Va. man brutally beaten 10 years ago dies from his injuries - what now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die from the injuries. He died from an infection.

Which is how many people in a vegetative state wind up dying. The vegetative state was why the infection happened. The vegetative state was inflicted on him by his assailants.

Those guys didn't just push the guy or talk smack to him, they injured him resulting in his early, untimely death. This was a healthy, smart, athletic kid who basically got robbed of his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's horrific and I am absolutely appalled for his family. Those poor parents have been dealing with the most devastating, unspeakable grief imaginable.

Even if they were charged, any decent defense attorney is going to look for intervening causes for his death to negate causation, which means the nature of the care Diviney's parents provided him would be picked apart and analyzed for any little mistake they might have made. Will it bring the Divineys any peace to go through a trial and have the two men go free because a jury felt like maybe the parents' faulty care taking caused the infection?

What are you babbling about?

What specifically do you not understand about the above?

It’s a word salad of weird speculation.

Not if you understand the law. In order to convict for murder, you have to show that the accused’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and that there was nothing that happened in between the accused’s actions and the death that more directly caused the death. In this case, if there were evidence suggesting that the infection that led to Diviney’s death might have been contracted because one of his parents had gotten lax about hand washing, or because of an outbreak of that infection at a hospital where Diviney had a procedure, it breaks the causal connection between the assault and his death because the assault itself didn’t cause the infection, it was someone else’s error that actually cause the infection, even if the consequences of the assault made him more susceptible to infection.

Taking it out of this highly charged context, let’s say you cause a car accident when you accidentally rear-end someone. The other driver suffers a broken wrist and goes to the ER by ambulance for treatment. But on the way there, the ambulance gets into an accident and the other driver dies in that accident. Should you be convicted of vehicular manslaughter? After all, the other driver never would have gotten into that second accident in the ambulance if you hadn’t read-ended them in the first place. Or is the proper answer that you are only liable for the injury you directly caused in your own accident (the broken wrist)?

Not an apples to apples comparison.
His vegetative state killed him.
They caused the vegetative state.

For purposes of legal causation, it is an apt comparison. I realize you don’t have much familiarity with legal standards, but that doesn’t make your assumptions correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die from the injuries. He died from an infection.

Which is how many people in a vegetative state wind up dying. The vegetative state was why the infection happened. The vegetative state was inflicted on him by his assailants.

Those guys didn't just push the guy or talk smack to him, they injured him resulting in his early, untimely death. This was a healthy, smart, athletic kid who basically got robbed of his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's horrific and I am absolutely appalled for his family. Those poor parents have been dealing with the most devastating, unspeakable grief imaginable.

Even if they were charged, any decent defense attorney is going to look for intervening causes for his death to negate causation, which means the nature of the care Diviney's parents provided him would be picked apart and analyzed for any little mistake they might have made. Will it bring the Divineys any peace to go through a trial and have the two men go free because a jury felt like maybe the parents' faulty care taking caused the infection?

What are you babbling about?

What specifically do you not understand about the above?

It’s a word salad of weird speculation.

Not if you understand the law. In order to convict for murder, you have to show that the accused’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and that there was nothing that happened in between the accused’s actions and the death that more directly caused the death. In this case, if there were evidence suggesting that the infection that led to Diviney’s death might have been contracted because one of his parents had gotten lax about hand washing, or because of an outbreak of that infection at a hospital where Diviney had a procedure, it breaks the causal connection between the assault and his death because the assault itself didn’t cause the infection, it was someone else’s error that actually cause the infection, even if the consequences of the assault made him more susceptible to infection.

Taking it out of this highly charged context, let’s say you cause a car accident when you accidentally rear-end someone. The other driver suffers a broken wrist and goes to the ER by ambulance for treatment. But on the way there, the ambulance gets into an accident and the other driver dies in that accident. Should you be convicted of vehicular manslaughter? After all, the other driver never would have gotten into that second accident in the ambulance if you hadn’t read-ended them in the first place. Or is the proper answer that you are only liable for the injury you directly caused in your own accident (the broken wrist)?

Not an apples to apples comparison.
His vegetative state killed him.
They caused the vegetative state.

This is not exactly the right way to look at it. He was assaulted and lingered for 10 years. He eventually succumbed. There would be no question if he died 10 months after the assault. Maybe the fact that he lingered for 10 years instead of 10 months makes no difference. Maybe it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die from the injuries. He died from an infection.

Which is how many people in a vegetative state wind up dying. The vegetative state was why the infection happened. The vegetative state was inflicted on him by his assailants.

Those guys didn't just push the guy or talk smack to him, they injured him resulting in his early, untimely death. This was a healthy, smart, athletic kid who basically got robbed of his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's horrific and I am absolutely appalled for his family. Those poor parents have been dealing with the most devastating, unspeakable grief imaginable.

Even if they were charged, any decent defense attorney is going to look for intervening causes for his death to negate causation, which means the nature of the care Diviney's parents provided him would be picked apart and analyzed for any little mistake they might have made. Will it bring the Divineys any peace to go through a trial and have the two men go free because a jury felt like maybe the parents' faulty care taking caused the infection?

What are you babbling about?

What specifically do you not understand about the above?

It’s a word salad of weird speculation.

Not if you understand the law. In order to convict for murder, you have to show that the accused’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and that there was nothing that happened in between the accused’s actions and the death that more directly caused the death. In this case, if there were evidence suggesting that the infection that led to Diviney’s death might have been contracted because one of his parents had gotten lax about hand washing, or because of an outbreak of that infection at a hospital where Diviney had a procedure, it breaks the causal connection between the assault and his death because the assault itself didn’t cause the infection, it was someone else’s error that actually cause the infection, even if the consequences of the assault made him more susceptible to infection.

Taking it out of this highly charged context, let’s say you cause a car accident when you accidentally rear-end someone. The other driver suffers a broken wrist and goes to the ER by ambulance for treatment. But on the way there, the ambulance gets into an accident and the other driver dies in that accident. Should you be convicted of vehicular manslaughter? After all, the other driver never would have gotten into that second accident in the ambulance if you hadn’t read-ended them in the first place. Or is the proper answer that you are only liable for the injury you directly caused in your own accident (the broken wrist)?

Not an apples to apples comparison.
His vegetative state killed him.
They caused the vegetative state.

Vegetative state or not, he eventually would have died of something. Everyone does.

[Anonymous]

LMGTFY

https://www.swordandscale.com/murder-charges-under-the-delayed-death-exception/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die from the injuries. He died from an infection.

Which is how many people in a vegetative state wind up dying. The vegetative state was why the infection happened. The vegetative state was inflicted on him by his assailants.

Those guys didn't just push the guy or talk smack to him, they injured him resulting in his early, untimely death. This was a healthy, smart, athletic kid who basically got robbed of his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's horrific and I am absolutely appalled for his family. Those poor parents have been dealing with the most devastating, unspeakable grief imaginable.

Even if they were charged, any decent defense attorney is going to look for intervening causes for his death to negate causation, which means the nature of the care Diviney's parents provided him would be picked apart and analyzed for any little mistake they might have made. Will it bring the Divineys any peace to go through a trial and have the two men go free because a jury felt like maybe the parents' faulty care taking caused the infection?

What are you babbling about?

What specifically do you not understand about the above?

It’s a word salad of weird speculation.

Not if you understand the law. In order to convict for murder, you have to show that the accused’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and that there was nothing that happened in between the accused’s actions and the death that more directly caused the death. In this case, if there were evidence suggesting that the infection that led to Diviney’s death might have been contracted because one of his parents had gotten lax about hand washing, or because of an outbreak of that infection at a hospital where Diviney had a procedure, it breaks the causal connection between the assault and his death because the assault itself didn’t cause the infection, it was someone else’s error that actually cause the infection, even if the consequences of the assault made him more susceptible to infection.

Taking it out of this highly charged context, let’s say you cause a car accident when you accidentally rear-end someone. The other driver suffers a broken wrist and goes to the ER by ambulance for treatment. But on the way there, the ambulance gets into an accident and the other driver dies in that accident. Should you be convicted of vehicular manslaughter? After all, the other driver never would have gotten into that second accident in the ambulance if you hadn’t read-ended them in the first place. Or is the proper answer that you are only liable for the injury you directly caused in your own accident (the broken wrist)?

Not an apples to apples comparison.
His vegetative state killed him.
They caused the vegetative state.

Vegetative state or not, he eventually would have died of something. Everyone does.

Wow. Then why charge anyone with murder! We’re all destined to be worm food!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LMGTFY

https://www.swordandscale.com/murder-charges-under-the-delayed-death-exception/

That adds precisely nothing to the discussion at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMGTFY

https://www.swordandscale.com/murder-charges-under-the-delayed-death-exception/

That adds precisely nothing to the discussion at this point.

Just precedent. Who needs that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die from the injuries. He died from an infection.

Which is how many people in a vegetative state wind up dying. The vegetative state was why the infection happened. The vegetative state was inflicted on him by his assailants.

Those guys didn't just push the guy or talk smack to him, they injured him resulting in his early, untimely death. This was a healthy, smart, athletic kid who basically got robbed of his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's horrific and I am absolutely appalled for his family. Those poor parents have been dealing with the most devastating, unspeakable grief imaginable.

Even if they were charged, any decent defense attorney is going to look for intervening causes for his death to negate causation, which means the nature of the care Diviney's parents provided him would be picked apart and analyzed for any little mistake they might have made. Will it bring the Divineys any peace to go through a trial and have the two men go free because a jury felt like maybe the parents' faulty care taking caused the infection?

What are you babbling about?

What specifically do you not understand about the above?

It’s a word salad of weird speculation.

Not if you understand the law. In order to convict for murder, you have to show that the accused’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and that there was nothing that happened in between the accused’s actions and the death that more directly caused the death. In this case, if there were evidence suggesting that the infection that led to Diviney’s death might have been contracted because one of his parents had gotten lax about hand washing, or because of an outbreak of that infection at a hospital where Diviney had a procedure, it breaks the causal connection between the assault and his death because the assault itself didn’t cause the infection, it was someone else’s error that actually cause the infection, even if the consequences of the assault made him more susceptible to infection.

Taking it out of this highly charged context, let’s say you cause a car accident when you accidentally rear-end someone. The other driver suffers a broken wrist and goes to the ER by ambulance for treatment. But on the way there, the ambulance gets into an accident and the other driver dies in that accident. Should you be convicted of vehicular manslaughter? After all, the other driver never would have gotten into that second accident in the ambulance if you hadn’t read-ended them in the first place. Or is the proper answer that you are only liable for the injury you directly caused in your own accident (the broken wrist)?

Not an apples to apples comparison.
His vegetative state killed him.
They caused the vegetative state.

Vegetative state or not, he eventually would have died of something. Everyone does.

Wow. Then why charge anyone with murder! We’re all destined to be worm food!

By your reasoning, we might as well charge all perpetrators of assault with homicide because their victims will eventually die and maybe it will in some way be connected with the assault. For more efficient than trying them again with new charges a decade later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMGTFY

https://www.swordandscale.com/murder-charges-under-the-delayed-death-exception/

That adds precisely nothing to the discussion at this point.

Just precedent. Who needs that!

Did you even bother to read your link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMGTFY

https://www.swordandscale.com/murder-charges-under-the-delayed-death-exception/

That adds precisely nothing to the discussion at this point.

Just precedent. Who needs that!

JFC. In this context, homicide is a state law crime. Cases from New York and England are not precedent for West Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMGTFY

https://www.swordandscale.com/murder-charges-under-the-delayed-death-exception/

That adds precisely nothing to the discussion at this point.

Just precedent. Who needs that!

JFC. In this context, homicide is a state law crime. Cases from New York and England are not precedent for West Virginia.

Also, in the New York case the victim died less than a year after the assault, so year and a day rule wasn’t an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die from the injuries. He died from an infection.

Which is how many people in a vegetative state wind up dying. The vegetative state was why the infection happened. The vegetative state was inflicted on him by his assailants.

Those guys didn't just push the guy or talk smack to him, they injured him resulting in his early, untimely death. This was a healthy, smart, athletic kid who basically got robbed of his right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's horrific and I am absolutely appalled for his family. Those poor parents have been dealing with the most devastating, unspeakable grief imaginable.

Even if they were charged, any decent defense attorney is going to look for intervening causes for his death to negate causation, which means the nature of the care Diviney's parents provided him would be picked apart and analyzed for any little mistake they might have made. Will it bring the Divineys any peace to go through a trial and have the two men go free because a jury felt like maybe the parents' faulty care taking caused the infection?

What are you babbling about?

What specifically do you not understand about the above?

It’s a word salad of weird speculation.

Not if you understand the law. In order to convict for murder, you have to show that the accused’s actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s death, and that there was nothing that happened in between the accused’s actions and the death that more directly caused the death. In this case, if there were evidence suggesting that the infection that led to Diviney’s death might have been contracted because one of his parents had gotten lax about hand washing, or because of an outbreak of that infection at a hospital where Diviney had a procedure, it breaks the causal connection between the assault and his death because the assault itself didn’t cause the infection, it was someone else’s error that actually cause the infection, even if the consequences of the assault made him more susceptible to infection.

Taking it out of this highly charged context, let’s say you cause a car accident when you accidentally rear-end someone. The other driver suffers a broken wrist and goes to the ER by ambulance for treatment. But on the way there, the ambulance gets into an accident and the other driver dies in that accident. Should you be convicted of vehicular manslaughter? After all, the other driver never would have gotten into that second accident in the ambulance if you hadn’t read-ended them in the first place. Or is the proper answer that you are only liable for the injury you directly caused in your own accident (the broken wrist)?

Not an apples to apples comparison.
His vegetative state killed him.
They caused the vegetative state.

Vegetative state or not, he eventually would have died of something. Everyone does.

Accidentally rear ending another car causing another person to break their wrist is vastly different than deliberately kicking another person's head like a football causing them grave injury, the loss of all of their personal freedoms and their eventual untimely death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's not their fault the man died a decade later. However, I certainly hope their punishment was commensurate with the victim's very serious medical state as a result of the beating.

Was it? One got seven months or something like that and the other was paroled after four years.

That's the judge's fault. I agree that it's not adequate at all. However, again, it's not fair to revisit sentences a decade later.

please explain why you feel this way. I don't get it.

How about, it’s not fair that the guys who did this are directly responsible for Ryan’s death and are free a decade later while Ryan is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do judge the parents for their decision. It is a horrible thing that happened to their son and their entire family, but keeping him on life support for this long, given the diminishing of the already very low odds of his ever regaining consciousness, does not seem like the way for any of them to heal.

I do think his attackers should pay what they were ordered to pay. I do not think they should be charged with murder. It sounds to me like a group or intoxicated young men got into an altercation and that these ones attacked the one who died. It did not sound to me like they intended to kill him. They went to jail and served the amount of time they were required to serve by the system that often allows people to
Leave prison sooner than their sentence dictates for various reasons and with various conditions.

One guy punched him from behind and the other kicked his head into a curb while he was on the ground defenseless. This was not just a mutual brawl that got out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do judge the parents for their decision. It is a horrible thing that happened to their son and their entire family, but keeping him on life support for this long, given the diminishing of the already very low odds of his ever regaining consciousness, does not seem like the way for any of them to heal.

I do think his attackers should pay what they were ordered to pay. I do not think they should be charged with murder. It sounds to me like a group or intoxicated young men got into an altercation and that these ones attacked the one who died. It did not sound to me like they intended to kill him. They went to jail and served the amount of time they were required to serve by the system that often allows people to
Leave prison sooner than their sentence dictates for various reasons and with various conditions.

One guy punched him from behind and the other kicked his head into a curb while he was on the ground defenseless. This was not just a mutual brawl that got out of control.

just the thought of that....my GOD how did the parents even process this happening to their child! I swear, I would not stop until both of those guys paid for their evil transgressions.