BigMike619 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/19/driveway.shooting.ap/index.html RIVERHEAD, New York (AP) -- A black father was sentenced to two to four years in prison Wednesday for fatally shooting an intoxicated white teenager during a racially charged confrontation with two carloads of young people at the end of his driveway. With all of the talk of racism and "the man" being extra critical and extra hard on black men, would this fall into the reverse category? It seems to me that if you own an illegal handgun and shoot a minor (drunk or not) in the face and he DIES, you should get more then 2 to 4 years in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb4348 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Yeah if the gun is Illegal then yes he should be sent to jail longer. However if the gun was legally registered then he should have got no jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 2-4 yerars?? Seriously, thats absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 More from the story: White testified that he was trying to protect his family on a hot August night in 2006 when he got an unregistered pistol from his garage after a group of angry white teenagers turned up at his house late at night to fight his son. He claimed the handgun discharged accidentally, killing Cicciaro.The conflict was fueled by a bogus Internet posting claiming Aaron White wanted to rape a female friend of one of the white teens. Cicciaro, who had a blood-alcohol reading above the legal limit for driving, was just 3 inches from the pistol when he was shot in the face, a medical examiner testified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I'm assuming he was charged with something like manslaughter and not something like pre-mediatated murder. What is the average sentence for the crime he was convicted? The max is 15, but do people regularly get 2-4 years? *EDIT** It seems this was light: "Miller Place attorney Steven Wilutis said he thought Kahn's sentence was "lenient," if only because Suffolk County Court's sentences are usually close to the maximum allowable term." http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lisent0320,0,901224.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 Yeah if the gun is Illegal then yes he should be sent to jail longer. However if the gun was legally registered then he should have got no jail time. he walked out of his house and shot the kid at the bottom of the driveway. thats not legal. you are "supposed" to call the police and let them come and handle the situation. also, shooting the kid in face from 3 inches shows that it is a little bit more then just self defense. he was in the kid's face close enough that he shot him point blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I'm assuming he was charged with something like manslaughter and not something like pre-mediatated murder.What is the average sentence for the crime he was convicted? The max is 15, but do people regularly get 2-4 years? White, 54, was convicted in December of second-degree manslaughter and a weapons charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I need a little more info before rendering judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 I need a little more info before rendering judgement. I posted the link above the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Here's an interesting commentary on the case http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-lijoy205619918mar20,0,1215378.column Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 he walked out of his house and shot the kid at the bottom of the driveway. thats not legal. you are "supposed" to call the police and let them come and handle the situation.also, shooting the kid in face from 3 inches shows that it is a little bit more then just self defense. he was in the kid's face close enough that he shot him point blank. He claims the gun went off accidentally, (not sure i believe that) but if i have a lynch mob in my driveway, im not waiting for the cops to show up. I guess sometimes there are bad consequences when you form a drunken mob and start threatening people. Where are all the NRA folk that always cheer when someone shoots someone for trespasing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 He claimed the gun discharged accidentally. Tragic. This problem is avoided if the parents keep their underage kids from getting drunk and driving over to someone's house with the obvious intention of causing trouble. That's probably why the sentence was light; the kid didn't have to play his part in this, but he did. That's called consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Considering you get half your minimum for good behavior, this guy will do one year, most likely in a county lock up, for shooting an unarmed kid point blank in the face with an illegal fire arm. Wow! I doubt anybody ****s with him again. That is almost worth it if things are bad enough to need a gun in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 He claims the gun went off accidentally, (not sure i believe that) but if i have a lynch mob in my driveway, im not waiting for the cops to show up.I guess sometimes there are bad consequences when you form a drunken mob and start threatening people. Where are all the NRA folk that always cheer when someone shoots someone for trespasing? If the kid was at the end of the drive, i.e. street thats pbulic property, no trespassing laws violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 He claimed the gun discharged accidentally. Tragic. This problem is avoided if the parents keep their underage kids from getting drunk and driving over to someone's house with the obvious intention of causing trouble. That's probably why the sentence was light; the kid didn't have to play his part in this, but he did. That's called consequences. so because the kid was drunk and maybe racist he deserves to be shot in the face and killed? man you are way off base there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Here's an interesting commentary on the casehttp://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-lijoy205619918mar20,0,1215378.column From your link Henry And so it continued yesterday, as White's lawyers held their ground, saying race should exempt White from punishment, while Cicciaro's family held theirs, arguing that because race had no part, White deserved no mercy. Anyone else see a big problem with the highlighter part? Exempt from punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 If the kid was at the end of the drive, i.e. street thats pbulic property, no trespassing laws violated. It says "foot" of the driveway. To me, thats a part of the driveway, which is part of his property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb4348 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 he walked out of his house and shot the kid at the bottom of the driveway. thats not legal. you are "supposed" to call the police and let them come and handle the situation.also, shooting the kid in face from 3 inches shows that it is a little bit more then just self defense. he was in the kid's face close enough that he shot him point blank. Dude I am not say what happened was right. However by law if the gun WAS Legal then he had any right to shoot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 It says "foot" of the driveway. To me, thats a part of the driveway, which is part of his property. At the foot of the bed is not in the bed. Meaning foot of the driveway does not mean he's standing in the driveway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 At the foot of the bed is not in the bed. Meaning foot of the driveway does not mean he's standing in the driveway. Well your FOOT is part of your body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Look, you can't just go outside and shoot kids in the face. You can't. No matter how tempting or annoying they are. You just don't shoot people in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 so because the kid was drunk and maybe racist he deserves to be shot in the face and killed?man you are way off base there. No, but because the kid was drunk and maybe racist he or his family have to accept the consequences for his actions. You do something, you accept the consequences. Unfortunately you don't always forsee your consequences and they don't always match your actions in terms of severity, but that's life. If you want to say someone's off base, blame God, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 Dude I am not say what happened was right. However by law if the gun WAS Legal then he had any right to shoot him. not really..if he is not coming thru the door of your place you dont have the right to shoot him. theres a NRA saying that goes : if you shoot a man outside just make sure he falls in the house so you are clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 so because the kid was drunk and maybe racist he deserves to be shot in the face and killed?man you are way off base there. No. If the kid 'deserved' it, White wouldn't have been arrested, or sent to jail. It was ruled an accident. The accident could have been avoided if a) the kids didn't show up drunk looking for a fight and White didn't possess a loaded, illegal firearm and c) the drunk kid didn't reach for the loaded firearm whilst three feet from it White is going to jail for that second part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 No, but because the kid was drunk and maybe racist he or his family have to accept the consequences for his actions. You do something, you accept the consequences. Unfortunately you don't always forsee your consequences and they don't always match your actions in terms of severity, but that's life. If you want to say someone's off base, blame God, not me. Right, I am sure that's it. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.