ParisHawk said:
That is a BS question. Picture the scenario, for crying out loud: alone in your car with a gang kicking away at it and shouting at you. You don't think that's menacing?
This is an appeal to emotion and doesn't seem rational. Josh and his friends aren't a gang. I don't think this was a premeditated effort to terrorize Calvert. I cannot in a million years imagine myself having done something to invoke the wrath of JJ and friends vandalizing my car so this doesn't hold water with me. If you are asking me to replace in my mind Josh and friends with another group of random people, well that troubles me. Who are the other people and what are their motives?
You use the word "know" to imply that I need to prove she was traumatized. Prove she wasn't.
This is shifting the burden of proof. Josh was the accused. Innocent until proven guilty.
This reminds me of the page from an Elmore Leonard novel: one guy says "Did you know once every 7 seconds a woman gets beaten in the US?" and the other replies "Hard to believe so many women get out of line."
Also an appeal to emotion. He didn't beat her, as you said. He trashed her stuff and told her a few things. Probably all drunk. Definitely all regrettable actions. But this isn't Elmore Leonard's world. If anything she is getting the benefit of the doubt more than Josh.
Similarly, while Josh is an old freshman, he's still a college freshman. Let's not assume that his decisions now are indicative of his adult character.
I wasn't talking about his character, I was talking about that one action. Not normal, not a "mistake".
The reason I bring up his character is that much of our understanding of the facts is cemented together with speculation. And if we are going to speculate, his character appears to be something we are familiar with to some degree.
Let's look at this through the lens of the current times.
That sentence scares me. More relativism - and worse, graver conflict among everyone concerning acceptable behavior. We who have a common bond here can't even agree that what JJ did was wrong, and wrong enough to be brought before a judge?
So first, we can agree what he did was wrong. Probably alcohol involved. Dumb. Rash. Totally agree. But in terms of relativism, I would argue that since the dawn of human thought, societally acceptable behavior has been in flux. To assume that one generations interpretation is the correct one would not only be to deny future interpretation but also all those that came before it, would it not? Is it so bad to possibly consider the female participant in this scenario to be simply person A and the male accused of vandalism to be person B?
You didn't answer my question: was JJ's treatment by the court too harsh for you?
I don't think so. He's fine. I'm sure it put a scare into him with lesser stakes as HEM said. Maybe a good thing.