I think that if this occurred in the context of a strictly social gathering without the hazing I would tend to agree with you.
Death Threat to PSU Beta Members
- Thread starter LafayetteBear
- Start date
I think that if this occurred in the context of a strictly social gathering without the hazing I would tend to agree with you.
So, if someone tripped him down the stairs, that excludes them from calling 911?
I think people are focusing too much on who provided the alcohol, how much he drank during the hazing vs later at the party, etc. While I think those are valid issues to be discussed, in PA my understanding is involuntary manslaughter is when the defendant is shown to have caused the victim's death by reckless or grossly negligent conduct. Not contacting medical help after he fell down the stairs more than once might be enough to convict them right there, if the judge/jury believe their behavior did not follow the standard that a reasonable person would follow. The fact that they also provided the alcohol and started the drinking with the hazing just adds fuel to the fire. But even if you take that away, I think the behavior AFTERWARDS is what is going to sink them. Video edited by SPM isn't going to show them gettIng him medical attention hours earlier. The real question is would a reasonable person just let him sleep it off, regardless of what he may have said when conscious, or would they say no, we're getting someone to make sure you're OK, you've fallen down stairs twice.
LOL. Didn't you acknowledge that you had not seen the tape, but add that it wouldn't matter? (Something about seeing them "robbing the bank," and how that would be enough no matter what the rest of the tape showed.)
Yes, and I'm wondering how if you saw someone robbing a bank on a tape what would it take on the rest of the tape would exonerate them. Honest question.
I haven't seen the Beta tape, and am willing to reserve judgement until everything (including the unedited tape is seen by the defense), but I don't get the hide the weenie/double standard at play of "you haven't seen the tape, there might be exculpatory evidence on it" and "I haven't seen the tape either". I'm curious...what exculpatory evidence do you expect is edited out? Is there care being given/is he being checked on constantly? Pulse being taken? Did he get drunk by himself outside of the pledge activities? I'm honestly trying to figure out what exculpatory evidence the tape could show. Unless you can spell that out, it's unfair of you to criticize people for basing their view points on what's been released in the press/presentment about the tape (which seems to be far stronger evidence than the 10 year old recollection of mike mcquery).
Last edited:
This isn't a laughing matter. Someone died that didn't have to die and many around him could have helped. Instead, they hit him and threw him around. It's disgusting.
1,000 charges filed and you just can't imagine there's something in there that could wipe one of them out?
Yes, I'm sure there's something that could get rid of one of the 1000s of charges. I'm curious about the manslaughter ones. What would you see on the tape that would get rid of involuntary manslaughter? If he knows what exculpatory evidence is being edited out or left out of the presentment, maybe he should say so instead of saying "you don't know because you haven't seen the tape." That's my overall point..
Unless the rest of the tape shows them getting him medical attention on a timely basis, before it is was too late, or shows him being constantly watched and attended to by someone in the house (and not hit or whatever they're claiming happened), what could possibly exonerate them from failing to help someone they knew had fallen down the stairs more than once? We know the former didn't happen, and it doesn't sound like the latter happened either.
And I'll ask you again... have YOU seen the entire tape?
Well at least not Ali and Frazier (if we're going to throw strawmen around)
The Snapchat taken during his death throes was to document the injuries in order to properly brief the EMTs don't you know
Nah, just human beings. Do you really have that low of expectations of people who are a year from entering the workforce, old enough to be in the armed forces, and smart enough to be engineering and finance majors to not have the collective sense to cal 911 after seeing someone fal "hair first" down a flight of steps?
I have already posted, in this thread, about possible exculpatory evidence I would not be surprised to see detailed in court testimony). All you have to do is go back and re-read my posts. My primary point was that the three hours that SPN edited it down to is not a fair or accurate picture of things. But frankly, I'm tired of debating with you, since you have already made up your mind. Fine. Run with that.
N
apologies, i see the post referenced (care being given, etc.). Truly wasn't trying to dig my heels in, was curious as to what else may have been out there.
Did you read the law?
"Forced calisthenics " is one of the specific examples of hazing written in the law.
Not to be cruel or anything, but your entire post could apply to the Piazzas as well.
Forced calisthenics that "recklessly on intentionally endangers the mental of physical health of the student" is problematic. Mandatory workouts that don't endanger the mental or physical health are OK, I presume.
Yes, I believe it is absolutely possible that they didn't have the sense to call 911. Conversely, I don't believe that anyone thought he was at risk of death and failed to call 911 . . . Except, perhaps, the prosecutions star witness.
Well, some in the OAG say MM had a photo "graphic" memory/way of describing things...
Yes I did read the law and if you had you would see it is two part law. You simply cannot ignore the recklessly or intentionally endangers someone part of the law. Having a person doing forced calisthenics is not a crime. Having a person doing forced calisthenics that recklessly endangers the person is a crime. I don't know why that is a diffucult concept to grasp. Penn State takes steps to not endanger the players. They are given thorough physicals before participating. A trained medical staff is onsite at every workout. The individuals conducting the workouts are certified in strenght and conditioning. These steps are taken so the school doesn't recklessly endanger the lives of players. That is a huge difference between a pledge master forcing a pledge to do push ups till the puke or senior band members making freshmen run sprints till they can't anymore.
I don't think merely whether or not the person was at risk for dying should have triggered a 911 call.
If they didn't have the sense to call 911, or have someone take him to the hospital or clinic to be checked out, and a judge/jury believes that a reasonable person would have called 911 in that situation, or taken him to the hospital or clinic, then they are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Alcohol impairment of judgement is not a defense, just like driving drunk, or fighting while drunk, is not a defense (if I had been sober, I wouldn't have hit him, your honor -- that's not a defense).
Ask yourself this: if your son or daughter or spouse fell down the stairs twice in the same day, would you seek medical attention to be safe, even if it was driving them to a hospital or clinic rather than calling 911?
This just isn't an accurate statement of the law.
This isn't even an accurate hypothetical.[/QUOTE]
Hazing as defined under Pennsylvania law is not the same as coercion. Piazza was involved in a consensual hazing situation. He understood that he was going to be asked to drink as a part of his pledging situation, and obviously had no problem with that. Obviously, he didn't agree to die, but hopefully we can all agree that nobody intended his death. This isn't at all like a hazing situation where somebody is assaulted.
You need to read the law again. It doesn't matter if he willing participated in the activity.
For purposes of this definition, any activity as described in this definition upon which the initiation or admission into or affiliation with or continued membership in an organization is directly or indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be "forced" activity, the willingness of an individual to participate in such activity notwithstanding.
Not sure why you think this is in any way responsive to what I wrote, but knock yourself out.
[/QUOTE]
Cite the law and get back to me.
How is my hypothetical not "accurate?" By definition, it's a hypothetical, and isn't required to be accurate. LOL But settling that aside... in my hypothetical, I asked if you would seek medical care for a close relative if they fell down the stairs twice in one day. If you would, why wouldn't you do the same for a fraternity pledge/brother who did the same? Because he was drunk? Because you were drunk? Because he's just a pledge?
You are focusing on the wrong thing. Forget the hazing and drinking for a moment. In their fraternity house, a pledge fell down the stairs twice. He was obviously inebriated and unable to accurately assess his condition. His "brothers" didn't get him timely medical attention, which if that led to his death, was reckless behavior which leads to involuntary manslaughter charges. Their actions/inactions in not seeking medical treatment are the big issue. The rest is minor, although contributing factors.
Of course nobody intended his death. Nobody intends to kill or severely injure others with hazing, but it happens. The Gauntlet is textbook hazing.
I basically agree with this, but I don't think the answer is going to be as clear cut as you think.
Well, that depends on the details at trial. For example, a doctor could say his injuries were lethal even if medical help were sought immediately. That would change the equation to focus on the hazing.
But this fact doesn't seem to be in dispute: medical help was not sought right away. That in itself is pretty damning. It appears that medical help was not sought at s time when it should have been apparent he needed looked at (although I'm sure they'd lawyers are going to take this as their defense--that they had no way to tell).A lot will probably come down to the text messages they tried to get rid of.
But what about the girls who tripped him up (assuming this happened)? Shouldn't they have gotten help? Or, are they excused because it wasn't "their" house, even though they did the tripping? And, why does the guy who admitted that he knew that Piazza needed help get a free pass for not calling 911? Is he excused because someone else told him not to? Is that an actual excuse that you can use in a real courtroom?
What if Piazza himself said that he didn't need 911 after he fell?
Latest posts
-
-
Huhn and Mickens: already committed for 2026! Nice start- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
Will this be the year we start bringing in offensive 5 stars again?- Latest: Sportfan2017