The early reports indicate that the suspect, 14 year old Noel Estevez, had been bullied numerous times and to the point where he had attempted suicide. Numerous neighbors also stated that he'd asked them to watch out for the 'big kids' and come help him if they saw anything. The actual incident was apparently a fight, in which the victim, also 14, was stabbed multiple times by Estevez with a kitchen knife. Estevez is being charged as an adult with second degree murder and manslaughter.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that this was a failure of any adult that had insight to the situation, particularly school administrators for not keeping an eye out for bullying, especially after the attempted suicide. I can't say I would blame Estevez for standing up for himself, but since it isn't clear if this particular attack was provoked or a deliberate confrontation or not, and I'm not sure if self-defense applied to previous incidents, I'm not to decided on whether or not he's actually guilty. I'm sure that he shouldn't be charged as an adult though, not as a 14 year old.
I'm sure that he shouldn't be charged as an adult though, not as a 14 year old.
He's 14. I don't understand why we have a juvenile court system if we're going to charge children as adults. Either they're children who are not able to be held to the same standards as adults or they aren't.
The rest is fairly standard. Victims of bullying almost never receive help from those with the power to actually do so. School officials don't want to get involved. What does anyone expect to happen when you leave things as is?
It's another case of victimizing the victim. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house in the US, is it not trialled as self-defence? Yet a child who was severely bullied and attacked himself gets trialled with such severe charges.
It's another case of victimizing the victim. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house in the US, is it not trialled as self-defence? Yet a child who was severely bullied and attacked himself gets trialled with such severe charges.
I wish I could say what Noel Estevez did was justified, but in all honesty, I do not think it was considering the information at hand. From the article placed in this thread, Estevez killed his "redator" because he assumed he would kill him, yet no action on the bullies part shows the bully of potentially killing Estevez.
âHe did it because he was scared,â Perez added. âHe say, âIf I donât do it, theyâre going to kill me.â
This quote can mean one of two things, that Estevez was emotionally unstable and killed the bully on the basis of an assumption, or, information regarding why Estevez felt he was going to be killed is undisclosed. Bullied is a broad term that can mean anything from verbal abuse to physical assault and no information is given as to how Estevez. CBS seems to make his deed an over reaction, and an extreme one at that.
Estevez was emotionally unstable and killed the bully on the basis of an assumption
If emotionally unstable, isn't it *somewhat* already justified? I mean, if a person isn't in the right state or has a severe mental illness, I think it broadens the understanding a little. To some it may justify it.
We should remember that we don't have all the facts yet, while currently it does seem to lean in favor of Estevez, the police have turned up nothing conclusive.
It's another case of victimizing the victim. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house in the US, is it not trialled as self-defence? Yet a child who was severely bullied and attacked himself gets trialled with such severe charges.
How self-defense is classed changes from state to state. In some states for example, you cannot claim that it was self-defense, unless you had no other recourse. Meaning that in a conflict, the only time you would be able claim self-defense would be in a scenario were you were either backed into a corner or surrounded and escape was impossible. That's just one example, it tends to fluctuate from state to state and I'm not too clear on what New York statute requires for self-defense.
From reading the article, i have some questions before i can show my opinion is:
1. Have any consensus been reached between the parents of the assailant and the parents of the victim about confirmation if the victim really is a bully? There are 2 sides in this matter, and in my eyes either one or even both sides can be lying or just misunderstanding the whole picture. 2. have the victim specifically threatened the lives of it's assailant? 3. The assailant attorney and the victim's students claims don't match up. the student's say:
"I always used to see Timothy and Noel together. And they always were laughing, and always going places together. And all of a sudden this happens; itâs crazy,".
and the defense attorney claims that:
"They were after him for three months, and they couldnât find him because he stayed behind closed doors,â Poulos told reporters, including WCBS 880â²s Jim Smith. âHe came out of closed doors, and they sicced on him.â
Both don't match up with each other, and both sounds like a bluff or a lie. which one is right?
4. where the hell is that freakin screwdriver that the assailant claims to have been used by the victim?
Not going to add more input since it'll just spiral out into pointless discussion without more facts. Just here to answer some questions on juvenile courts and trials as an adult. Juvenile offenders can be transferred to a full criminal court via the judges discretion (judicial waiver, which is based on severity of offence and age of the perpetrator), state laws that insist upon certain juvenile offenders to be tried in a full criminal court based on their offences, when prosecutors have the authority to file the case under either a juvenile court or criminal court, and finally some states require repeat juvenile offenders who have been tried in criminal courts before to appear in a criminal court for any subsequent offences.
Personally I think it makes more sense if the legal authorities are given a choice of flexibility based on their discretion. Some crimes are just too hideous to be treated with anything lesser than the full power and scope of the law, and it is true that some juvenile offenders are fully cognizant and aware of what they are doing, and its magnitude and consequences. It doesn't make sense to rigidly assign people to certain courts simply by the factor of age.
. where the hell is that freakin screwdriver that the assailant claims to have been used by the victim?
Which article did you read? Estevez used a knife and it was recovered by the police.
"I always used to see Timothy and Noel together. And they always were laughing, and always going places together. And all of a sudden this happens; itâs crazy,"
Not in the article, cite your source.
It doesn't make sense to rigidly assign people to certain courts simply by the factor of age.
It doesn't. However, I don't consider this particular crime to be nearly what would require a 14 year-old to be charged as an adult.
Wow.... Now i feel happy for living in the peaceful part of town.
There are bullies in my school, there d**ks (sorry, but i needed to), the teachers rarely notice, and ive even gone so far to get physical with a few of them.(They asked for it, and ran right after(Im a swimmer, broad-shouldered, muscled and a fighter)). But i would never go so far as to pull a kitchen knife out. I carry a hunting knife with me when im on the bike path, but i have yet reason to pull it out.
This just proves that this stuff is getting more normal. Something like this happened a few years ago too. Jamey Rodmeyer Story In 2011, a boy committed suicide after being bullied for his sexuality for years. Continue with your conversation.
It doesn't make sense to rigidly assign people to certain courts simply by the factor of age.
I agree it doesn't. It just is stupid that we have a system for juveniles and arbitrarily decide to not use it because we feel it shouldn't be used due to the nature of the crime. Put everyone through the same system and punish by taking into account relevant factors and circumstances.
I agree it doesn't. It just is stupid that we have a system for juveniles and arbitrarily decide to not use it because we feel it shouldn't be used due to the nature of the crime. Put everyone through the same system and punish by taking into account relevant factors and circumstances.
I think that's precisely we have to have the flexibility, because of the vast number of factors. If they find a 14 year old is cognizant enough of the system, then they should try him in the adult court. If they find that a 17 year old is a bit on the slow side, then they might choose to try him in a juvenile court.
While maturity is a factor to consider, I don't think any fourteen year old could be cognizant of the impact of being tried as an adult. At fourteen he's not likely to be able to have the same capacities for decision making and processing as an adult or even a 16 year old. Particularly after potentially suffering trauma severe enough to drive him to attempt suicide.
Probably should leave it to the psychologist and prosecutor team to assess that. There's no magical cut off age that causes one to mature into an adult. Pretty sure some adults still act like they're minors.
