Frat brothers get prison for paddling pledge

AlphaFrog · #1 01-31-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTW

From the CNN article:

Don't send her baby daddy to jail!

Here's the thing:
She's 4 months pregnant, so his sentance will be about 1/4 over by the time she gives birth. Then the kid will be without a father for a year and a half. Boohoo. That kid will not remember if it had a father for at least the first 3-4 years of it's life. Can you remember anything that happened to you before preschool & kindergarten? It's not that serious if he really wants to be a father.

DSTRen13 · #2 01-31-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Here's the thing:
She's 4 months pregnant, so his sentance will be about 1/4 over by the time she gives birth. Then the kid will be without a father for a year and a half. Boohoo. That kid will not remember if it had a father for at least the first 3-4 years of it's life. Can you remember anything that happened to you before preschool & kindergarten? It's not that serious if he really wants to be a father.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a mother to want the father of her child to be with her during the pregnancy, birth, and first years of the child's life. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, that is definitely that serious.

(Maybe someone can explain this to me - the "victims" in these hazing cases all are willing participants, correct? So how is this something that anyone can be legally punished for? I'm sure that there is an explanation, but I've never really heard it, and I was just wondering about that.)

Drolefille · #3 01-31-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

I don't think it's unreasonable for a mother to want the father of her child to be with her during the pregnancy, birth, and first years of the child's life. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, that is definitely that serious.

(Maybe someone can explain this to me - the "victims" in these hazing cases all are willing participants, correct? So how is this something that anyone can be legally punished for? I'm sure that there is an explanation, but I've never really heard it, and I was just wondering about that.)

I think it was mentioned in the article that the law just recently passed bans the use of "willing participant" as an excuse. The idea being that you are peer pressured into it, and when it comes down to it, it's not ok to assault someone no matter what.

If someone dies after participating in activity that they were a willing particpant in (but they didn't expect to die) is there no fault? Or should someone be responsible.

AlphaFrog · #4 01-31-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

I don't think it's unreasonable for a mother to want the father of her child to be with her during the pregnancy, birth, and first years of the child's life. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, that is definitely that serious.

People in hell want icewater. So?

This woman's baby-daddy is a convicted felon. Should all felons get off their sentence so they can be baby-daddies?? Regardless of your opinion of hazing being a felony, it is, and he got caught, so he has to pay the price.

squirrely girl · #5 01-31-2007, 01:24 PM

i think a busted ear drum qualifies as serious bodily harm. not cool.

Drolefille · #6 01-31-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

i think a busted ear drum qualifies as serious bodily harm. not cool.

It's never happened to me but I've had earaches before and all I can think of is DAMN that would hurt like hell. Worse than bruises for me.

ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl · #7 01-31-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's never happened to me but I've had earaches before and all I can think of is DAMN that would hurt like hell. Worse than bruises for me.

It does. My ex got a bad infection and ended up having his ear drum burst. He actually cried. And pain doesn't get to him...he's a pain junkie. It was bad.

Drolefille · #8 01-31-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl

It does. My ex got a bad infection and ended up having his ear drum burst. He actually cried. And pain doesn't get to him...he's a pain junkie. It was bad.

owwwwww, i'm cringing

ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl · #9 01-31-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

I don't think it's unreasonable for a mother to want the father of her child to be with her during the pregnancy, birth, and first years of the child's life. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, that is definitely that serious.

(Maybe someone can explain this to me - the "victims" in these hazing cases all are willing participants, correct? So how is this something that anyone can be legally punished for? I'm sure that there is an explanation, but I've never really heard it, and I was just wondering about that.)

It's not unreasonable, but we all know that's not the way it works. I just hope she has a good support system through her family and friends, because raising a child alone is hard. Heck, raising a child with dad at home is hard work. I don't blame her for trying, even though she has to know it's a lost cause. But who she should be upset with, really, is her fiancee.

I've read a million policies on hazing from the school, glos, etc. It seems like the "hazee" is also held responsible if they allow the event to occur, but to a lesser extent. I think that's fair. (I also think "hazing" encompasses things that should not be considered hazing, but bodily harm most certainly should.) I love my sisters, but you better believe during my term as a new member if I had been physically hurt, been forced to do things that affected my school work, been forced to publically humiliate myself, they wouldn't have been able to get my to participate. I'd be out of there in a heart beat.

DSTRen13 · #10 01-31-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl

I've read a million policies on hazing from the school, glos, etc. It seems like the "hazee" is also held responsible if they allow the event to occur, but to a lesser extent. I think that's fair. (I also think "hazing" encompasses things that should not be considered hazing, but bodily harm most certainly should.) I love my sisters, but you better believe during my term as a new member if I had been physically hurt, been forced to do things that affected my school work, been forced to publically humiliate myself, they wouldn't have been able to get my to participate. I'd be out of there in a heart beat.

Yes, this is what I was thinking --- the policies I have seen of various campuses and groups all have consequences for both hazers and "hazees". I didn't understand how the legal system had it set up, since apparently it only punishes one side (and IMO, hazing cannot exist without two sides). Judge Mitch, thank you for your explanation --- that was very informative and helped a lot!

Tom Earp · #11 01-31-2007, 04:37 PM

Consent among so called Adults is not always a defense especially when a person is either violated or harmed.

In this case, "The Pledges/Pledge" were harmed!

it is usually stated by either the School or The GLO that Hazing is not allowed!

This is basically assault or bodily harm on a person. If it is with a weapon such as a paddle, then it is with a weapon and a felony. That makes it prison time!

Now I am sure these members will come out of prison worse than when they went in!

Not smarter but vindictive.

macallan25 · #12 01-31-2007, 04:56 PM

Tom, good Lord.......read the two posts above you. They weren't talking about "consent" as defense for the hazers. They were shedding light on the fact that both the hazers and the one who gets hazed can get into trouble on some campuses.

Tom Earp · #13 01-31-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Tom, good Lord.......read the two posts above you. They weren't talking about "consent" as defense for the hazers. They were shedding light on the fact that both the hazers and the one who gets hazed can get into trouble on some campuses.

No stuff, they are in prison!

So, what the heck is your problem?

XiLove_Epsilon · #14 02-26-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

I don't think it's unreasonable for a mother to want the father of her child to be with her during the pregnancy, birth, and first years of the child's life. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, that is definitely that serious.

(Maybe someone can explain this to me - the "victims" in these hazing cases all are willing participants, correct? So how is this something that anyone can be legally punished for? I'm sure that there is an explanation, but I've never really heard it, and I was just wondering about that.)

I am completely with you on this one. Who's fault is it that some stupid kids went along with this? I mean, the chapters shouldn't haze but those kids should say no or do something.