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

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly. Absolutely not commensurate AND people are charged all the time if the death of a victim occurs after the initial attack. Even years later.

Austin Vantrease kicked Ryan's head while he was lying unconscious on the ground and made it impossible for him to recover. He deserves everything that's coming to him. He has a three-year-old now and attended his college. Living life like he didn't callously end Ryan's and completely change another family for the worse.

I would be so humiliated and embarrassed if that were my pregnant daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

They believed until the end that he would come back to them. They took care of him and worked around the clock to make sure his needs were met.

Meanwhile Austin Vantrease was free after 3 years and didn't pay a cent back of the court order $100,000 in fees.

He's an unrepentant murderer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

They believed until the end that he would come back to them. They took care of him and worked around the clock to make sure his needs were met.

Meanwhile Austin Vantrease was free after 3 years and didn't pay a cent back of the court order $100,000 in fees.

He's an unrepentant murderer.

So sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

Oh well that's just great. So they should have "chosen" to let their son officially die within the first what? Month? Year? So they take that responsibility for themselves and need to live with it? And then it would have been a murder charge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

Oh well that's just great. So they should have "chosen" to let their son officially die within the first what? Month? Year? So they take that responsibility for themselves and need to live with it? And then it would have been a murder charge?

that is so effing messed up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

If his parents were responsible for keeping him alive in a vegetative then it stands to reason that he would not have survived had they chosen differently.

The man was effectively dead and being kept alive by people who loved him and were, no doubt, praying for a miracle. Unfortunately, his injuries were far too severe and far too devastating for him to ever recover from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't die directly from the injuries. He died from some aspect of being in a vegetative state for a decade - could be pneumonia or a respiratory or urinary tract infection or a hospital acquired illness (MRSA or C dif).

He was in the vegetative state due to the crime but his death wasn't directly the result of the crime.

but he would not be in this vegetative state were in not for those two murderers. so how can you make that statement?

His parents chose to keep him in a vegetative state for 10 years. So how can you make that statement?

Oh well that's just great. So they should have "chosen" to let their son officially die within the first what? Month? Year? So they take that responsibility for themselves and need to live with it? And then it would have been a murder charge?

That's why some states have moved away from the year-and-a-day rule.

But keeping your child alive in a vegetative state for 10 years isn't a miracle of modern medicine. It's a tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like he has been in a vegetative state ever since?

https://wtop.com/news/2014/07/parole-granted-in-wvu-beating-case/

The linked article made it seem like the family was grateful he had lived this long so I assumed he had some quality of life. They also talk about his wishes for organ donation - again was he communicating with them or was this a wish from pre-attack?

I don't think there is any further action. The family chose to keep him alive indefinitely in a vegetative state for whatever reason.

You know you don't just get to kill someone because they are in a vegetative state. People can live a long live in a vegetative state.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like he has been in a vegetative state ever since?

https://wtop.com/news/2014/07/parole-granted-in-wvu-beating-case/

The linked article made it seem like the family was grateful he had lived this long so I assumed he had some quality of life. They also talk about his wishes for organ donation - again was he communicating with them or was this a wish from pre-attack?

I don't think there is any further action. The family chose to keep him alive indefinitely in a vegetative state for whatever reason.

You know you don't just get to kill someone because they are in a vegetative state. People can live a long live in a vegetative state.

I know the laws are complex but given his dire prognosis his parents probably had the option of removing the feeding tube. I'm not about to second guess a thing they did because whatever they did for him they did out of love for their son and they were coming from a good place.

[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.

Exactly. Absolutely not commensurate AND people are charged all the time if the death of a victim occurs after the initial attack. Even years later.

Austin Vantrease kicked Ryan's head while he was lying unconscious on the ground and made it impossible for him to recover. He deserves everything that's coming to him. He has a three-year-old now and attended his college. Living life like he didn't callously end Ryan's and completely change another family for the worse.

Citations?
What is the procedure for that?

[Anonymous]

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.

He did as a result of injuries they caused.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Are you asking about double jeopardy?