Aspies For Freedom

marieway,
  I'm kinda surprised that your son would be prosecuted for something that seems trivial, to be honest.

  One of the things that the State *has* to prove is 'criminal intent' on your son's part; he has to be a *willing* participant. He *was* there, yes, but if he didn't know it was wrong - for example, he trusted his 'friend' when he said it was ok - that *could* be considered a mitigating factor.

  To digress a bit: is this Assistant DA running for something? A *lot* of the time, junior DA types who are running for a higher position will over-prosecute to prove that they're 'tough on crime'. Some hints that he's going to have a scandal if he prosecutes a disabled kid might be enough to get him to back off.

  Back to the case at hand, why was a 17-year-old kid charged as an *adult*? Blowing up the tree stumps would probably be considered vandalism, but the monetary value of a tree stump is almost *nothing*. The explosives themselves could be grounds for prosecution, but it would appear that the 'friend' was the one who was the most culpable there.

  Incidentally, what was the 'friend' charged with? Your son could easily turn state's evidence on the 'friend' in exchange for getting the charges dropped. One little secret of prosecutors is that a lot of the time, they don't *really* want to take cases like this to trial, but rather, they want one defendant to turn against another. In this case, it would be *very* difficult for the 'friend' to turn against your son, since the 'friend' was the one who convinced your son to go into the woods.

  Also, make sure you get a *good* lawyer; another little secret about prosecutors is that they'd *much* rather go up against a marginally competent Public Defender than a good private practice attorney. Having a good lawyer might even be enough to get things dropped.

  Hope that helps!  

  -BobB

marieway,
  You're very welcome!  

  If the 'friend' was the one who did everything, and had done it other times prior to the incident involving your son, that's a *clear* indication that your son *wasn't* involved in *any* planning or premeditation! He just *happened* to have been taken along on that *one* particular instance!

  The YouTube vids can be considered exculpatory evidence, by the way.

  And if this happened on *federal* land, shouldn't it be federal *jurisdiction*? A *county* DA (U.S. District Attorneys are appointed, not elected) shouldn't have the case if it's a federal offense!

  I *knew* she had to be up for re-election!

  If the 'friend' was 19 at the time the offense occurred, then he could have been charged with 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor'. That your son *wasn't* given the opportunity to plead down that the 'friend' was given could be considered a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

  This assistant DA could also be disciplined for prosecutorial misconduct. It's *blatantly* obvious that she's unfairly disregarding mitigating circumstances - the fact that your son is autistic, that the 'friend' had done this numerous times before, etc. - and that she's she's pursuing it on a *malicious* basis, *not* because he had genuinely committed a crime.

  Why not dismissed? The only reason that your son is even *in* this mess is because of the 'friend'! The *only* thing he did wrong was *trusting* this kid!

  Given the assistant DA's little witch-hunt, it would probably be fairly easy to get a judge to throw it out!

  One person who you should *definitely* contact is Senator Ron Wyden; he and his staff should be able to help get things resolved without you having to worry about your son being convicted and/or deported.

  You're very welcome! Keep us posted, ok?  

  -BobB

I am not sure I have represented myself all that well.  I think I called him a "bastard" back there somewhere.  My apologies for using strong language.

I almost left when there was a particularly bad thread going on shortly after I joined.  The need to understand was more important than the need to flee from the behavior.  

I have made some good on line friends here, and gained more understanding of what makes my best friend and husband tick.  That makes it worth it for me.  Oh, and I am stubborn too.  

Recently Wondering1 and I got into a few strong worded posts on education, but at no point did I insult him or call him names.  We sparred and talked and it was a blast.  He had some interesting ideas.  

I just cannot fathom the need to be so terrible as TheZach has been.  Have your thoughts, have your opinions, but please, do not be intentionally cruel.  

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,
  And if 'teenagers will be teenagers', why has this become a *federal* case?

  This is something that should be - at most - a fairly petty charge of vandalism. What was damaged? A few tree stumps. *Not* healthy trees, just dead *stumps*!

  Now, explain the concept of 'consequences' in a way that justifies federal felony charges against a kid who did *nothing* wrong, except to follow a 'friend' into something that the *'friend'* was doing, if you would, please...

  Would this kid have blown up stumps on his own?

  No.

  I don't think it would have even *occurred* to him to blow up a stump *unless* someone had said something like, "Hey, want to see something cool?" and *showed* it to him!

  So why should this kid *not* get the benefit of the doubt, *especially* since the *adult* (19) who actually committed the crime was allowed to plead down?

  -BobB

TheZach,
  Don't let the door smack you on the ass on your way out...  

  -BobB

Gareth,
  At last! Reasonable debate!  

  The problem in this case *isn't* AS, TBI, or whatever; it's the *over-reaction* by the *prosecutor*!

  Should the kid have been there when the adult (19 years old) was blowing stuff up? No. But if you're dealing with a lonely kid who's pretty much *never* had any friends, and someone *finally* acts like he's their buddy, the kid is probably going to do what the friend wants, just because the kid *needs* a friend!

  Unfortunately, that *can* overshadow whatever judgement one has...

  The 'friend' had done this before; in fact, he *posted* it on YouTube!

  So it's highly unlikely that the *kid* was involved in the planning, preparation, etc.; this is referred to as 'res gestae' in law. There's little - if any - indication that the kid was knowingly and willfully doing anything that he knew to be wrong. Plus, even though he was present, there's no indication that he was any more than a *spectator* to the act.

  *None* of this really has *anything* to do with the fact that the kid is Aspie.

  To digress a bit, in the middle of Stevie Wonder's "Living For The City", he has a playlet where an innocent black kid steps off the bus in the Big City. At the same time, a drug dealer is running from the cops, sees the kid, gives him a bag full of drugs, and runs off - the kid has *no* idea what's going on - then the cops grab the kid, bust him for possession, and he gets something like 15 years in prison for something that he *didn't do*!

  Same thing here; the kid was a *convenient target*, and the fact that he's not an American citizen - again, *nothing* to do with being Aspie - is what's driving the over-prosecution. The bitch is on a *witch-hunt*, and THAT'S why I have issues with the situation, *not* just because the kid is Aspie!

  -BobB

Do not forget that TheZach should apologize for calling the op names and being incredibly rude.  He has a right to his opinions, but calling people idiots, stupid, etc. is not ok.  

TheZach opened himself up to a religious discussion by bringing up his religion on other threads.  When he began to insult, that started a trend that is difficult to stop.  If he opened up that door, he should reap the rewards.  Being sanctimonious has its price.

I trust BobB's opinions on this matter as he seems to know what the heck he is talking about and I wish the original poster the best with her situation.

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.

This was his first post:
Um, sorry I'm going to have to say thats bullshit.  He knew it was wrong and just because he has Aspergers doesent mean he should get away with that.  Quit using his disability as a crutch - you sicken me.

ad ho·mi·nem  
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.  
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.  

TheZach began his responses on this thread with the above post.  He made many assumptions, none of which we can prove or disprove.  He also said "that's bullshit" and "you sicken me" which seems to attack her character.  

I would say that the "ad hominem" attacks started there.

Gareth we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I am not going to sit and argue with you any more.  

Your opinions are just that, opinions.  As are mine.  While I am certain you have your reasons for defending TheZach and ignoring the rest of the posters, you are, after all, King of this particular castle.

Did you want to continue this?  I mean, I know I am free to, but did you want me to?

Obviously I decided to continue it anyway, possibly to my own detriment, as talking back to the King is often not regarded well in society.  (Not specifically in this forum, I am making a funny about possibly being axed for disagreeing)

“That’s bullshit”
is a directed and aggressive response.  It makes the statement that what the person is saying is false.  What she is saying is not false.  He may disagree with her opinions, but they are not false.

“He knew it was wrong”
makes an assumption.  One which none of us can say is correct or incorrect.  It would, however, also be offensive, as it tells her that her son intentionally broke the law.  

“Just because he has Asperger’s doesn’t mean he should get away with that”
also assumes facts not in evidence.  At no point did she say he should get away with anything.  

"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"  
Again, this is an assumption, this time yours.  You think it is appropriate for the authorities.  To my knowledge, you are not a Federal Court Judge, your opinions on whether or not this is “appropriate” is of little value to the original poster.

“Quit using his disability as a crutch”
both seems to be an ironic statement as well as an offensive.  He calls Asperger’s a disability and then tells her that it should not be taken into account.

“You sicken me”
is not a reasonable statement, even if his “argument” had merit or was not vulgar and full of personal attacks.

I think what this may come down to is that TheZach has a difficult time communicating.  Possibly his words are more harsh than they are meant to be.  Perhaps he has a lot of anger to deal with.

But I have seen, over and over, the people on this forum asking for help, accommodations to help them through life, and I have seen people freely and pleasantly discussing their options, ideas, etc.  Sometimes it gets heated.  Sometimes without reason.  

I believe that TheZach’s postings started out of line, continued out of line, and when people asked him to refrain (some people using his religious affiliation as that may have been a way to get through to him) so that the OP could get some feedback, he got more aggressive and rude.  You seem to support this.  I am sorry I attempted to get him to be nice.  The original poster who came in asking for help should have chosen another place to ask.

He was not attacked for his viewpoint, rather, he was attacked for HOW HE STATED HIS VIEWPOINT.  Which was aggressive, vulgar, and out of line.

The points about his religious hypocrisy were attempting to get him to be nicer and more pleasant while making his points.

Angry again, huh?  I am sorry.  I am discussing things with Gareth, and he has said that we can exchange thoughts.

I hope you find something in life that makes you happy other than being so darn mean.  Best wishes to you.