views. If your sound examples were effective in negating his arguments, then why was he able to prove otherwise each and everytime? I don't see how he provided the context of his contradictions when you alone were using his words and turning it into another meaning, leaving him to constantly fend against your illogical accusations. Don't believe me?

First Cafe stated that the victim got gang beaten because he had some responsibility in it. Then you twisted it into making everyone think Cafe believes victims of all crimes deserve it, followed by accusing Cafe of blaming the victim for the crime. For the most part, this is the majority of the context twisting I've read. You delayed progress by pressing that same issue for SEVEN thread pages while singing the same song of deserving blame with misused posts as proof to your claim of 'valid critiscms'. At least untill it became evident to everyone how he was only blaming the victim for being confrontational and not for the actual crime. It's funny how you suddenly DROPPED your *entire* argument when you could no longer disprove him. Looks like Cafe_333 was right all along on that context, in spite of your idea of 'valid', or should I say, invalid criticsms.

Then you proceeded to twist things once again by making it seem like Cafe believes victims of all gang violence must have been confrontational / escalated it or must have done nothing to avoid it, again using his own words out of context. I agree with Cafe once again here, he has never made that generalization for all gang violence. Seems to me he only stated that generalization for attacks stemmed from premeditation and an earlier confrontation only, not ALL gang violence in general. If you took the time to understand his position on attacks stemmed from will, you would know he does not make that same generalization. He's continually stated that victims of will have no blame at all. This negates your twisted context but somehow you think otherwise and once again cried foul to lead everyone into thinking Cafe is wrong once again when he never was.

Now it's all about the scenarios. I don't see how his explainations are limited by his own biases when I too agree that there does appear to be premeditation, thereby eliminating any possibility of attacks by will. If you want to attack someone after they've wronged you, that's will. Premeditation occurs after talking. If you want to try and resolve things by first talking, there is no desire to retaliate, at least not yet anyway. It's when peaceful resolution is not successful and *then* the suspect has the desire to attack the victim later on, then that is premeditated, a desire of planned attack that spawned after an unresolved conflict. We may never know the true events in the pacific mall incident, but it's definately clear that it was a premeditated attack.

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. If you can't settle things peacefully, then at least agree to disagree.

[Cafe_333]

Really, Cafe_333. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but you are so tunnel-visioned on the "previous confrontation" that it's getting rather comical.I don't know why you are bringing up the Staples employee incident. If you read my posts carefully you would realize that argument has been brought up already and I concluded it as an attack stemmed from will. They did not choose to be confrontational, they were completely innocent and bare no responsibility nor blame whatsoever towards the outcome. Anyway, there are no 'other' possibilities - all wise has done was reilliterate the ones I have already outlined. The staples incident was stemmed from will. The pacific mall incident however was not because there was premeditation. The fact that there was premeditation means there was an earlier confrontation.

Anyway, if you read the tone of this post earlier I apologize for it. I hope you can understand the frustration of having to argue the same points over and over again for people to understand all whilst being faced with attacks with comments directed at me like "you are so tunnel-visioned" and that my arguments are getting "comical". How about you try providing some relevant points to disprove my position than attacking me? I am sure you are capable of keeping this debate with a mature tone. For future reference, try thinking out your argument before accusing me of something. I just easily disproved yours by using a point I have made several times already - the same points I am clearly not getting through to wise. Are they that hard to comprehend? Sheesh...

[Cafe_333]

Wow I can't believe the debate has gone on this long. I just finished reading all of your posts and I'm sorry but I completely agree with Cafe_333 on this one.Thanks for the support Coke

[wise]

First Cafe stated that the victim got gang beaten because he had some responsibility in it. Then you twisted it into making everyone think Cafe believes victims of all crimes deserve it, followed by accusing Cafe of blaming the victim for the crime. For the most part, this is the majority of the context twisting I've read. You delayed progress by pressing that same issue for SEVEN thread pages while singing the same song of deserving blame with misused posts as proof to your claim of 'valid critiscms'.


Flame all you want, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less stupid punk off our streets. Yeah it's tragic that he died, but what do you expect when you get involved with gangs. He obviously did something real stupid, was very cocky, hot headed, talked alot of trash, and/or pissed off the wrong people, to get such a severe beating. Considering the location, he may not have known his attackers beforehand which only leads me to believe he had a hand in stirring up shiet and elevated the tension with those guys. Whatever really happend, he had a hand in it, that's for sure. Gangs don't pick on people just for kicks. They don't hand out severe beatings without just cause.

When you say the victim did this or did that to get such a severe beating you are blaming him. As I pointed out before, blame is attributing responsibility for something to a person. In this case, the attribution of responsibility for the resulted beating to the vicitm for INSTIGATING the beating and in Cafe 333's later posts, allegedly not attempting to "walk away" from the situation. Blame is further even more apparent when it is based on assumptions and turned into a MUST with certainty.

I did not "twist" everybody into believing that Cafe 333 said all victims of crime deserve it. Anybody who agrees with that agrees with it because they think so too. They are not hearing this from my mouth only, they are hearing it from his mouth too. His posts are are there for everybody to read. They can come to their own conclusions themselves. Please don't insult them by insisting things can be "twisted" for them to believe something, when everything in this debate has been all open on this forum. If I said the sky is blue people might agree with me if they think it is. Yet if I said the sky is purple, I doubt any would. You're the one twisting things. When Cafe 333 said, "gangs don't pick on people just for kicks" and "they don't hand out beatings without just cause", that is blaming any victim for a gang beating. Not isolated to this incident and this case, but expanding the assumption and belief that victims (yes plural) of gang violence MUST have done something to deserve it since gangs "don't hand out beatings without JUST cause". Saying that "gangs don't pick on people just for kicks" is interpreting that gangs don't attack people for unjustified reasons. Like I said before, the problem with this thinking is that many times the reasons for violence is, and can be classified as "for kicks". So when Cafe 333 say's gangs don't do this, he is again saying that any violence towards a victim must be because the victim gave the gang a (just) reason for doing so to them. That is blame. And that is blame being applied to all victims of gang violence.

In this case, Cafe 333 doesn't know the victim and doesn't know what happened to make his attackers want to, and end up beating him. Yet he is so assured that the victim

1) did something real stupid
2) was very cocky
3) was hot headed
4) talked alot of trash

SINCE HE GOT such a severe beating. Cafe 333 states himself that the victim must have "had a hand in stirring up shiet" and elevating the situation with his attackers by escalating it. Cafe 333 states that "whatever really happened", the victim "had a hand in it, that's for sure". He also insists the victim further escalated things even more and didn't walk away. How on earth can this not be blaming the victim for the violence that befell him? It's pinning responsibility on him for it without even knowing if he did those things. If he did factually do them, that's still blame, though more justified blame. In this case, when we don't know factually if he did them, yet Cafe 333 is insisting he did, how can that not be blame? It's blame. Unjustified blame. It's ridiculous that saying a victim must have done a bunch of negative things in order to get beaten up, is not blaming him for it. What the hell does blame mean then? It's like you and Cafe 333 are ignoring the existence of the word, what it means, and how it is used. Regardless if it's right to blame him or not it's blame.

In context, when you take his all-encompassing comments in the last part of his original post, and look at how he words and speaks about the case at hand, you see where the whole "deserve" issue arises from. He obviously concluded and made up his mind since the beginning that the victim was a punk and didn't have sympathy for what happened to him by saying as far as he was concerned, it was "one less punk off our streets". The reason he thought this way is b/c the victim "obviously" had to have done a list of things he assumed he MUST have done to get beaten down since he had views that victims of gang violence must have contributed to their own fate. So here we have lack of sympathy (in fact worded in a way that seems he is GLAD the victim is now dead in the original post, and in the following post he admits he's happy one less punk is gone) BECAUSE the victim (allegedly/was assumed to have) done certain negative things to cause his own beating at the hands of his attackers. We also have the belief that gangs don't attack people without JUST cause. So it seems we have a pretty good reason for understanding Cafe 333's initial post as him blaming the victim for what happened, blaming all victims of violence for what happened, and thinking/feeling that he deserved it. Re-read the post. Look at the wording and attitude that comes across. What I got from it could be gleaned from it both if you look at the words literally, but also if you read between the lines.



Then you proceeded to twist things once again by making it seem like Cafe believes victims of all gang violence must have been confrontational / escalated it or must have done nothing to avoid it, again using his own words out of context. I agree with Cafe once again here, he has never made that generalization for all gang violence. Seems to me he only stated that generalization for attacks stemmed from premeditation and an earlier confrontation only, not ALL gang violence in general. If you took the time to understand his position on attacks stemmed from will, you would know he does not make that same generalization. He's continually stated that victims of will have no blame at all. This negates your twisted context but somehow you think otherwise and once again cried foul to lead everyone into thinking Cafe is wrong once again when he never was.

Like I said above, and I said before, how did I take anything out of context? His post was extremely straight-forward. If you look at it literally that's what comes across with what he said in it. If you interpret it by reading between the lines that message gets even stronger. He provided his own context. I didn't take him anywhere he didn't go himself.

I agree he changed his tune and tone of what he said in his initial post but that doesn't excuse or change what he said in his initial post. If I said the sky is purple originally, saying the sky is blue later doesn't change the fact that I ORIGINALLY said quite clearly, that the sky is purple. I can say I change my mind or that I was mistaken. But I don't think I can argue that I never said that to begin with.

He never made the distinction between premeditation/will in his first post. All we have to go by is what he said. And what he said was absolute. There were no ifs ands or buts. So how can I take him out of context, regarding blaming victims of premeditated crimes of violence only, when that wasn't in the context of his post to begin with? Your logic is absurd.

[wise]

I know what he claims later on. The problem is that he says the victim must be responsible for what happened because he could have avoided it. Yet he claims he doesn't blame the victim. This doesn't make much sense. The definition of blame is responsibility. With a more negative connotation. In this case, that applies. If a person looks at a victim that was beaten down for something that he did unknowingly or couldn't undo or avoid, then saying he was responsible for it, can be seen as a minor way of blaming, or to many, maybe not blaming at all. The latter because there might not be a negative aspect attributed to the victim's actions towards the result. But if a person says the victim was beaten down for something he DID do, and do so knowingly as well as deliberately not doing anything to avoid it, even when he could avoid it, then that is responsibility that we call blame. You are saying it's his fault it happened. Fault because he led himself to that situation and also, he could have avoided it. No fault means he didn't actively/knowingly lead himself to that situation and he couldn't have avoided it. So by saying there is this type of responsibility, it is saying he is at fault to a certainly large extent. That is blame. Usually when people say "it's your fault you got yourself into this mess", they are essentially saying "you have nobody to blame but yourself for this". Even if it's not total fault, and partial fault, it's still blame. Partial blame. And partial blame is still blame. The victim is being blamed for what happened no matter how you look at it. Cafe 333 is blaming the victim for what happened because of his beliefs of what causes premeditated violence, and because he of his belief that victims of premeditated gang violence always have responsibility/fault.



Now it's all about the scenarios. I don't see how his explainations are limited by his own biases when I too agree that there does appear to be premeditation, thereby eliminating any possibility of attacks by will. If you want to attack someone after they've wronged you, that's will. Premeditation occurs after talking. If you want to try and resolve things by first talking, there is no desire to retaliate, at least not yet anyway. It's when peaceful resolution is not successful and *then* the suspect has the desire to attack the victim later on, then that is premeditated, a desire of planned attack that spawned after an unresolved conflict. We may never know the true events in the pacific mall incident, but it's definately clear that it was a premeditated attack.

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. If you can't settle things peacefully, then at least agree to disagree.

Premeditation occurs when you think about, and plan in advance. Make up your mind to perform a course of action (and then fulfill it). In cases of premeditation, there doesn't need to be talking. It doesn't have to occur after talking. It can also occur before talking. The attackers could have planned on attacking the victim before the lone suspect engaged the victim and his friend in conversation. Since the rest of them went in during the talking stage, and not at a later time or date, this is very plausible. If we think about it this way, then it would be very reasonable to think that whatever the victim said or did during this talking, that he would have been beaten regardless.

This gets back to one of my examples now. The one where the victim unknowingly hit a suspect's car and pissed off the suspect. The suspect, instead of confronting the victim and trying to resolve it, plans out a PREMEDITATED attack on him with his friends. He find the suspect at a later time and tells him off about the prior incident. At this point in time he has already planned the attack and enlisted his friends to help him carry it out. This is an example of a premeditated attack where the victim has no chance to "walk away" from nor deescalate. His fate was already sealed long before from an unintentional accidental act. Whatever he says in attempting to diffuse the situation, whatever he might withhold from saying to avoid escalating the situation, and however he tries to or succeeds in walking away - he is still going to get beaten.

I am not saying this is what happened. I am not even saying this is the most plausible assumption of what might have occured. But I am putting forth an example where Cafe 333's convictions and beliefs fail, an example that could really have occured where the victim has less a hand in what happened than Cafe 333 is INSISTING. Where the victim has LESS RESPONSIBILTY, is not really at FAULT, and should not be BLAMED.

In my example, ths victim hasn't done what Cafe 333 insists ALL VICTIMS of premeditated gang violence must have done. Chiefly, ESCALATING and FAILURE TO WALK AWAY.

Sort of like IF, on that day when the first staples employee walked away from the gang and into the store, the gang didn't beat him right then and there. Instead they leave and plan to ambush him later on at another time, say after work when he's leaving to go home. That is thinking of committing a crime and intention of committing a crime before the actual committing of a crime. That is premeditation. If carried out, that would be premeditated gang violence on a victim that didn't actively do anything to escalate the situation, and a victim that walked away from the situation.



I can't believe the debate has been going as long as it have. I just finished reading all of your posts and I'm sorry but I completely agree with Cafe_333 on this one. There is just so much back & forth that I have to give my take on this. Somebody has to step in and settle things. You are preventing progress when you keep taking things out of context, wise.

You delayed progress by pressing that same issue for SEVEN thread pages...

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. If you can't settle things peacefully, then at least agree to disagree.

- I can't believe it either. That makes two of us. Apology accepted. Although, I too, am sorry you agree with Cafe 333 on this one. I'm glad you feel you have to give your take on this. I'm also glad you feel like it's your job (and that you have the ability) to step in and settle things. How very noble and commendable of you.

- This is a discussion forum. Seven pages isn't much. If it bothers you so much, log in when viewing the thread so that the entire thread becomes only five pages :) Viola! Magic. Oh yeah, if you mind next time you could avoid reading the whole thread or posts between Cafe 333 and I. It's pretty simple really.

- I'm glad you being the forum police, feel that this has gone on long enough. But since Cafe 333 obviously doesn't think this way, maybe you should send him a PM telling him how you feel too. Or better yet, make yet another post regarding this issue telling him to. Irony escapes you doesn't it. (edit: In the event you're speaking about your own post, it's fine. Unlike you, I don't place word count limits on discussions ;) )

One thing you've said IS sound though. Agree to disagree. Neither you or Cafe 333 have explained why my examples don't work still. You spend a entire post wasting time criticizing me yet you never adequately or properly address this. That's ok though, I think that's because it's a very valid point that pokes a nice little hole in the "premeditated gang violence victim blame" theory. So I'm done with this thread now since I have made an argument that has not been refuted and most likely will never be. It's been fun guys :)

[nopn]

wow, you guys still writing the essay ?

may be you should get each other msn.

[Cafe_333]

Just when I thought this thread had died you're back again. All I'm hearing from you now are the same old arguments that are serving to prove nothing. Quote me all you like, I don't hide from anything. Just as I have never hid from the fact that I do blame the victim for having a hand in the outcome. I made no secret of this. Why were you making such a huge fuss about 'blame' in the context of several paragraphs in your last couple posts? I do blame the victim, however know that the context I blame him for is in being confrontational. I do not blame him for the crime. For some illogical reason you seem to think I do and twisted the context of my initial posts into making it seem like I do - which is the only reason why anyone believed you in the first place. It's becoming quite apparent to me that you can't comprehend the simple difference between blaming the victim for being confrontational and blaming the victim for the crime. There is a difference, but you don't want to believe there is. Well let's say victim damaged the suspect's car door and refused compensation. Suspect is so mad he pulls a gun and kills him. Well who is to blame here? While I do blame the victim for being confrontational, I don't blame him for being a victim of the crime. I blame the suspect for the crime. Sure the victim may escalate a situation, but it doesn't mean he deserved to die because he did. How hard is this to understand? Everyone else intelligent enough can see the difference. I guess you'd rather not so that you can continue believing in such delusional contexts because then it would make your cristicsms seem 'valid' in your mind. Well be my guest. It's clearly not convincing anyone else anymore.

I never had to make the distinction between will and premeditation in my first post. The incident itself was a premeditated attack because the 6 gang members knew where he was before hand. Why should I state the obvious? When I stated gangs don't pick on people without reason or cause, it was an after thought in correlation to the sentences it immediately followed. I have never made this generalization for ALL gang violence. When you quote that line by itself it appears to, however it was made in context to the pacific mall incident wherein I later explained the relation that in the event of an attack stemmed from premeditation, I do put some responsibility to the victim. I have made this point clear time and time again yet you repeatedly failed to account this.

Your 'new' example is flawed. Now you are trying to say that the victim unknowingly damaged the suspect's car and suspect wanted immediate retaliation. You are trying to make the incident seem like an attack stemmed from will. Your example would work if the suspect scoured around the mall, found him, and beat him right away. However there was talking - why would there be any talking if there was no oppurtunity for peaceful resolution? The fact that they talked shows that the suspect wanted something, before there was desire for retaliation. Even if I ignored this point, the fact remains that they met inside a karaoke room, so it was prearranged meeting. How else would the other 6 thugs who appear later in the timeline know exactly which room they were in? This means Owen chose to confront the suspect over whatever conflict they had. He chose to be confrontational after the initial conflict. There was confrontation before the existence of premeditation. Now you want to leave this thread on the pretense that you provided an argument that could not be refuted - yet you seem to completely ignore how I proved why your examples would not work in post #188. I have provided rebuttals that completely refuted your arguments and yet you deliberately refused to address them. Well hey, if that pretense helps you sleep at night then we'll end it here on agreeing to disagree.

[xchodax]

can somoene sum up wat those two are writing? im interested...but i dont wanna read another novel =/

[Dragon120]

WISE & CAFE333- where can we get the Coles notes version?

[PCDawg]

bringing back from the dead....

Didnt want to bother reading the 'essays'. Has all the suspects been arrested or found yet?

[Jyeatbvg69]

this is the funniest ****ing thread in all of RFD. *props