This isn't the same thing as some guy murdering someone and then trying to blame autism to get off easy. The fact is, many of us can be convinced to go along with something we don't know is wrong. I wouldn't have any idea that this would be illegal.
Ignorance isn't a defence. Unless he can prove that this "friend" actually forced him into the act under duress he should pay the price (regardless of how minor or major the crime is). The only other possibility is if he was to be judged mentally incapable and thus not responsible for his actions. That is a bad thing to happen for both the individual and for the later precedent it sets.
Get a good attorney and try to negotiate for a lesser charge, but claiming diminished responsibility is NOT a good way forward.
TheZach,
It is entirely possible that my son is not as fortunate as yourself when it comes to his abilities to function in his day to day life. For instance, you obviously have skills on the computer & within the online community. He does not.
He suffered a traumatic brain injury when he was 2, has seizure syndrome and takes a variety of medications daily.
Once again, I am not looking for the case to be dismissed just for his own personal circumstances to be taken into account.
My reference to my son in Iraq etc. was made to highlight the fact that we are not the kind of people that think it is fine and dandy to 'do the wrong' thing.
I am here on this board to learn......not to offend or sicken anyone.
This doesn't add up - if he is so disabled that being able to post on a forum is a great skill in comparision due to a traumatic brain injury then this raises a few points:
1 - how did get a diagnosis of AS? the brain injury at an early age would have precluded this, quote from the DSM-IV:
E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in
the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behaviour
(other than social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in
childhood.
F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental
Disorder, or Schizophrenia.
2 - why was he alone in the woods with someone who was obviously a bad character if he's so disabled?
People with Aspergers are well capable of understanding consequences such as blowing up tree stumps or throwing rocks.
Some are. Some aren't. Life ain't simple.
The Zach,
It is a FACT that an Aspie does not understand consequential actions. It's not an excuse, it's a FACT. The way to get around that is to educate. What you have said does not educate at all - it assumes the boy involved should know when INHERENTLY he did not. Now instead of attacking the condition (Aspergers) if you are going to attack anything, go for the education side of matters instead.
Otherwise don't get involved in something that I'm not sure you really understand.
I'm sorry, but I have Aspergers and I sure the hell know blowing up stumps is illegal. This is just a sad story of some parent trying to use a disability as an excuse for getting her son off.
That's YOU, Zach. It's not every Aspie. I happen to know of at least one case down here which involved an Aspie who didn't understand consequences. He and some friends were tossing rocks at moving trains. He saw the fun in it - but did NOT see that rocks could break windows and hurt people on the other side. He had to have this explained to him specifically - otherwise he would not have known.
The boy got off by the way because of his Aspergers - and because he now understood why it was wrong and showed remorse for it.
It is perfectly feasible for an Aspie who doesn't understand consequences to see blowing up stumps as fun - but not realise it was wrong for whatever the reason. Unless he was TOLD (as you have been and as I have been - and probably many other Aspies as well).
Get it now?
No - I dont. People with Aspergers are well capable of understanding consequences such as blowing up tree stumps or throwing rocks. Sounds like teenagers will be teenagers to me.
I'd have to agree with TheZach here - aspies are very capable of understanding consequences of our actions. Trying to claim otherwise and use this as a defence against criminal actions harms us all in the long run.
Oh, good, another thread disolves into a religious flame war. I hope the mother in question gets the help she needs from a *** good lawyer, now that her thread's been hijacked and beaten to a *** pulp.
"*** 'em" isn't a phrase I associate with Jesus, to be honest. Didn't he go on about tolerance, or kindness, or something like that? I see precious little that that exhibited by the self-identified "Christian" here.
You're the only one turning it into a pissing contest, Thezach... which is a bit sad, since you're pissing into the wind.
But this kid isn't jsut autistic - he's got a brain injury and other issues as well. There's a difference between discrimination and the genuine need to take individual circumstances into account.
(But then, I was party to blowing something up myself many years ago...)
I doubt the original poster will return. The damage has been done.
Very, very true. I wonder how many newbies have fled in disgust after having their heads ripped off around here. And I wonder how many parents of newly diagnosed children have wandered in, seen the disgraceful behaviour that goes on around this forum, and been shocked to think that that's all their child has to look forward to. Someone asked why journalists don't come here to do research - what would a journo make of the kind of behaviour on this thread and some of the others we've had recently?
Think about what sort of example you're setting before you indulge in your need to spew bile and vitriol across a public forum. We have not deported ourselves well.
Can we give Zach a - break?
The responses to TheZach were exactly that, responses, not an attack on him. I do not think anyone at all would have objected to him giving his opinion. It was the name calling and cruelty that began the issue.
I am sure that an apology to the original poster for his name calling would do wonders. Apologies usually do that. 
TheZach didn't bring up the religious discussion. Even if judging other's in their stupidity is non-christian, he was right to do so. Whether or not that makes him a hypocrite in the religious sense is completely off-topic for this discussion.
TheZach and the original poster deserve apologies here for the religious arguments. My own view is still quite clear:
If this kid was really so incapable that he can not be held accountable for his actions then first this isn't due to AS, and second he should not have been out unsupervised. Should this be a case of traumatic brain injury then it's downright dishonest to blame AS and anyone who does so has nothing but my contempt. Should they try to use only AS in court as a defence, then that also is something that sets a dangerous precedent and will earn nothing but my contempt.
Equal rights == equal responsibilities
This is not any form of "discrimination in the legal system", "discrimination in the legal system" is what the original poster is calling for - giving lesser punishment on the basis of AS alone. They have not indicated they have any intent of pointing to this alleged brain injury as something distinct and seperate, and are still pushing "my aspie son should get a lesser sentence on the basis of being an aspie". If he was actually pushed into doing something with threats then there may be a defence there, but it's not AS - it's the threats. ANYONE of any neurotype can be threatened and pushed into a criminal action.
The fact he brought up his religion on other threads has no bearing on this one. Even if (and i'm not judging either way on this, because it's frankly stupid) his words here make him "unchristian" it still does not matter. As for "calling names" I see no point at which TheZach called someone names, he did use strong language, "that's bullshit" but that's about it.
On topic:
This kid was not completely uninvolved, this is nothing like the analogy of getting off the bus and being handed a bag of drugs. He was present and probably took part himself. Now, if he was pushed into this with violence or if he didn't do the act himself but merely observed that should be the defence in court. If the TBI is valid cause to think he did not understand, that could be a good defence, but it would reflect VERY poorly upon the mother to allow someone with such low cognitive skills to freely wander outside.
Ultimately, this is a case of vandalism that should be punished as such, and the defence in court must reflect that either he did not do it (i.e was a mere spectator) or through some means was pushed into it. "He's autistic" is NOT a defence and if used I hope that the judge would dismiss it.
The fact he brought up his religion on other threads has no bearing on this one. Even if (and i'm not judging either way on this, because it's frankly stupid) his words here make him "unchristian" it still does not matter. As for "calling names" I see no point at which TheZach called someone names, he did use strong language, "that's bullshit" but that's about it.
I disagree. When you put yourself out there as (insert whatever word here) on a forum, on whatever post, you then subject yourself to the "wrath of the people" when you do what they consider to be contradictory to that other claim. Christianity is the example here, but you could also have a thread on cheese where you call yourself lactose intolerant and then later you are proclaiming yourself to be a real lover of homemade ice cream, you will possibly incur the same kind of questioning.
I am not going to go back and repeat myself again, but saying that someone "sickens you" is bad enough, but calling them an "idiot" is name calling.
He only insulted others AFTER they started insulting him, and even then only indirectly and in response to their insults. His religious beliefs had nothing at all to do with the subject at hand and thus consisted of an ad hominem attack. For the record, I don't care either way on TheZach's religious beliefs, his words and actions mean more and in this context he was right. The only issue is the alleged hypocrisy (which to me is rather like a homophobe turning up to support a gay rights parade) and his use of language.
I am for a kid being charged as a minor, mid you , minors are kids that get in trouble sometimes for doing dumb things, not thought out - a monther isn't alwasy with her kids - so for this mom, she thought that her Kid had matured enough at age 16/17 to be out for a bit at a park - this doesn not refelct negligence on the mom - the circumstances that occureed were not something she thought to discuss with her kid.. Yes he should be punished (even being charged is a punishment), but if he, due to TBI, because of the delays in his development, ended up Chronologically even younger than 16/17 when the action occurred that is a good defense for not being charged as an adult.
It's a fairly simple matter with regards to competence:
1 - He truely is incompetent. The mother either knew that he was not competent enough, and thus should not have let him out on his own, or she didn't know. If she didn't know then one wonders why it's now suddenly being used as a defence and even how any mother could not know a rather critical piece of information about their child
2 - He is perfectly competent and should be treated as such in all ways - both rights and duties. It's common for 17 year olds to go out totally unsupervised and expected. Nothing changes on the 18th birthday at midnight which instantly makes them mentally mature.
In either case there is still the possibility of him being a mere spectator or of being pushed into it. So the only valid defences I can see (bearing in mind I have 0 legal training, this is just my opinion) are:
1 - he was pushed into the action by the "friend" with threats or undue influence
2 - he was mentally incompetent due to TBI, in this case the parents should be charged with neglect
3 - he was a mere spectator - his defence would rest on how he responded and whether or not he was spectating for a significant amount of time, if he was caught with the "friend" fairly quickly then reasonable doubt may be cast
AS is not a defence in any way. As to the matter of whether deportation is appropriate, if the same treatment would be given to other aliens and he is indeed guilty then yes it is very appropriate. You do the crime, you pay the price.
Let's break down that sentence:
that's bullshit == the view TheZach holds of the original poster's statements. TheZach believed (correctly in my view) that it was incorrect and used strong profanity to express his view.
"he knew it was wrong and just because he has aspergers doesn't meant he should get away with that"
A very logical statement to make, he was told in the first post that the original poster's son is an aspie, and that they were looking for help with legal defence:
My son, then 17, was charged as an adult with 6 felony counts. My son had no idea at the time that he was doing something wrong.
The fact that he has Aspergers' is not being taken into account and we are not only fighting for his liberty but as my son, daughter and myself are British Citizens & only my husband is American,there is a possibility he could be deported.
"The fact that he has aspergers is not being taken into account", this is in fact entirely appropriate for the authorities to do and does not consist of "discrimination in the legal system"
"Quit using his disability as a crutch" - a very precise description of what it seems is happening
"you sicken me" - personal opinion based on the rest of the reasoned-out argument.
An ad-hominem attack would be more along the lines of "what you are saying is false because of <character trait>". TheZach did not do this, he said "What you are saying is incorrect, and the way you are using this falsehood sickens me".
I have reasons which I have stated in the open, you are free to dispute them if you believe I am mistaken.
He is an 'alien' but he is also Autistic. Perhaps he is being made an example of here not only because he is not a natural citizen -but because he is Autistic... and they view him as a threat--along the lines of 'ya just never know what those Autistic people might do'...etc.
There is no evidence at all that he is being treated unfavourably due to autism. Whether he is being treated unfavourably due to being an immigrant is a different matter, but again one must look at how another immigrant would be treated in the same instance.
TheZach was not attacked for his use of profanity, which would have been legit. He was attacked for alleged religious hypocrisy and for his viewpoint.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10