408
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 92 points 2 years ago

8 years!

No!!

8 years, 6 months!

Sold!!!

[-] [email protected] 120 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.

It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn't truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn't always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn't harsh enough, the prosecutor won't agree to it, and if it's too harsh, the defense won't agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.

Yes, it's "only" 6 more months, but that's really not insignificant.

Now, to all the people screaming about how it's not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (????)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.

But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn't have happened, yes, it's tragic, but it was not a murder.

Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you're saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don't think that's the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it's very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.

Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I'm not sure on that one, but that's because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that's not her fault, that's the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it's now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That's a hell of an incentive not to repeat.

Alright, I think that's all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you're discussing individual crimes, not just when you're talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 66 points 2 years ago

This story is weird. Who shoves an old woman for no apparent reason?

[-] [email protected] 111 points 2 years ago

👮‍♂️

[-] [email protected] 40 points 2 years ago

But also people with no impulse control…… nvm

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 63 points 2 years ago

The abhorrent details from another article:

Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding, her fiancé told authorities, according to a court document.

Pazienza had "several glasses of wine" during the evening before the pair stopped at a food cart for something to eat, according to the document filed by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

The pair went to Chelsea Park to eat their meal, but before they were done, an employee told them they would have to leave because the park was closing, the document said. Chelsea Park closes at 11 p.m.

"The defendant became angry, started shouting and cursing at the park employee, threw her food onto her fiancé, and stormed out of the park," according to prosecutors.

Meanwhile, Pazienza "stormed" down the street and spotted Barbara Maier Gustern, prosecutors said.

Gustern, "in what turned out to be her dying words" before she lost consciousness, told a friend that a woman with dark hair “ran across the straight,” directly toward her, called her a b---- and pushed her as hard she "had ever been hit in her life" toward a metal fence, prosecutors said.

Gustern, according to a witness, "fell in an arc, falling directly on her head," according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Pazienza "turned around and walked away, leaving Ms. Gustern prone on the sidewalk, bleeding from the head," prosecutors said.

Pazienza called her fiancé after the assault, he told authorities. When they reconnected, she picked a physical fight with him, accusing him of ruining her night, prosecutors said. He insisted the two head home, but security video from the area showed that Pazienza stayed in the area long enough to watch the ambulance arrive for Gustern.

She later told her fiancé what she had done, he told authorities. When he asked her why she would do such a thing, she said the woman "might have said something” to her.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago

Sure prison is nice, but this lady is seriously unhinged and time behind bars won't fix that.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

Damn, he dodged a bullet there! (tell me he didn't marry her after that).

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 46 points 2 years ago

According to prosecutors, Pazienza attacked Gustern after storming out of a nearby park, where she and her fiance had been eating meals from a food cart.

This is speculation, but sounds like maybe she got in an argument or was angry about something and was storming off somewhere. NYC is crowded and if you're angry, trying to get somewhere, and not composed (getting into the mindset here, not what I really think) then "this old bitch in my way fuckin' move arrrggg!" shove

Obviously, there's nothing right about it and most of the time people behave themselves, even when they're angry. Sometimes, though, they don't. This isn't a justification in any sense - more of a speculation in furtherance of an attempt at comprehension.

[-] [email protected] 31 points 2 years ago

The costs of the actions you commit while angry often far outweigh the initial cause of the anger.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

Her fiance perspective is that there was an argument and the suspect storms off and murders someone. Like, maybe now is a good time to see you're engaged to a monster.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] [email protected] 44 points 2 years ago

I'm sorry but normal people don't shove elderly people when they are drunk.

She is a fucking sociopath

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago

I was an alcoholic for a solid 3 years and been shitfaced many a times. Never have I tries to physically hurt people or engage in fights, despite my anger issues.

[-] [email protected] 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Judge saw through the crocodile tears, and sentenced her appropriately. I see a lot of pearl clutching in this thread, would you be so empathic towards this sociopath if the victim were your mother or grandmother?

[-] [email protected] 43 points 2 years ago

I don't know anything about this case, but revenge is not a solution. Our penal system is totally fucked, and part of the issue is people have been told that revenge is justice. It isn't. We will all be paying for this woman to be locked up and she won't be able to contribute to society. If we tried to rehabilitate, that'd be one thing. We just try to punish though, and people like you act like a harsher punishment is good somehow. What good does it do?

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

Oh no, who could have ever predicted that actions might have consequences. She killed someone, completely unprovoked to boot. It’s not revenge to lock her ass up, it’s the consequence of her killing someone.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago

We get some of that sweet sweet ~~slave~~ free labor!

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

This fella....just 4 years for killing someone and you still want to white knight here?

load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago

"If you were unable to think rationally about the case, you would have a different opinion" isn't the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 2 years ago

What's actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?

It seems that the act of pushing alone isn't enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.

I think it's clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.

[-] [email protected] 42 points 2 years ago

For cases where injury was sustained there is legal doctrine know as the Eggshell skull rule

The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 37 points 2 years ago

Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome

No it wouldn't, you have to prove intention to kill for a murder charge. This is manslaughter, a lesser but still very serious charge. Killing someone on accident is still a crime, shocker, I know.

[-] [email protected] 24 points 2 years ago

pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury.

This is why she's being punished. You cannot assault an 87 year old without expecting serious injury or death. Just like you can grab a 20 year old and shake them by the shoulders and they'll be fine, but if you do the same to an infant they're probably going to die.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago

This is the problem of moral luck. We often want to punish people more because factors outside of the perpetrator's control turned out badly. Either we should punish everybody harshly when they push an elderly person, whether or not it injures them, or someone like this should get a pretty light sentence. Yet we have an irrational pull to treat the cases differently.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

So you're saying that you don't understand what manslaughter is. You ask a lot of questions, but I get the feeling that you're not the type of person that is actually looking for answers

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago

All I have to say is good. Fuck this woman (not literally she doesn't need to get laid). I drink and have been drunk many a times, never in that stupid inebriated state have I EVER thought to murder someone or try and cause them harm. Do dumb shit? Absolutely I'm a drunk fool so you give me a bucket, a empty street and a fuel and lighter I'm likely gonna kick a flaming bucket down the street. But to hurt someone or seek a fight etc? No. I'm still able to keep my morality and decision-making under control over those things.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago

That's uh, pretty specific with the flaming bucket...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago

The judge didn’t believe the defendant was actually repentant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

Eight and a half years for the senseless murder of one of our society's most vulnerable citizens.

[-] [email protected] 38 points 2 years ago

Legally speaking you'd have a hard time prosecuting that as murder. You'd have to prove that she was intending for the old lady to die when she shoved her. I'm guessing she was charged with some combination of second degree assault and manslaughter, maybe more. She was facing up to 25 years and took a plea deal for 8, which I assume included part of the charges being dropped.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago

Nearly 10 years is a long ass time to be in jail for a random angry act.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

A random angry act is knocking a sign over, kicking a garbage can, punching a wall. NOT killing someone

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
408 points (95.9% liked)

News

31152 readers
3250 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS