8 Teenagers Beat Down On 1 Girl

[Faiien]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wu1SsAvRfCA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DqbLrlS15Kk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=poJEC_E6Cg4
What do you think should happen to these terrorizers?

[Dayoh]

On the whole "bashing" videos on Youtube, its gain more media attention several breakfast shows are peddling stories about them.

You cant post porn on youtube, why do they let people post this sorta stuff? I think it should be moderated same with the before.

[West]

What do you think should happen to these terrorizers?

they should be STONED!

edit:
One of the teens, Stephen Schumaker, 18, of Lakeland, was booked into the Polk County Jail. He is free on $5,000 bail.
that's some bullshit.

[Magmaniac]

I think eight lethal injections should do the trick.

[Modred]

I love how one of the mothers said something along the lines of "she shouldn't have said those things if she couldn't back it up", referring to some comments on MySpace. That's great parenting! No sarcasm here. No sir, none at all.

Anyway, kick them all out of school (most likely already done), at least make a reasonable effort to charge them as adults and scare them with real prison. For the parents of the victim, lawsuit against the owners of the house for negligence, and possibly against each of the attackers.

The point is these teens need to have the shit scared out of them. If they don't see some nasty consequences coming down the line, they won't think what they did was so serious. Not every possible punishment need be applied, but as many as possible should be threatened and made to appear probable.

[GrassDragon]

Of course the girls should be charged for beating this girl, but I don't think they should be charged as adults. I don't understand why everyone says kids who commit heinous crimes should be tried as adults; what's the point of having different punishments for children if everyone is considered an adult anyway? Why are teenagers considered old enough, competent enough, and responsible enough to suffer the consequences of their actions as an adult, yet they don't get to enjoy any of the benefits of being an adult? The inconsistency drives me insane.

[SilverCrusader]

Are you kidding me? Wow...
Stupid... Just stupid... Yes, they should be charged as adults.
This is what happens when you can't get out the belt any more. They do stupid things that they know are wrong.

[Magmaniac]

Are you kidding me? Wow...
Stupid... Just stupid... Yes, they should be charged as adults.
This is what happens when you can't get out the belt any more. They do stupid things that they know are wrong.

Except studies show that reprimanding children with violence only makes them have more aggression as they grow older.

[Gunmonk]

Everyone needs a good ass kicking every now and then, clearly those 8 teens need several. I swear if something ever happened like that to one of my little sisters or my girlfriend, I would go after them all.

[SilverCrusader]

Except studies show that reprimanding children with violence only makes them have more aggression as they grow older.
Not back in the good ol' days.

[Dem0nS1ayer]

Wow....those girls are stupid.....

[Nostradamus]

Not back in the good ol' days.

I'm sorry but what the fuck is that supposed to mean? If it promotes violence now it will have promoted violence back then. The thing is that this violent was usually directed at the childs children, continuing the whole bloody cycle of no communication and understanding between parents and children.

How fucking old are you? 12? 13? Just when was the good old days? Was it back when you skipped merrily home after a hard days work, rivetting the Empire State building construction, before going off to the motion pictures with your chums? Back when your feet ached from fourteen hours down in the salt mines?

I mean bloody hell. Learn how to have an intelligent debate.


As for the topic. These girls should be punished as their age dictates. They should be informed of the severity of what they have done, have it drilled in to their heads until they can't stand the guilt, removed from school and made an example of infront of their peers to prevent anyone else doing this.

[Dem0nS1ayer]

Uhhh, I'm pretty sure that Silver's 16....or 17...

[SilverCrusader]

I'm sorry but what the fuck is that supposed to mean? If it promotes violence now it will have promoted violence back then. The thing is that this violent was usually directed at the childs children, continuing the whole bloody cycle of no communication and understanding between parents and children.

How fucking old are you? 12? 13? Just when was the good old days? Was it back when you skipped merrily home after a hard days work, rivetting the Empire State building construction, before going off to the motion pictures with your chums? Back when your feet ached from fourteen hours down in the salt mines?
early 1800s much?

[Magmaniac]

Watch out, don't hit the shelf.

[WarInSerbia]

OMG,youtube and myspace give bad inspiration to ppl.I hate to ssay this but...
that girl kicks ass

[Vezer]

Every one of those teens should be beaten down by 8 girls.

[WarInSerbia]

The fight was about some friend of theirs.If it was about warboards,then there is no guilt there.

[Protosschick99]

Somebody went and found their myspace's AND if you look down, there is a comment that shows their phone numbers and addresses.

This is sad and messed up. Those girls are soo messed up. Sooo not fair. 1v1 my butt. >.<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fIOuCHNR4w&NR=1

I sent them all messages on MySpace. I wasn't cursing at them, and I didn't tell them that they suck and whatever--Just....Grow up XD

[Toucan]

I find I agree with the idea of charging them as adults. It isn't a childlike crime. They planned it out, lured their victim to the scene then carried out a premeditated assault. Throw away the bloody key I reckon.

So studies show that if you lock up a violent freak that they are still violent when they get out. This proves what exactly? To me it simply shows that we should be less tolerant of violent offenders. If a person cannot keep themselves from harming others then a cage is where they belong.
Jails are primarily to protect society, secondly to rehabilitate.

[Kingscrab]

Every one of those teens should be beaten down by 8 girls. Word. Hopefully they lose their hearing and vision as well.

[GrassDragon]

I find I agree with the idea of charging them as adults. It isn't a childlike crime. They planned it out, lured their victim to the scene then carried out a premeditated assault. Throw away the bloody key I reckon.

They filmed it and planned on putting it on the internet to become youtube famous. How aware of the cosequences could they really be? These are stupid teenagers, and should be charged as such.

[Toucan]

They filmed it and planned on putting it on the internet to become youtube famous. How aware of the cosequences could they really be? These are stupid teenagers, and should be charged as such.
These "stupid teenagers" are a threat to other children and should be treated as such.
Society must be protected. Why should other people pay the price in injury and personal loss just because the perpetrator was a child?
Stupidity is not an excuse for violent behavior.

[GenocideAlive]

Grassdragon, teenagers are treated like teenagers because whoever gives them the power to act will then be responsible for their actions. I can't think of any teenagers I'd like to give the power to drink, nor can I think of any teenagers whom I'd give the power to get tattoos / permanent body alterations. I am not a big fan of teenage driving, either. They rarely have a sense of consequences that is necessary for such dangerous activities. You must come to grips with the reality that inexperienced, uneducated children make stupid choices with grievous consequences, sometimes. Case in point: industrial piercing in third-world country.

As for trying them as adults, you must examine the crime and determine if the teenagers were acting with an adult's cognizance. In an arbitrary fistfight over their place in line at the cafeteria, obviously we're not going to go to send them to a maximum security jail; that would be a crime of passion and indicative of poor judgment. You will find 11 year olds doing this.

However, when you have a large group of girls coordinating an attack at a premeditated location while duping the victim into some other premise, there is already marked changes in the level of intelligence. This is also ignoring the fact that they likely had to coordinate the vacancy of their location in order to ensure they wouldn't get caught.

Anyone over the age of 12 that displays this level of planning and implicit maliciousness should be tried as an adult. These are not child-like qualities.

[GrassDragon]

Grassdragon, teenagers are treated like teenagers because whoever gives them the power to act will then be responsible for their actions. I can't think of any teenagers I'd like to give the power to drink, nor can I think of any teenagers whom I'd give the power to get tattoos / permanent body alterations. I am not a big fan of teenage driving, either. They rarely have a sense of consequences that is necessary for such dangerous activities. You must come to grips with the reality that inexperienced, uneducated children make stupid choices with grievous consequences, sometimes. Case in point: industrial piercing in third-world country.

This is exactly the reason I think they should be charged as juveniles. You wouldn't consider them adult enough to drink resposibly or get a tattoo, but they are adult enough to be charged as such for beating a girl? I'm not saying you should let these girls off with a slap on the wrist, but charging them as adults could give them years in prison. If they are considered adults for the trial, shouldn't they gain the right to vote, fight in the army, drink, and smoke too? Why are they aware enough of the consequences of this violent act and yet not aware enough to have the priveledge to drink?

They filmed this thing to put on youtube, how aware of the consequences could they really be?

[GenocideAlive]

This is exactly the reason I think they should be charged as juveniles. You wouldn't consider them adult enough to drink resposibly or get a tattoo, but they are adult enough to be charged as such for beating a girl?
As much as I despise the quote system for the lazy, incoherent posting styles it spawns, I'll use it here to separate two very crucial parts of your argument.

The crux of my reasoning for charging them as adults lay in viciousness of their crime and the order of thinking they used, both of which you seem to continually ignore in your "they're only X years old!!11!!" mantra. A person drinking does not require much forethought, neither does getting a tattoo. Additionally, these activities in and of themselves are not necessarily anything more than self harm. These girls tricked a girl to traveling to a prearranged location for purposes of beating her. Equivalent to a tattoo? I think not.
If they are considered adults for the trial, shouldn't they gain the right to vote, fight in the army, drink, and smoke too? Why are they aware enough of the consequences of this violent act and yet not aware enough to have the priveledge to drink?
Are you aware that felons lose their right to vote? Why then would a child suddenly gain the right to vote based on felonious behavior? Because they're committing "big boy" crimes? This is stupidly backwards and for no explained reason.

And I feel that you are attempting to twist the wording of "consequences" to mean that one committing the crime has to be acutely aware of punishment in order to be interpreted as possessing an adult-level of thinking. This is so abstract and legally unprovable that I can't begin to address it. How exactly would someone go about proving that?

Everyone that commits a crime thinks they can get away with it, and clearly these girls thought the same. They planned carefully, they executed as planned, and they paraded their act as some kind of brazen accomplishment. They then posted their exploits on YouTube which you interpreted as a "childish bid for fame", but I term "remorseless braggadicio".

I'm not sure how a killer posting his murder on YouTube would manage to argue insanity as defense, but according to your logic, he would. I call bullshit, sir. Bull. Shit.

[Ktan]

Not back in the good ol' days.

Yes, because science didn't exist in the good ol' days.

[GrassDragon]

I did not mean that they should gain the right to vote for committing a vicious crime, rather that since they are considered adults in the eyes of the court, they should be considered adults in every other sense of the word. Why aren't kids allowed to take advantage of the benefits of being adults, when they are responsible for the consequences of being one? This is the inconsistency that I don't understand. Regardless of the crime, regardless of the forethought, regardless of the planning – I don't think an individual should be considered an adult for some things and a child for others. You can't have it both ways.

There is a difference between thinking you can get away with something and understanding the possible consequences of your actions. The yahoo that records his friend breaking into a convenient store doesn't want to get caught, but he also understands that he could go to jail if he does. I'm not convinced these girls understood that. In one of the news videos, the mother of one girl said something to the effect that "she [the victim] shouldn't have said those things [probably calling her daughter a skanky ho] if she couldn't back them up". The woman is supporting her daughter's vigilante justice. The mother can be considered simply stupid, liable for her actions. But her daughter doesn't have the mental capacity or sense of judgement to rise above this ignorant dribble, which is why teens aren't allowed to drink or vote.

You said they should be charged as adults because they put a significant amount of thought into the matter, apparently a sign of adulthood and a divergence from adolescence. If I wait until my parents are gone for the weekend, get ahold of some booze, and drink within my limits before passing out on the couch, should that be legal? I've put so much thought into the process of drinking, haven't taken any unnecessary risks like driving, and haven't drank to excess. Considering the "order of thinking" involved, how is that illegal? Can I take an exam to prove that I think about things a lot so I can buy alcohol at 16?

It seems I have to kill somebody to be considered an adult before I turn 18, no other way around it.

[Anoiktos]

I don't understand why everyone says kids who commit heinous crimes should be tried as adults; what's the point of having different punishments for children if everyone is considered an adult anyway? Why are teenagers considered old enough, competent enough, and responsible enough to suffer the consequences of their actions as an adult, yet they don't get to enjoy any of the benefits of being an adult? The inconsistency drives me insane.

I'm 22, and I agree with this statement. Teenagers are not considered intelligent or aware enough for contracts they sign to be considered legal; there is no reason we can suddenly assume that because they've done something harmful, they were suddenly intelligent and aware enough to be as responsible for their actions as an adult.

That said, both they and their parents should be given dire consequence.

Treating them as adults, though, is just stupid. Say "They should be dealt with harshly", or "They should be given strict punishment"; saying "treat them as adults" just emphasizes either the stupidity of a legal system that considers children only to be adult at age 18 or higher, or the stupidity of a legal system that has a set age of adulthood.

[Toucan]

The primary purpose of jails are to protect people from potentially threatening offenders. These girls are a threat. They even videoed the fact that they are a threat to other people.
Why should other children be KNOWINGLY placed at risk by maintaining these violent offenders freedom?

It could be argued that it is an act of gross negligence NOT to lock them up.

[Anoiktos]

The primary purpose of jails are to protect people from potentially threatening offenders. These girls are a threat. They even videoed the fact that they are a threat to other people.
Why should other children be KNOWINGLY placed at risk by maintaining these violent offenders freedom?

It could be argued that it is an act of gross negligence NOT to lock them up.

Who's talking about giving them their freedom? They deserve to be put into the appropriate correctional facility for their age and circumstances, i.e. not the same jail as adults. There was once, for those of you who have forgotten, this interesting myth about jails and prisons, i.e. that they were correctional facilities, places where criminals could be rehabilitated and brought around to serve society once again.

That pretense is, for the most part, entirely lost to the United States. Instead, we lock people up in a society that is apart from society, a place where just to survive one must become a part of the criminal element.

These are children. And if you say that 'children' wouldn't act in this sort of malicious manner, that doing so makes them adults, then you haven't been around many children. Cliques are powerful things, peer pressure is a ridiculously dangerous facet of teenage life, and petty vengeance and maliciousness is not something that suddenly and mystically appears upon one's eighteenth birthday.

Yes, they should be punished. Yes, they should be rehabilitated. Yes, the parenting skills and habits of their families should be put to question. Yes, they should be made to regret what they did, and yes, they should be made responsible for their actions.

These things should not, however, irretrievably scar their lives any more than they already have. People make stupid decisions. It is the responsibility of society to teach them not to do so, and putting them in prison, treating them as adults in order to make more grievous their punishment, is not the way to do so.

Here in California, we spend far more money on maintaining correctional institutions than we do on schools to give people the opportunity to function in society. That's right - we value the separation of deviants from society more than we do the integration of potential nondeviants from it. "Rehabilitation" doesn't really even come in to the equation.

Would you like to talk about the screwed-up values of these children? I've got some more screwed-up values for us to talk about. Quite a few more.

I do not excuse the actions of these children.
I do not excuse the actions of our society.
I do not excuse my own actions.
I do not lack empathy for the victim; her fate is both sickening and terrifying. It is wrong, and I hope fervently that she pulls through all right and is not permanently damaged for it.

That said, 'Society' is not wholly to blame. 'The parents' are not wholly to blame. 'The perpetrators' are not wholly to blame. 'The school' is not wholly to blame.

Look at the picture, and don't lose sight of La Joconde's smile for the pigment - or the opposite.

[Magmaniac]

The primary purpose of jails are to protect people from potentially threatening offenders. These girls are a threat. They even videoed the fact that they are a threat to other people.
Why should other children be KNOWINGLY placed at risk by maintaining these violent offenders freedom?

It could be argued that it is an act of gross negligence NOT to lock them up.

I strongly disagree here. The primary purpose of jails is rehabilitation of socially inept individuals.
While it is true that these individuals are dangerous, they should not be placed in the jail or prison system, rather some sort of social work and therapy rehabilitation system. Some states, like mine, have these systems (called extended juvenile justice here), but some do not.
It is ridiculous to treat them as adults in a criminal sense if they are not treated as adults in a socio-political context outside of their crimes.

[Toucan]

The primary purpose of jails is rehabilitation of socially inept individuals.
If this were true there would be no such thing as a life sentence.
Every person in there school lives under the same social conditions of that school, yet most of them can get through school without carrying out a premeditated entrapment and assault.
The rights of the child stop short at violence. This isn't a case of a couple of girls stealing a packet of chewing gum from the corner store.
They perpetrated a crime that could have easily lead to a girls death.

And as you pointed out yourself Mag. Violent offenders will usually offend again. They fractured that girls eye, and carried out the assault for more than 15 minutes. No law abiding person deserves to be expected to employ or be near these people without being aware of their past.

[Magmaniac]

If this were true there would be no such thing as a life sentence.
Every person in there school lives under the same social conditions of that school, yet most of them can get through school without carrying out a premeditated entrapment and assault.
The rights of the child stop short at violence. This isn't a case of a couple of girls stealing a packet of chewing gum from the corner store.
They perpetrated a crime that could have easily lead to a girls death.

And as you pointed out yourself Mag. Violent offenders will usually offend again. They fractured that girls eye, and carried out the assault for more than 15 minutes. No law abiding person deserves to be expected to employ or be near these people without being aware of their past.

Um, rehabilitation is the PRIMARY purpose, not the only one. In extreme cases only should sentences like life be given out, but personally I think we should just kill off anyone we are going to send to jail indefinitely anyways.

And yes, they did horrible things to that girl, but if they are treated with the right rehabilitation, they can become better people and be reintroduced into society. Trying them as adults will not give them the proper rehabilitation, it will only condemn them to the life of a criminal. Assuming that someone who carries out a violent act will do it again is a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Toucan]

Um, rehabilitation is the PRIMARY purpose
Prisons are built from the ground up with one thought in mind, stopping those inside from getting out. Then we surround them with razer wire and guard towers with armed guards. What where you saying there primary purpose was?
Trying them as adults will not give them the proper rehabilitation, it will only condemn them to the life of a criminal.
What sort of rehab would you suggest? Even if tried as adults and sentenced as adults they will not be sent to an adult prison until they are over 18.
Teenagers today become much more adult like much sooner and insist on being able to make more of their own decisions because of it.

Laws have to adjust to reflect the reality of the situation. If these girls are not dealt with harshly its a green light for repeat and copycat offenses.

[SilverCrusader]

Eight Florida teenagers -- six of them girls -- will be tried as adults and could be sentenced to life in prison for their alleged roles in the videotaped beating of another teen, the state attorney's office said Thursday.
CNN.com
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/10/girl.fights/index.html).

Well, looks like that'll clean up any debates.

[Ubergopher]

if they are treated with the right rehabilitation, they can become better people and be reintroduced into society.
lol wut?
I seriously doubt that. Evil people (which is what these "kids" are, make no mistake) deserve to be treated as such, not as people with a social disorder like some of y'all are making it out to be. I don't want them re-introduced into society. The second they nearly beat that girl to death they stepped outside the bounds of normal society and do not deserve re-entry into this. After a trial I hope they are sentenced to life in prison. Oh how about this as a fair compromise, they are stuck in prison until the chick they beat makes a full recovery, then add 24,000 hours of community service (real community service too, none of that read to kids for an hour to feel good bullshit. I mean picking up litter on the side of the freeway for 8 hours a day), and after they've completed that they can get their records expunged.

[Magmaniac]

lol wut?
I seriously doubt that. Evil people (which is what these "kids" are, make no mistake) deserve to be treated as such, not as people with a social disorder like some of y'all are making it out to be. I don't want them re-introduced into society. The second they nearly beat that girl to death they stepped outside the bounds of normal society and do not deserve re-entry into this. After a trial I hope they are sentenced to life in prison. Oh how about this as a fair compromise, they are stuck in prison until the chick they beat makes a full recovery, then add 24,000 hours of community service (real community service too, none of that read to kids for an hour to feel good bullshit. I mean picking up litter on the side of the freeway for 8 hours a day), and after they've completed that they can get their records expunged.

I don't think there is any such thing as "Evil," although I agree what they did was wrong, it does not necessarily represent them as a whole.
I don't think sticking these people in prison for the rest of their lives benefits anyone. It doesn't benefit society because we have to pay to keep them alive, whereas if they were rehabilitated and back in society they can contribute to the economy.
24,000 hours? That would mean community service 40 hours a week for eleven years. That is a little extreme I think.

I think a good rehabilitation for people like this is to jail them for a short term, maybe a year, while requiring them to do community service like you said and take part in group therapy, anger management classes, etc. Then after the year if they have shown improvement give them a work release system where they go get a job and can be out of jail for the daytime and work, but have to return to jail at night, etc. and keep them doing the touch community service on the weekends and taking the classes and doing therapy. After five or ten years, if that has worked to rehabilitate them, let them off on a strict probation.
On top of all that they will have to pay off a large sum of money to the girl that was attacked in compensation for medical bills, mental damage, etc.

A system like this or similar to this is what we need in our society. Our total system is a total ruin, it does nothing but make the criminals we have worse, and drain our economy.

[SilverCrusader]

Well let me say this to them.
So you thought it would be funny huh? Yeah, real funny. You're being tried as an adult and could face life in prison. Yeah... Really funny. This is absolutely hilarious. /sarcasm

No really, what the hell made them think beating the hell out of another kid 8vs1 would be funny? Thats what I want to know.

[Kingscrab]

A system like this or similar to this is what we need in our society. Our total system is a total ruin, it does nothing but make the criminals we have worse, and drain our economy. Take it with a grain of salt guys. Consider the source. This from a guy who runs around breaking into cars... :rolleyes:

[GenocideAlive]

I find it hard to believe that the societal solution to heinous, remorseless premeditated attacks is "rehabilitation". Rehabilitate them how, exactly? I'm fairly certain anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that an 8 on 1 fight isn't fair, and savagely beating someone is wrong. You don't have to be an adult to realize that. That was the entire reason for lying to this girl to get her to come to their planned beating zone--there's no way she'd be stupid enough to go there given that knowledge. There's nothing you can say to these people that would make them feel remorse and misgivings about what they did. I'm sure they think it's funny, much like Mag breaking into cars and giving it little "funny" names like "car shopping".

And Mag, honestly you speaking out against prison punishment is just silly. According to your own logic, you badly need rehabilitation. But what is there to do to rehabilitate you? You obviously know what you're doing is wrong, and you don't care. You think it's funny. You think that having difficulty in your life gives you a right to things that other people bought. You hide behind "you don't know me". There's nothing there for a counselor but a wall of denial and self-delusion. It's the same with everybody in prison, everybody is a victim except the people that were hurt by the crimes, who need to suck it up and grow up, according to all the criminals. Irony FTW.

[Kingscrab]

IMO: True rehablitation/and/or/justice comes in the form of a prison yard beat-down.

See how funny that shit is when you got a sharpened toothbrush sticking out of your side.

[Magmaniac]

Take it with a grain of salt guys. Consider the source. This from a guy who runs around breaking into cars...

Also coming from a guy who is probably going into criminal psychology as a career. I say one thing about something I did twice several years ago and you guys fucking pelt me with it every chance you get? Fuck you guys. You make it seem like I'm a career criminal. I don't do that shit anymore. We are having a nice debate and you have to resort to personal attacks?


I find it hard to believe that the societal solution to heinous, remorseless premeditated attacks is "rehabilitation". Rehabilitate them how, exactly? I'm fairly certain anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that an 8 on 1 fight isn't fair, and savagely beating someone is wrong. You don't have to be an adult to realize that. That was the entire reason for lying to this girl to get her to come to their planned beating zone--there's no way she'd be stupid enough to go there given that knowledge. There's nothing you can say to these people that would make them feel remorse and misgivings about what they did. [...]

[...]There's nothing there for a counselor but a wall of denial and self-delusion. It's the same with everybody in prison, everybody is a victim except the people that were hurt by the crimes, who need to suck it up and grow up, according to all the criminals. Irony FTW.
Rehabilitation how exactly? See my last post, I outlined rehabilitation nicely I think. How would you know that there's no way to get them to feel remorse? How do you know that a councilor couldn't break through their denial and delusion? Are you a criminal therapist? Do you have extensive experience with criminal therapists? Therapists do those things every day. That's WHAT THEY DO.
And assuming that all criminals think alike and that the victims should "suck it up and grow up" is a gross idea that you are pulling out of your ass. Most criminals say things like "I would do anything to take back what I did," etc., and show a lot of remorse for what they did already, partially due to the help from therapists while imprisoned.


IMO: True rehablitation/and/or/justice comes in the form of a prison yard beat-down.

See how funny that shit is when you got a sharpened toothbrush sticking out of your side.

Rehabilitation does not equal justice, and what you describe is neither, what you describe is just revenge. It solves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you advocate sending people like this to jail for a long time, what you are doing to them is worse what they did to that girl. You guys are a bunch of violence mongerers for thinking that eight people's lives should be ruined for one person's life being slightly damaged.

[Kingscrab]

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you advocate sending people like this to jail for a long time, what you are doing to them is worse what they did to that girl. You guys are a bunch of violence mongerers for thinking that eight people's lives should be ruined for one person's life being slightly damaged. That poor girl is probably emotionally scarred for life, along with pemanant damage to her eyesight and hearing. Oh, but who cares about the victim!!! She probably had it comin' anyway. She will have to live with this her whole life.

I have no sympathy for those f*cking little pukes. It's time to put on thier big girl pants and be treated like adults. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. What they did was calculated and evil. Maybe if the shoe were on the other foot they would start acting like fucking adults in a civilized society.

Even a stupid dog doesn't lick a hot stove twice.

[Anoiktos]

Maybe if the shoe were on the other foot they would start acting like fucking adults in a civilized society.
Newsflash: They aren't adults. Should we prosecute babies as 'juveniles' when they kill their mothers during childbirth? Would you hold a ten-year-old to a written contract? Do you think it's okay for fifteen-year-olds to go to war, drive, or go to bars and get drunk?

One doesn't have to vehemently punish others in order to 'care for' or 'be concerned about' someone else. The 'Don't you care about the victim' argument is much like the 'Oh, YOU obviously aren't patriotic' argument: Just because I don't want the U.S. to go to war doesn't mean I support terrorism. It doesn't mean I hate America. In the same way, just because I don't support permanently ruining the lives of eight children doesn't mean I don't care about one who got badly hurt. I mean, it's not as though I hear you condoning the jailing of all American leaders during World War II for the bombing of Dresden. Or of Hiroshima. Or of Nagasaki. And it's certainly not as though doing so will bring Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, back.

[Kingscrab]

Newsflash: They aren't adults. Should we prosecute babies as 'juveniles' when they kill their mothers during childbirth? Come on man. You can do better than that. Really.

[Modred]

Newsflash: They aren't adults. Should we prosecute babies as 'juveniles' when they kill their mothers during childbirth?
There are two significant differences between a mother dying in childbirth and what these girls did: premeditation and intent. If a mother dies in childbirth, I can guarantee with almost 100% certainty that the newborn had zero intent for his or her mother to die in the process (if you can even prove that the baby itself "killed" its mother). However, these girls premeditated an attack with intent to cause serious injury. The fact that they were dumb enough to record it doesn't change their intent.

Before anyone says intent doesn't matter, I must remind you that intent makes the difference between manslaughter and murder, which have quite different levels of punishment available. And premeditation also plays into how severe the crime is considered to be.

These 8 "children", as it has been put, range in ages from 14 to 18. These aren't 5 year olds who didn't know hitting someone is bad. If you find a 14 year old who doesn't realize that punching, kicking, and kneeing someone causes the victim harm, then maybe you have justification for considering them just some misguided kids. However, I find that this would be rather unbelievable.

[mranderson]

I'll get this short tidbit out of the way.
Even a stupid dog doesn't lick a hot stove twice.
"Never taunt a sleeping bear." What does this mean? Don't screw with someone that might eventually screw with you (which is never going to happen). She messed with the bull and she got the horns. I could keep on comparing people to animals, but it is really a horrible comparison and does not get to the root of the issue. She threw out her remarks at the girls, and they lashed out at her with a well thought out plan. The bear awoke and responded to a fly. How often does a bear swat a fly that bothers it? There is a difference between animals and humans though. The dog is harmed physically, and it wants to survive, therefore it does not lick the stove again. But humans make decisions that affect other people and their welfare that are not fully realized, and action must be taken to instill a sense of value in what their actions fully meant.

Okay, now on to the girls

They are not adults, they are still kids and obviously have yet to understand what it really means to be an adult. They did not understand the true consequences of their actions, but should be punished where they understand truly what they did and will no longer do it again, as in ever.

And one thing you forget is that they did pre-meditate it, but should they really be tried as adults? Yes, and no. The fact that they thought it out as well as they did shows an adult sign, but what is that old saying? Correlation does not always equal causation. But did they really understand the consequences of their actions, or was it really their plot to get back at the chick that threw some comments at them. They should be tried as adults to increase the sentence and make sure the point is made. Did they think it through in the long haul or should they be expected to? Why did the voting age drop to 18? The draft during the vietnam war caused an outrage where physically capable men for fighting thought it wasn't fair that they could not vote so they got the chance, hence they did it to shut the population up. Eighteen is the expected age of an adult now, but it is an approximate figure, and hitting eighteen doesn't magically make you an adult (only in laws, because it isn't magic and force is exercised behind it). The same thing goes for driving ages, but in theory when someone should drive should be achieved by a battery of multiple tests both physical and mental but even this is a slippery slope because then it would imply that anything that involves another person should be used with a license given to you when you have demonstrated you know what is wrong and what is right through your own decisions.

There is a thing that involves positive and negative reinforcement which is beyond my current knowledge. The one thing I do know is that physical punishment does work (which oddly enough, prison is actually the oppositve side of positve/negative reinforcement but it is still physical.) The problem with it however is if the person does not learn what their actions really mean and are continued to be punished. So what starts off at a wrist slap can lead to broken bones and what can be detrimental to a growing child's health (abuse). What really leads to the cycle of abuse is the fact that the child faiiled to realize what they did wrong, and are continued to be punished. But a adaptation of the amount is needed to get the point across, in which it develops and is no longer useful, and then causes more problems. I would continue on this but I'll save it for later.

The real difference between physical punishment and counseling is that it doesn't take a freaking rocket scientist to dish out the correct amount of punishment for the betterment of the kid. My dad was going to bust out the belt on me when I was young, and he should have. It would have taught me a far more valuable lesson in that short period of time, and it took me a long time to stop commiting actions that involved belt worthy incidents even though I understood it was wrong. Why did I understand it was wrong? Because I was told it was so, but I did not understand the why. Sure you may be able to regurgitate the answer for a calculus problem, but until you actually go through the steps, and get the problem yourself you won't be able to help anyone besides telling them the end answer. And until for sure those girls understand that they can be released back into society safely without even a slight fear of them commiting futher heinious acts. Have they even apologized yet? Because if their defense is "they're young." I'd give them hard jail time and parole, and put their parents in a case to make a point. Because what they did deserves that. A slap on the wrist, say community service and juvy, would be failing in the duty to rehabilitize them as well as not punishing the parents.

If anyone did anything half that bad, him and his father would be whipped side by side.
It is an approximate quote, and kudos to you if you get it. What this is saying is that the parents have a responsibilty when the kids are still young. What responsibility does the parent have to raise a child to not beat the crap out of other kids? Full responsibility, because who has the responsibiltiy of raising the kid? Punishment should equal the failure of duty. These kids were not delinquents, but their parents were; look at the definition of delinquent . That mom that said, "well it happened, but it never would have happened in the first place if she hadn't said anything." Sound familiar? Say elementary school with two kids fighting and justifying their side? Thank you automatic-child rearing tools. What would we ever do without you oh masterful television and interenet?

And until you can tell me that you have never stolen anything or ever done anything wrong when you were young or even currently than you can bash on Mag and not apologize. Until that day why don't you hop off your high horse? Look at what laws you have broken and what laws Mag has broken. The real difference is the specifities and yet you seem to be blaming him because of specifities, laws are laws. Do not give me the arguement of "my crime was not bad." Laws were created for the public safety, and so both true acts of evil as well as mishaps are dervied from the same source (which Mag's was in the middle ground), and for the same purpose. Alas, you are blaming him for something that happened years ago, and which is not a chronic condition, but I can not blame you. You are following a common trait and until you understand it will not solve anything.


If any of you have not read Robert A. Heinliens novel starship troopers I suggest you do.

Newsflash: They aren't adults. Should we prosecute babies as 'juveniles' when they kill their mothers during childbirth? Would you hold a ten-year-old to a written contract? Do you think it's okay for fifteen-year-olds to go to war, drive, or go to bars and get drunk?

One doesn't have to vehemently punish others in order to 'care for' or 'be concerned about' someone else. The 'Don't you care about the victim' argument is much like the 'Oh, YOU obviously aren't patriotic' argument: Just because I don't want the U.S. to go to war doesn't mean I support terrorism. It doesn't mean I hate America. In the same way, just because I don't support permanently ruining the lives of eight children doesn't mean I don't care about one who got badly hurt. I mean, it's not as though I hear you condoning the jailing of all American leaders during World War II for the bombing of Dresden. Or of Hiroshima. Or of Nagasaki. And it's certainly not as though doing so will bring Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, back.

Way to blow the scale out of proportion. I believe it goes self->family-> friends-> community-> city-> (so forth and so on)-> to the nation. We have not yet achieved a full semblance of caring for other humans lives (sure there are hippies but are they the ones who make decisions?). That scale completely bypasses about for of the chains, and it is broken. Killing an enemy comatant already dehumanized by media, and your own core unit where you belong is hardly anything. The power exercised in the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and restored a war torn world to a a real human civilization again. They stopped the violence with violence. Oddly enough, that is how a good old belt whipping is used. Force solves problems faster and simpler, but the application need not always be the full effect, less it turn to a cycle. Your point is almost a complete appeal to pathos. Your valid points however, are constructed with some logos.

I've been involved in law enforcement for 35 years, and I've seen a lot of extremely violent events, but I've never seen children, 14 to 18 years of age, engage in this conduct for a 30-minute period of time and then make these video clips," he said. Police say the teens planned to post the video on This comes from the CNN quote. These are the symptoms of the greater sickness. When people are afraid to go to parks due to chain wielding children I'll tell you if the disease is there or not. Until than you can only hope that whatever is done to try and stop it.

Punishing someone for what they do not understand is a failure. The death penalty is there for a reason, and also a life sentence. They serve the same, exact purpose. An adult who has killed someone else is usually up on the green mile or a life sentence. Why is this done? To make sure it never happens again. Would you take the risk of releasing a murderer back into society?

This is unfinished, because more posts are racking up...

[Anoiktos]

Yes, that example was both flawed and extreme, but again, I did not state that the infants should be treated as adults, as you wish for these children to be treated, but that they should be treated as juveniles, i.e. one step up the ladder in terms of responsibility, just as you are supporting for these children.

And, of course, you've glossed over any and all other arguments I made in that post, including but not limited to the fact that 'children' of the age of fifteen, for example, are not considered mentally capable or responsible enough to be allowed to drink, drive, sign contracts, et cetera. As others have said, why is it that these same children who are considered mentally incapable of making these sorts of decisions for themselves are suddenly seen as perfectly responsible for making the decision to beat someone up?

If you find a 14 year old who doesn't realize that punching, kicking, and kneeing someone causes the victim harm, then maybe you have justification for considering them just some misguided kids.

Hey - That's some sound logic. Now, let's apply the same thing to the stuff above, and see if it fits. Ask a 14-year old whether they realize that alcohol can get them drunk. Ask a 14-year old whether they have any idea what contracts are supposed to mean. Ask a 14-year old whether they know that people can get killed while driving. Ask a 14-year old whether people die in war.

Just because someone has some idea of the consequences of their action does not mean that they are automatically considered responsible enough to make the right decision.

Killing an enemy comatant already dehumanized by media, and your own core unit where you belong is hardly anything.

The destruction of Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden were not acts of war so much as they were acts of arrogance, stupidity, or political maneuvering. The war was already over, the Japanese had already said they would surrender with the sole condition of keeping their emperor, before Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Dresden was a city of art, not a military camp, and the manner of its destruction was thorough and careful enough that there is no reason why the U.S. would not have known this beforehand. It was destroyed, most likely, as a political maneuver against Russia in order for the U.S. to gain more credibility in a war where most of the enemy losses were to the Russian winter.

[Kingscrab]

And, of course, you've glossed over any and all other arguments I made in that post, including but not limited to the fact that 'children' of the age of fifteen, for example, are not considered mentally capable or responsible enough to be allowed to drink, drive, sign contracts, et cetera. As others have said, why is it that these same children who are considered mentally incapable of making these sorts of decisions for themselves are suddenly seen as perfectly responsible for making the decision to beat someone up? I just didn't think it was very relevant. I don't care how old these kids are. Obviously they are old enough and intelligent enough to premeditate an elaborate ruse, film it, post in on the web and brag about it. They are a public menace and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

If it was your ass that got beat down, bitch slapped and humiliated in front of thousands, I suspect you would think differently. Those punks are LUCKY that girl didn't die, or we'd be watching a Nightline feature, from jail, on them 10 years from now.

Who's to say they won't do it again if they simply get a slap on the wrist. Who's to say they KNEW all they would get is a slap on the wrist and they are trying to punk the system before they turn 18. It happens A LOT. Put em' in the cooler for a while and let them feel the fear of what it's like to be someone's bitch for 30 minutes, and then have to live with the shame afterwards.

[Anoiktos]

If it was your ass that got beat down, bitch slapped and humiliated in front of thousands, I suspect you would think differently.
I would. At that point I would not be impartial, and so not be qualified to judge either way. There's a reason we don't let family members of the accused or the victims on the jury.

Obviously they are old enough and intelligent enough to premeditate an elaborate ruse, film it, post in on the web and brag about it. They are a public menace and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
And yet we don't bend the law like this for 15-year-old geniuses or heroes who solve advanced math problems or save people's lives. They aren't suddenly awarded adulthood or any of the previously mentioned rights.

As I've said before, the kids should be punished. They are, however, kids.

Who's to say they won't do it again if they simply get a slap on the wrist. Who's to say they KNEW all they would get is a slap on the wrist and they are trying to punk the system before they turn 18.
There are punishments for juveniles that go further than a slap on the wrist, and certainly punishments for parents who allow their children to do this sort of thing.

Who's to say they were mentally mature enough to understand the real consequences of what was going on?

Put em' in the cooler for a while and let them feel the fear of what it's like to be someone's bitch for 30 minutes, and then have to live with the shame afterwards.
Because this sort of petty vengeance will make things better. Because putting people into a jail system with the knowledge that they will be treated inhumanly, callously, and violently is somehow more appropriate than doing those things oneself. Your casual bloodthirsty vindictiveness sickens me.

Because the state doing it is so much better than individuals doing it. It's just fine when big 'ol America kills people, but that guy there? Nah, he should go to jail and get raped by swarthy men in pinstriped suits for his crimes.

Either way, you're getting your wish. They're being tried as adults, and I'm writing bookmarks to keep tabs on how much prison life 'improves' the situation. I look forward to hearing about how one of them began researching a cure for cancer while sitting in prison being 'made someone's bitch' for ten years.

[SilverCrusader]

Malcom X much?
Anyway, you refer to me as a mere kid. You really think that these teenagers, all of which are around my age, didn't know what they were getting into? They had lookouts for crying out loud. They knew they were doing something terribly wrong.
Besides, I bet they couldn't wait to be legally an adult. They didn't have to listen to their parents. Well, they get to have a taste of what it is like to be an adult. Perhaps jail can teach to them responsibility. I bet they listened to all those speakers that come oh so often into schools and teach them about bad choices and thought, "This guy is a f'ing retard, he doesn't know shit. Oh well at least I get out of class."
Perhaps getting the full extent of the law will teach them something everyone has been trying to teach them all along, and they refused to listen.

[Toucan]

Its easy enough to argue that they are not adults and add little reasons like they aren't old enough to vote, drive and drink. But may I ask, if they where to take the keys and drive anyway, would we punish them for it? or go, there not old enough so they must not have really been driving that car.

The idea of attempting to rehabilitate children instead of sending them to jail is not new. Bleeding harts of the world have been reducing the application of law upon minors for years. What has been achieved by it? Kids committing violent crimes at younger and younger ages. Kids walking the streets vandalizing things actually thinking its ok, Im under 18, I wont get in much trouble.

Some mistakes will ruin your life and that is the way it should be. It should be that way as a warning to others and to limit how much it will happen again. Just because you are a child doesn't mean you get a free pass for everything.

If a child jumps off a tall building will they be any less dead when they hit the ground because they are a child?
These kids jumped off, they have to deal with the consequences.

[Anoiktos]

And I'd be just fine with that if our 'correctional system' didn't make the problem worse instead of solving it. There's a serious problem with a society where [1 in 32 adults (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113000912.html)] are in prison. According to your theory, this kind of thing would slow crime down. Well, that's only [four years after (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm)] it was 1 in 142.

I'd say that evidence points to a serious malfunction in that 'deterrence' theory of yours.

Edit for clarification: "In prison, on probation, or on parole". Thanks, Toucan. -Ano

[SilverCrusader]

Now I ask you this question:
Could this be a result of the police cracking down harder on people? Or is it that more people are becoming criminals?

[Toucan]

There's a serious problem with a society where [1 in 32 adults] are in prison. According to your theory, this kind of thing would slow crime down. Well, that's only [four years after] it was 1 in 142.
You do realize that for the US that would represent a prison population of about 100 million people. Are you sure about your numbers?
I don't see how a rise in crime rates amongst teenagers who have never before been in contact with the judicial system has anything at all to do with how we deal with criminals.

[Anoiktos]

Now I ask you this question:
Could this be a result of the police cracking down harder on people? Or is it that more people are becoming criminals?

Both, without a doubt. I suspect that the 'war on drugs' is likely principally to blame, because the punishments therein are often disproportionate to the damage done to society by the perpetrators, and the harshness of these laws likely has approximately the same effects as those seen during prohibition. Harsher laws mean more profitable payouts mean more people who would otherwise seek a less profitable but more safe job willing to enter the trade.

Still, an increase of over 200% is hardly reasonable, especially when so little money is being put into education in comparison.

You do realize that for the US that would represent a prison population of about 100 million people. Are you sure about your numbers?

Three things:

1. Bad math. Current U.S. population is just over 300 million. 100 million people would be 1/3 of that. 1/37 != 1/3.

2. The actual number is around seven million. I gave links for a reason. The color scheme of warboards is atrocious for them, so I even put them in brackets so that they'd be easier to see.

3. It's not "of the total U.S. population", but "of adults".

I don't see how a rise in crime rates amongst teenagers who have never before been in contact with the judicial system has anything at all to do with how we deal with criminals.
...You said:

Some mistakes will ruin your life and that is the way it should be. It should be that way as a warning to others and to limit how much it will happen again. Just because you are a child doesn't mean you get a free pass for everything.

Thus, you support dealing with criminals in a specific way (i.e. punishing them) as a 'warning to others' (i.e. teenagers who have never been in contact with the judicial system), i.e. a 'lowering of crime rates'. Either that or the statement I just quoted was, by your own admission, not in line with your beliefs.

[Toucan]

According to the US department of justice (LINK (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm)) the US prison population is approximately 3 million. As I said, are you sure about your numbers?

[Anoiktos]

Sounds about right:
A record 7 million people -- one in every 32 U.S. adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year... ...Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113000912.html

[Toucan]

You stated all of them where in prison, thats a bit different don't you think?

And once again, according to the US justice department, at the end of 2006 the prison population was closer to 3 million. If at the end of 2007 the prison population was 2.2 million, as according to the Washington post, that seems like a significant drop in prison population to me.

[mranderson]

Yes, that example was both flawed and extreme, but again, I did not state that the infants should be treated as adults, as you wish for these children to be treated, but that they should be treated as juveniles, i.e. one step up the ladder in terms of responsibility, just as you are supporting for these children.

And, of course, you've glossed over any and all other arguments I made in that post, including but not limited to the fact that 'children' of the age of fifteen, for example, are not considered mentally capable or responsible enough to be allowed to drink, drive, sign contracts, et cetera. As others have said, why is it that these same children who are considered mentally incapable of making these sorts of decisions for themselves are suddenly seen as perfectly responsible for making the decision to beat someone up?



Hey - That's some sound logic. Now, let's apply the same thing to the stuff above, and see if it fits. Ask a 14-year old whether they realize that alcohol can get them drunk. Ask a 14-year old whether they have any idea what contracts are supposed to mean. Ask a 14-year old whether they know that people can get killed while driving. Ask a 14-year old whether people die in war.

Just because someone has some idea of the consequences of their action does not mean that they are automatically considered responsible enough to make the right decision.



The destruction of Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden were not acts of war so much as they were acts of arrogance, stupidity, or political maneuvering. The war was already over, the Japanese had already said they would surrender with the sole condition of keeping their emperor, before Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Dresden was a city of art, not a military camp, and the manner of its destruction was thorough and careful enough that there is no reason why the U.S. would not have known this beforehand. It was destroyed, most likely, as a political maneuver against Russia in order for the U.S. to gain more credibility in a war where most of the enemy losses were to the Russian winter.
Again the baby arguement is flawed. The punishment is designed to make the person understand what they did was wrong so they would not do it again. I believe it is called a positive reinforcement. The baby killed the mother by being born.... a drunk driver killed someone by choosing to drink and than drive. See the difference? There is no step up, but a level of accountability to punishment. Because I doubt people kill someone over night, especially babies. Sadly, this baby arguement where they do not know what they were doing is being applied to children and teenagers, allowing them to get off with a small wrist slap. Bust out the fear of god in them.

Oh, but fifteen to seventeen year olds are smart enough to get fake IDs to drink, and do whatever they feel like. And Dresden and Hiroshima was at the close of the world war, and obiously the cycle got out of hand. These were no lashes, but dismemberment by each nation. Tell me how you would feel if you get your arm chopped off, you chopped off their arm, and than you had your face smashed in? And the Japanese still got their deal, they kept their emperor. Also, didn't the islands that the Americans occupy have all of the Japanese islanders commit suicide? And the bomb was a point. We can go in and screw with you so you better back down and not try again. It was a brutality designed to show who was in charge, just like Dresden. The cycle that went on for three years ended with precision and started with the blunt hammering.

And the fourteen year olds do not understand the why but they understand the end result and the why they can't. That is why they say, I should be able to do so and so because I'm at a so and so a level. They understand that they shouldn't drive if they aren't capable, but do not understand the why. What are the chances of a fourteen year old driving on the freeway for a first time hitting someone? Drinking can impair judgement, and driving is not as easy as it seems (Oddly enough it can lead to manslaughter. However, a fourteen year old should be smart enough to figure out that what his parents tell him is good for him. A fourteen year old genius should figure out that he can go to jail for his actions, and should be jailed. Let's see, he killed someone driving a car=jail time no matter how young you are. Let's use the baby analogy. The baby can't drive a car, it makes no choice, and has no control over the car unless it rolls on the gas pedal, and says *FU BIOYTCH YOUR GOING DOWN." Really, I think the only thing that baby's want is food, a comfortable enviroment, sleep, and more food. There want of a mother could result in some bonding, but also be a deep seated tool (Pavlov Dog example.)

You are like Pavlov's dogs, quit drooling.

And with your reasoning what do you think Australias percentage of criminals were in the beginning? Seems like it's been quite a turn around, or did you not now how Georgia and Australia were founded, and continued to be colonized? It seems to me it's a much higher percentage than what we have today, so with that reasoning all Australians should be criminals. Criminals turned citizens? Seems it worked for them. So why isn't it working for the US?

And actually it was pretty cool when prisoners came to our high school and talked about it. They asked for a volunteer from the audience, and the "volunteer" was supposed to be somone that acted like a gangster. This kid was white, skinny, and had long blonde hair. You know what one of the prisoners told him? You'll make somebody a good bitch one day :P. I laughed my butt off as did everyone else, not only because of that, but because that kid was scared shitless. I bet he went and got hammered later to shake it off, or said, "I was only scared on stage, insert lame excuse here, etc. etc." Funny as hell, but I doubt most students got it.

And I would take Toucan's numbers over yours. You even said your numbers included probation, and parole, which identifies that an individual is watched to make sure he fits with society again (no matter how imperfectly.) He is not in jail, and may rejoin society one day, but they are still in it, so three million. I think your numbers of 1 to 32 came from research on black people btw (no racism intended). This is because oddly enough today on the news it talked about crime in Philly. One to thrity two black men in jail, but in philly the ratio is one to nine.

Where do you think this problem of crime starts from? Where is its original source?

[SilverCrusader]

Check this (http://www.local6.com/news/15858832/detail.html) out.
Yeah, apparently it is funny.

'"I don't see why I'm even in this whole situation," Schumaker said in an interview for Local 6.'
Yeah... Quit playing dumb you stupid asshole. You know exactly why you were in the situation. You were freaking looking out for crying out loud. You knew what was going on, and you didn't stop it, you helped with it.
If someone was going to come up what were you going to do? Oh thats right, you were going to let the people inside know so they wouldn't get in trouble. Good fucking job.
Besides, both guys are retards. Yes, they're just having a friendly chat. No one is going to notice that someone in the house just got the shit beat out of them. No of course not.