How do you put an end to situations like this...

briskpuma23 said:Of course you'll get flagged if the rules actually apply to you like they do to everyone else. This is going to be a real test of whether this moderator is independent and consistent, and ultimately, whether this forum even has any credibility left.

Besides, you're missing the bigger picture again.

We all share some level of responsibility here. Some more, some less. That’s why I called out those two recent hate-mongers specifically.

In America, spreading hate is almost encouraged. It's just the climate of the country right now. The more gullible people are, the easier it is to feed them propaganda. Attacking punks is just a substitute for attacking the LGBTQ+ community—it happens when there aren't enough targets in small, rural towns. It always has been.

Good grief, you used to be a moderator, but clearly even that didn't stick...
🙂
Anyway, let's move on...

Human psychology—much like the psychology of almost any creature living in packs, flocks, or any kind of community—is hardwired to protect its own and lash out at anyone from a different group or anyone who doesn't fit the established mold.
And honestly, it's a bit naive to talk about America as if this is unique to us, because this happens everywhere, in massive numbers, across different countries and all sorts of cultures.
What really sets things apart is the sheer level of violence and the total lack of established norms or authority figures.
Around here, nothing happens until some massive disaster strikes, and then suddenly everyone acts shocked, followed by a bunch of people blathering on about "social responsibility" and trying to dilute individual guilt with that "we're all in this together" nonsense.
Well, we aren't "all in this together," unless we're all incapable of actually influencing the behavior and events happening right in front of our faces.

Larry Brown10 said:In the U.S., a minor over the age of 14 is held criminally responsible, though the penalties are reduced, and there are two distinct categories of juveniles subject to the justice system.

I'm just asking... how much depravity has to be going on in those heads before you can justify hitting someone over the head and tossing them into the street? You can't hide behind some excuse about being manipulated by peer pressure...

That isn't manipulation; that's just pure, cold-blooded recklessness.

Yeah, I get it. Under 14, they're just considered children, so they don't face criminal charges.
The 14 to 18 crowd falls under juvenile law, making them liable for both crimes and misdemeanors. But honestly, from what I've seen, the actual punishments are usually lighter, mostly because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Larry Brown10 said:In the U.S., a minor over the age of 14 is held criminally responsible, though the penalties are reduced, and there are two distinct categories of juveniles subject to the justice system.

I'm just asking... how much depravity has to be going on in those heads before you can justify hitting someone over the head and tossing them into the street? You can't hide behind some excuse about being manipulated by peer pressure...

That isn't manipulation; that's just pure, cold-blooded recklessness.

Must be nice that you never had to deal with bad crowds.😉

In any group of about 30 people, you're almost guaranteed to find two or three who have a real streak of violence in them and actually get a kick out of it. It’s just how kids are in school; they're constantly shoving each other around or getting into scraps. And more often than not, they pick on the kid who's the easiest target. As people grow up, some realize that acting like a thug isn't cool and they move past it, but others? They don't. Instead, they find a crew of like-minded people and head out on a Saturday night for the sole purpose of jumping someone. It doesn't matter if the victim is a punk, a metalhead, or a person of color—it doesn't matter what subculture they belong to. All that matters to these guys is finding someone smaller or different who won't fight back. Honestly, there would probably be even more of this if the government didn't step in and prosecute these cases. Unfortunately, the state sends the wrong message sometimes, which was pretty evident during the Ritz trial. If those guys had been handed 50-year sentences, we probably wouldn't see these punks bullying kids so much. At the end of the day, humans are naturally aggressive creatures. Without boundaries and laws, we'd descend into total chaos. If you look at history, our species has been warring since the beginning; only the weapons have changed. We've seen fewer wars lately mostly because a huge part of the world finally has its basic needs met, like food and heat.

Thomas Myers6 said:legione, you're in the wrong subforum again. 😁
This thread is meant for legal talk. If we want to dig into why this attack happened or get inside the heads of these kids—who look like they're all adults to me—we should probably move this over to psychology.
We had a similar debate over on the legal board regarding the verdict for the Luke Ritz murder, and I think vojky made some pretty solid points there.
Since these two guys are adults, they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, so we could be looking at sentences much longer than just a year.
But what happens when we're talking about minors who aren't legally responsible?
From what I understand, the law assumes these kids aren't quite capable of making rational decisions yet. That’s why they hand out lighter sentences instead of basically ruining someone's life before they've even started. It's essentially a second chance, based on the idea that after some "rehabilitation" and a bit of maturing, they might actually reintegrate into society and realize they have to own their actions.
The problem is, how do you actually tell who was just manipulated by a bad crowd or certain circumstances, and who is just fundamentally broken?

I opened this here because I rarely visit the Legal board, and while this certainly touches on psychology, it also involves sociology, societal structures, and the relationship between parents and children...
Regarding those juvenile delinquents, I support the American approach where certain crimes allow minors to be tried as adults. In cases of murder, that should absolutely be the standard...

What is going through their heads? Have you ever been in a fight? If so, you know the feeling, but that doesn't justify this kind of behavior.
There is a massive difference between a one-on-one confrontation or two groups of ten facing off... this senseless beating of individuals or small groups by a mob of 10 or 15 idiots is something else entirely.
I'd bet that individually, most of them are nothing, but they feel powerful in a pack... just guys 😂
A real guy would never participate in mob violence... if you think you're tough, then step up and handle it one-on-one—provided you actually have a reason.

The truth is, you can't even look at these kids the wrong way without getting in trouble.
Man, back in elementary school, I remember being pulled by my hair and even getting slapped once... and look, I didn't die, it didn't leave lasting psychological trauma, and it didn't turn me into a violent person. But imagine if a teacher did that to a kid today... they'd be kicked out of school in a heartbeat. 👎

Thomas Myers6 said:Yeah, I get it. Under 14, they're just considered children, so they don't face criminal charges.
The 14 to 18 crowd falls under juvenile law, making them liable for both crimes and misdemeanors. But honestly, from what I've seen, the actual punishments are usually lighter, mostly because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Must be nice that you never had to deal with bad crowds.😉

haha
I actually got beaten once because I refused to join this little social clique that basically "assigned" me to their group back in school.
And you know what? My mom ended up going to one of those parent meetings, walked right up to their "golden boy," and slapped him right in front of everyone. Then she just looked at them and said, "Go ahead, try to sue me."

Of course, that was a lifetime ago...
But I know how it works. Some people will go to any lengths to squeeze the life out of their kids. It starts with small things, then they get aggressive, and who knows🤷 what comes next.

silentpilot6 said:I opened this here because I rarely visit the Legal board, and while this certainly touches on psychology, it also involves sociology, societal structures, and the relationship between parents and children...
Regarding those juvenile delinquents, I support the American approach where certain crimes allow minors to be tried as adults. In cases of murder, that should absolutely be the standard...

What is going through their heads? Have you ever been in a fight? If so, you know the feeling, but that doesn't justify this kind of behavior.
There is a massive difference between a one-on-one confrontation or two groups of ten facing off... this senseless beating of individuals or small groups by a mob of 10 or 15 idiots is something else entirely.
I'd bet that individually, most of them are nothing, but they feel powerful in a pack... just guys 😂
A real guy would never participate in mob violence... if you think you're tough, then step up and handle it one-on-one—provided you actually have a reason.

The truth is, you can't even look at these kids the wrong way without getting in trouble.
Man, back in elementary school, I remember being pulled by my hair and even getting slapped once... and look, I didn't die, it didn't leave lasting psychological trauma, and it didn't turn me into a violent person. But imagine if a teacher did that to a kid today... they'd be kicked out of school in a heartbeat. 👎

I’m against violence, even if it's labeled as "discipline"... and obviously, a teacher would be gone immediately..
but..
I think the parents should be the ones punished. 🤷 I’d hit them where it actually hurts—right in their wallets.

I'm sick of people making excuses about peer pressure, bad influences, and all that nonsense..
That's just a convenient cover for juvenile delinquency that our institutions either don't know how to handle or simply refuse to address..

Sean Lopez38 said:It’s hard to believe how things have shifted... lately, it feels like I can't even step out the door for a quick trip into town without carrying a sidearm for peace of mind. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the reality we're living in now...😢

Exactly. I just don't see why the government isn't stepping in to handle this.🤷
We're basically heading toward a scene straight out of an old Western set in Texas... mark my words.
It’s probably for the best that women are carrying small, lethal little things in their purses; they've got more bite than three angry devils combined.

schmokljan said:1. We need to penalize those who incite hatred—those fueling intolerance toward anyone perceived as "different."

And that includes public figures like Vlatko Marković, Zdravko Mamić, and similar institutions that essentially signal to the public— that hating certain groups is perfectly acceptable.

The same thing happens here on this forum; the moderators, through their militia-style moderation, allow it, and by extension, encourage hate speech. Hate speech isn't dangerous just because it sounds ugly—it’s dangerous because it triggers violence.

So, everyone who promotes hatred against specific groups—whether women, Mexicans, homosexuals, Jews, Dalmatians, or Herzegovinians—through their public actions or even as anonymous posters, is complicit in this killing.
-----------------
Anyway, you're missing the point again.

We all share some level of blame. Some more, some less. That’s why I specifically pointed out those two recent purveyors of hate.

In America, spreading hate is practically encouraged; that's just the social climate. The more impressionable a person is, the easier they fall for propaganda. Beating up punks is just a substitute for beating up gay people when there aren't enough of them in small, rural towns. It always has been.

No, we don't all share the blame.
This attack wasn't carried out by anonymous posters or by Marković or Mamić; it was done by two individuals who knew exactly what they were doing, and they alone carry the full responsibility for this act.

Thomas Myers6 said:legione, you're in the wrong subforum again. 😁
This thread is meant for legal talk. If we want to dig into why this attack happened or get inside the heads of these kids—who look like they're all adults to me—we should probably move this over to psychology.
We had a similar debate over on the legal board regarding the verdict for the Luke Ritz murder, and I think vojky made some pretty solid points there.
Since these two guys are adults, they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, so we could be looking at sentences much longer than just a year.
But what happens when we're talking about minors who aren't legally responsible?
From what I understand, the law assumes these kids aren't quite capable of making rational decisions yet. That’s why they hand out lighter sentences instead of basically ruining someone's life before they've even started. It's essentially a second chance, based on the idea that after some "rehabilitation" and a bit of maturing, they might actually reintegrate into society and realize they have to own their actions.
The problem is, how do you actually tell who was just manipulated by a bad crowd or certain circumstances, and who is just fundamentally broken?

Does that even matter?
If the person involved wasn't ten years old, they knew damn well their actions had lasting consequences, and therefore, they should face them.

Offtopic: If we really want to test whether the moderators are truly independent, we probably need to move beyond just demanding specific actions. In light of that...
...I would simply ask that, when we engage in a speculative or phenomenological look at this case, we try to be as concise, plausible, and practical as possible.
Also, I should mention that I’ve cleared out a few posts along the lines of "shoot the perpetrators in the head"—and I realize they weren't meant seriously—but mostly because they don't really add anything to the discussion.

It seems we have already identified the relevant variables worth discussing here—personally, I find myself most interested in the following: who, or what, actually serves as the agency for raising the youth; how micro-social peer climates or sub-climates produce and direct aggression, and how other sub-climates (like regional ones—given the mention of provincialism) influence that process; and whether a surveillance system itself creates a need to regain a sense of control through aggressive behavior.

The population of a forum isn't a perfect mirror of the general public—generally speaking, any localized or defined population is easier to control or "re-educate," if that is indeed the goal, compared to fluid groups or those still in the process of forming (or perhaps even hidden groups that we haven't had the chance to "field research" or properly identify yet). Therefore, the question posed in the title might be better phrased as: is prediction even possible when studying behavior and social trends? Why is it relatively easy to predict consumer behavior, yet so difficult to predict local urban aggressors? Is it perhaps because these latter cases are still, for now, somewhat sporadic?

they aren't actually sporadic occurrences, people just keep their mouths shut about them
the ones responsible stay silent because they have zero interest in being held accountable, the aggressors stay quiet because they don't have any valid arguments to make, and the victims stay silent because they don't want to catch even more heat, knowing full well there isn't a single soul coming to protect them
aggression is just baked into the human condition at this point, so we might as well stop dreaming about eradicating it entirely, especially when you consider the sheer mess of side effects trying to wipe it out would cause
the real issue, however, is that aggression needs to be managed, and that’s where we hit the wall: we lack the actual mechanisms for control and we don't have any real tools to channel that energy into something useful
once kids leave the safety of their parents' homes, they're basically left to fend for themselves, and they very quickly realize that nobody is actually going to step in and tell them "no"
after that realization sets in, they learn that someone *can* actually exert influence over them—their more aggressive peers, who also operate under the delusion that they are untouchable
from there, it becomes painfully obvious what kind of behavior is rewarded and which "values" actually carry weight; you don't need to be a Nobel laureate to figure out that it's much better to be the top dog than the underdog
let's be honest here, the school system can't do anything, nor does it particularly want to; everything boils down to these lukewarm conversations and half-hearted threats of detention or suspension, which doesn't mean much when kids are practically begging for an excuse to skip class anyway
we don't have enough police presence, they aren't out there nearly as much as they should be, and even when they are, dealing with children and minors is a total legal nightmare and a constant risk of someone screaming about mistreatment
parents are really the only ones who could take action, but even they are working with one hand tied behind their backs, often having to prioritize basic survival and making ends meet over parenting, all while fighting against a massive machine designed to pull kids out of the house and turn them into nothing more than consumers
in the end, nobody reacts when it's actually time to act; everyone waits until the problems have grown, waiting for that one final blow that changes everything, and only then does the whole machinery of laws, regulations, punishments, and questionable "rehabilitation" programs start grinding. Most of the time, the system just labels the kid a problem and spits them back out, leaving us with nothing but another hardened criminal who's bitter toward themselves and the entire world

hollowtrucker77 said:they aren't actually sporadic occurrences, people just keep their mouths shut about them
the ones responsible stay silent because they have zero interest in being held accountable, the aggressors stay quiet because they don't have any valid arguments to make, and the victims stay silent because they don't want to catch even more heat, knowing full well there isn't a single soul coming to protect them
aggression is just baked into the human condition at this point, so we might as well stop dreaming about eradicating it entirely, especially when you consider the sheer mess of side effects trying to wipe it out would cause
the real issue, however, is that aggression needs to be managed, and that’s where we hit the wall: we lack the actual mechanisms for control and we don't have any real tools to channel that energy into something useful
once kids leave the safety of their parents' homes, they're basically left to fend for themselves, and they very quickly realize that nobody is actually going to step in and tell them "no"
after that realization sets in, they learn that someone *can* actually exert influence over them—their more aggressive peers, who also operate under the delusion that they are untouchable
from there, it becomes painfully obvious what kind of behavior is rewarded and which "values" actually carry weight; you don't need to be a Nobel laureate to figure out that it's much better to be the top dog than the underdog
let's be honest here, the school system can't do anything, nor does it particularly want to; everything boils down to these lukewarm conversations and half-hearted threats of detention or suspension, which doesn't mean much when kids are practically begging for an excuse to skip class anyway
we don't have enough police presence, they aren't out there nearly as much as they should be, and even when they are, dealing with children and minors is a total legal nightmare and a constant risk of someone screaming about mistreatment
parents are really the only ones who could take action, but even they are working with one hand tied behind their backs, often having to prioritize basic survival and making ends meet over parenting, all while fighting against a massive machine designed to pull kids out of the house and turn them into nothing more than consumers
in the end, nobody reacts when it's actually time to act; everyone waits until the problems have grown, waiting for that one final blow that changes everything, and only then does the whole machinery of laws, regulations, punishments, and questionable "rehabilitation" programs start grinding. Most of the time, the system just labels the kid a problem and spits them back out, leaving us with nothing but another hardened criminal who's bitter toward themselves and the entire world

Yes, that is an accurate assessment. I know a kid who, at fifteen, spent a night smashing a van with his crew—the same group he usually terrorized the neighborhood with. Neighbors called the police. The cops caught him. He spent the night in juvenile detention. A relative had to pick him up because the grandparents were out of town. Then they went back to the station to talk to a psychologist. The boy was already a troublemaker, failing all his classes, acting out constantly. The psychologist stated the parents would be summoned by a social worker and placed under supervision for a while. Years have passed since then. No social worker ever showed up. Nothing happened. It was all just quiet whispers. The kid has only gotten worse. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw his name in the headlines of the New York Post tomorrow.

I honestly feel like we need to step up police presence on the streets so that when some thugs decide they want to jump someone, the cops can spot the trouble brewing and shut it down instantly.
Or, alternatively, we should be handing out much harsher sentences to anyone caught beating someone up—say, twenty years behind bars—so that people who are even thinking about getting violent realize exactly what kind of prison time is waiting for them and just decide it isn't worth the risk.

northernbadger4 said:People need to learn how to defend themselves if they don't want to end up in a situation like this. No one else is going to step in and protect them. It's an unfortunate reality. The law can't stop these things from happening; it can only punish them after the fact. But that doesn't mean much to someone who's already gone.

And let's be honest—the legal system isn't even particularly good at the punishing part either.

hollowtrucker77 said:It’s a stretch to think I’m the one getting singled out here, and honestly, you missed the point entirely,
are we all just supposed to be idiots because we actually follow the rules and respect our neighbors?
I suppose we could all just cave in, since the blame is pretty much spread evenly across the entire American social fabric, both inside and outside our little circles.

Sure, you're right. In the end, you and I are just as responsible for what happened to Luka Ritz. Maybe not in the same way as the thugs who actually beat him, but we're certainly guilty for failing as members of society.

Elizabeth Green132 said:I honestly feel like we need to step up police presence on the streets so that when some thugs decide they want to jump someone, the cops can spot the trouble brewing and shut it down instantly.
Or, alternatively, we should be handing out much harsher sentences to anyone caught beating someone up—say, twenty years behind bars—so that people who are even thinking about getting violent realize exactly what kind of prison time is waiting for them and just decide it isn't worth the risk.

Prevention is clearly the most effective and cheapest route, but I suppose that's a hard concept to drill into the heads of the bureaucrats running this country.

Regarding that whole idea of throwing out twenty-year sentences, we really ought to be a bit more grounded in reality here.
By the time you serve twenty years, you're looking at a shell of a human being who wouldn't even know how to function in a free society anymore.
Two, three, or five years can actually feel like an eternity, and frankly, even a month of strict consequences would serve as a hell of a warning if the authorities actually bothered to react to smaller offenses in a timely manner.
Those of us older folks who lived through serving in the old military can testify to exactly how much a single year can shape a person; you can build someone up or completely break them down in that timeframe, especially with a young kid who thinks he's some kind of untouchable tough guy.

nimblelynx7 said:And let's be honest—the legal system isn't even particularly good at the punishing part either.

Yeah, I suppose that's true...

I was reading an article in Time where Boris Orešić put together some sort of psycho-profiles of these attackers—or rather, socio-psychological profiles from a journalistic standpoint. I’ve been thinking, perhaps there should be a distinction made between aggressors from urban areas versus those from rural or provincial settings. There seems to be some potential for interpretation there. On one hand, you have the issues of consumerist culture, stress, and the economic downturn, which clearly disrupt family dynamics and upbringing. Then, more generally, there is the issue of uneducated parents who pass their own frustrations—their inability to articulate or deal with problems, combined with a teenager's skewed view of society and psychology—directly onto their children.

Even if we strip away some of the sensationalism and the tendency to appeal to the readers' baser instincts found in that article, a few good illustrations of the aforementioned problem remain. One attacker was allegedly the son of someone who apparently "built three houses in Lourdes" by making wreaths, and whose business provides extra income for several neighbors. Within that family, everyone is supposedly "peaceful," yet the son is an alcoholic and aggressive. Another attacker is described as generally "calm," withdrawn, and socially awkward—which he obviously compensates for by hanging out with the first guy and developing this persona of a crude idiot who catcalls women. This, I think, is where the black hole of provincial psychology begins. How do we prevent uneducated idiots—who truly don't understand basic factual questions in their private lives, let alone ethics or anything more sophisticated—from endangering the lives of others? I actually encountered a similar example just in the last few days, so I know exactly what kind of lack of integrity and worldview we are dealing with.

There is also the issue regarding the psychology of these "quiet" neighborhoods and their people. "Quiet neighborhoods" usually just mean a lot of silence surrounding things that a civilized society would actually discuss. The main principle there is minding your own business. What percentage of the US territory is made up of such places? Back when Kursar, a professor from FPZ, was attacked in Washington, D.C., quite a few active, urban student groups rose up and put pressure on the Police Academy. But what kind of forces exist in a tiny village where part of the local economy relies on the business of a violent family? If there is a local aggressor who harasses other people's kids in cafes and streets on Sunday nights, who is going to speak up and say the problem exists and take action? That’s the issue—usually, there is neither the courage nor the means to stand up to people like that.

It’s probably pretty difficult to pin down why these kinds of behavioral patterns and violence happen among kids, and even harder to stop them, but I guess what I know is that heavy sentences don't really solve anything. These aren't adults who fully grasp the weight of their actions; if anything, it's the complete opposite. I imagine the aggressors just don't realize the sheer pain and suffering they cause to their victims, as well as to their families and friends. So, how does this all start? It comes down to upbringing, which I think is the most important factor. In my opinion, parents are largely responsible when they're too indifferent or don't put in the work to teach their children basic moral principles and a sense of how to live responsibly within society. Maybe attackers should face slightly tougher consequences than they do now, but I feel it's more important to focus on preventing these cases from happening in the first place.