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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think you can judge the parents at all. Pulling the plug is like the abortion debate. We can all be on our high horse, but one day it might be us who is faced with a horrible decision. It's the parents who have to live with the consequences of their decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Its not double jeopardy. The initial charges were misdeamenor battery which is why he got off so light. Murder is whole different ballgame.

DJ only applies to the EXACT SAME charge.

[Anonymous]

Why would someone marry Vantrease? Geez.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Funny, when this happens in DC the rabid DCUM crowd wants the 'animals' locked away forever.

And they certainly don't get out after THREE YEARS for time served for murder. Gross.

[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.

Vantrease punted and kicked his head like it was a football. Whether he intended for the victim to die or not, he acted with extreme depravity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Its not double jeopardy. The initial charges were misdeamenor battery which is why he got off so light. Murder is whole different ballgame.

DJ only applies to the EXACT SAME charge.

Revisiting the sentence is double jeopardy.

Charging them with the new crime of homicide is a separate question. Although I think it is impossible, there are many posters (or one who has posted many times) who think it should happen.

[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.

I dunno, it sounded like a mighty brutal attack to me. The one guy punched him and slammed him into the ground the other guy kicked his head like a football. Think about that.

[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.

I dunno, it sounded like a mighty brutal attack to me. The one guy punched him and slammed him into the ground the other guy kicked his head like a football. Think about that.

That's felony assault. Which they were convicted of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I dunno, it sounded like a mighty brutal attack to me. The one guy punched him and slammed him into the ground the other guy kicked his head like a football. Think about that.

That's felony assault. Which they were convicted of.

But now he has died. So, they can consider manslaughter, murder (different degrees) and felony murder.

[Anonymous]

this needs to be covered by 48 Hours or Dateline - AND podcasted also

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/09/va-man-brutally-beaten-10-years-ago-dies-from-his-injuries/

can the two men who ultimately killed Ryan Diviney be retried, since now it would be considered a murder case?

Or can they not be retried since they've already served time for a much lesser crime?

Interesting question! It’s not double indemnity as they would not have been charged with murder in the first case but now that he’s dead it could be considered murder. I’m sure that a prosecutor is looking into this especially at what the original charges were and how long the two guys spent in jail. I hope they are charged and when found guilty their sentence would be reduced by time already spent in jail.

It's not double indemnity at all - that is an insurance concept, regarding payouts on (typically) a life insurance policy. But good attempt trying to appear knowledgeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I dunno, it sounded like a mighty brutal attack to me. The one guy punched him and slammed him into the ground the other guy kicked his head like a football. Think about that.

That's felony assault. Which they were convicted of.

Afterwards their victim was in a vegetative state who required a feeding tube to keep him alive, had absolutely no quality of life, no awareness and now he has succumbed to his injuries. Violent assault has now become a murder.

[Anonymous]

NP. Bleeding heart liberal. They killed him. They should go away for decades.

[Anonymous]

Virginia hasn't abolished the year-and-a-day rule, so as of now, they cannot be charged with homicide in connection with his death. If the Virginia legislature were to change the rule by statute and explicitly make it retroactive, it's possible they could be.

Even then, though, whether the charges could be proven might depend on what most immediately caused his death. Sometimes the connection between the injury and the cause of death can be very clear cut, such as if the injury left shrapnel in someone's body that couldn't be removed, and that shrapnel eventually moved in a way that directly caused the person's death; no one dies from a shrapnel injury unless someone put the shrapnel in their body to begin with. But if Diviney succumbed to something like pneumonia, though, it would be harder to prove because people who don't have anything resembling Diviney's injuries die of pneumonia every day.