Misdemeanor or felony?


One of the things that really bothered me was the categorization of the crime as a misdemeanor.
Breaking into a person's home, knowing that person is at home, and taking a gun with you shows a premeditation to use that gun. This takes the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.
This alone makes the sentencing by the judge to be utter nonsense. Both those kids committed a very serious crime and the judge made a mockery of the judicial system.

The pumps don't work 'cause the Vandals stole the handles
Bob Dylan

reply

I guess the judge took it easy on them because they were minors... but it should have been a felony because he had a gun.

reply


SPOILERS!!

I feel like it would at least be deemed manslaughter since their actions directly lead to someone dying.

reply

[deleted]

They definitely would've gotten some kind of time. Three to ten years easy. To give only probation like they did was indeed a joke.

reply

It's like the judge said. These boy's will have to spend the rest of their lives living with the fact their actions made someone kill themselves. That's not easy. The guilt will do much more damage than time served, if that's not enough for you think about this will impact everything they do. I doubt Sean will be able to get into MIT or even a worthwhile job, Ethan will suffer the same problems.

reply

The guilt will do much more damage than time served, if that's not enough for you think about this will impact everything they do.


Bullsqueeze! The two are sociopaths and the feeling of guilt is something they will never have to worry about. In their minds, they are the victims. Same as you likely perceive them, innocent victims now possibly unable to get into MIT.





He killed sixteen Czechoslovakians. Guy was an interior decorator.

reply

How are they sociopaths? They messed with an old man, yes but nothing that marks them as being one. It's sad and unfortunate that he died but that was not something they intenionally set out to see happen

reply

Are you serious right now? They were straight up psychotic and you might be too if you seriously think nothing was wrong with what they did. The movie practically beat you over the head with the fact that these two evil kids got off easy and should've been put away for murder.

That was literally the message of the movie.

reply

You dont know traits of a sociopath then.


Move along and educate yourself.

reply

[deleted]

Complete nonsense. Yeah they did some incredibly idiotic things but that hardly makes them sociopaths. Though very tasteless and dangerous and criminal, there was nothing sociopathic about their behavior.

There was plenty of indication that at the very least, Sean would be wracked with guilt by what happened. Ethan may not be. However, neither of them seemed to think they were the victims of anything.

You could afford to take out a DSM-V, look up antisocial personality disorder (the diagnostic term for "sociopath") and educate yourself on the things you say before you say them.

reply

It might make them cruel but it definitely doesn't make them a sociopath.

I think it's dangerous when people throw around terms like that to people they DO NOT apply to so haphazardly. When you label behavior that is clearly not up to the level of a sociopath as such, you can cause people to be more dismissive of actual sociopathic behavior.

What is the Definition of a Sociopath?
The DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder as "[a] pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."

It's important to note that sociopathic children do not exist as a person cannot be diagnosed as a socipath until age 18. While the patterns of behavior and personality traits exist prior to adulthood, until then, a child may be diagnosed with conduct disorder, but he can't be defined as a sociopath.


First off, being that they are both minors, they cannot be defined as sociopaths. But even if they were not minors,neither qualifies under the definition.

1. There is no evidence that other than this one incident that either Ethan or Sean have engaged in REPEATED actions that are grounds for arrest. And no, you can't say they did repeated things to Grainey. That would be one incident.
2. They weren't deceitful either. They pretty much told everyone exactly what they were doing.
3. They definitely had the ability to plan ahead and it was shown by the very nature of the project itself.
4. There was no unusual irritability or aggressiveness from either boy. They argued occasionally but no more than anyone else.
5. They did not show reckless disregard for their own safety. If they did, Ethan would not have tried to hide from Grainey. Sean was extremely concerned about his own safety as well. Their project, which was absolutely awful, was not designed to compromise Grainey's safety. In fact, Ethan was very concerned when Grainey was freezing in the house. Their project was cruel, but hardly a deliberate attempt to compromise the man's safety.
6 There was absolutely no indication that their irresponsible in regards to their work or financial obligations. They, in fact, showed extreme dedication to their work, especially Ethan.
7. Ethan MAY not be remorseful, but Sean definitely was.

So, no, 3 or more of these criteria did NOT apply to either boy. So by definition, they were not sociopaths.

They were two kids who did something incredibly stupid that had consequences that were severe but were not intended. That doesn't make them sociopaths.

reply

Ethan was happy; he was going to get his dream of one million views... he's the sociopath. Sean, on the other hand will feel bad about it for the rest of his life, he may or may not go to MIT.

Poyzunus 1

reply

He wanted to become famous. Generally every person that uploads to youtube wants to hit a million views on videos, are those people sociopaths too? What these boy's did was wrong, without a doubt, Ethan did have some malicious intent with scaring this guy, they never set out to see him die

reply

LOL. User nightfeather genuinely seems to think GUILT is an acceptable sentence for MAJOR CRIMES.

Please never become a lawyer you f uckin moron.

reply

The only f ucking moron here is you. Please don't have kids, your level of stupid needs to die off

reply

Generally every person that uploads to youtube wants to hit a million views on videos, are those people sociopaths too?
Yes, if they achieve those views by tormenting another living being.
----

reply

I don't think that the judge's sentence was 'utter nonsense' since Ethan and Sean did not set out to harm Harold Grainey. They only wanted to film his reaction to unusual stimuli. I don't even think that this makes them sociopathic- maybe just dupes of reality TV and Youtube culture.

However, there is the fact that the old man died during the escapade, but what would happen if the two boys filmed themselves robbing a store to check out the reactions of the shoppers and a customer decided to commit suicide during the heist?

Could they be charged with murder?

Free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can't

reply

You're nuts. Violating someone else's privacy alone shows the behavior of a crazy person. The fact that you think that's ok is ridiculous.

reply

You can do bad things and not be crazy or a sociopath or psychopath. No one is saying that it is okay.

reply

valis never said it was "ok." Valis just said that they didn't set out to harm Grainey and that is the truth. Don't put words in someone's mouth.

And you picked the right screen name for you on here, because everything you have posted is utterly ridiculous.

reply

Yes, in that case they could be charged with felony murder.

reply

You're probably right, but for the purposes of the movie I think they ended it correctly. We're meant to be left feeling disturbed that this kid is undeterred in his pursuit of being a 'filmmaker' on the edge etc.

reply

Breaking into someone's home with a gun is a felony almost everywhere. I don't know where they got the idea that would be classified as a misdemeanor.

reply

It's up to the prosecution to decide what to charge the kids with and the jury decide whether or not they are guilty. In this case the judge merely handed down the sentencing.

Also - suicide does not fit under the 'death occurred during a felony' rule.

The most questioning part of the court case is that both kids were tried together. I thought that was rather odd.

reply