|
|
Post by thelma on Mar 11, 2008 12:27:15 GMT -5
www.uticaod.com/breaking/x39088036The Jury just returned an Acquittalof Stolarcyk on the Manslaughter charge and were deadlock on the Assult charge. The DA and the Defense Attorney reached a plea bargain where Stolarcyk would plea Guilty to 3rd Degree Assault - a misdeamor and his sentence would be one year. He would be given credit for the time he has served in Oneida County Jail which means he will be out within a few weeks. This is Justice?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 11, 2008 12:30:19 GMT -5
 Nope!  When you really think about it, there is no such thing. 
|
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Mar 11, 2008 12:32:40 GMT -5
It all depends on how much money you have and how much you want to pay for a good criminal lawyer.
It's the American way - MONEY TALKS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Mar 11, 2008 12:33:14 GMT -5
Yes it is justice because he also was a victim in all of this. He was the second person struck, by Carl Hill, to be specific. About the only thing I could see he would be guilty of was assault as he did admit to kicking Hill. Nothing was ever presented that he acted in concert with a group of people to justify the gang assault charge. And nothing was presented that linked him to the pool balls used as weapons which, according to the medical examiner, is what killed Hill. Aquitting for manslaughter I saw that coming, and gang assault I would have figured would have been tossed also. I figured the jury would hang on the fact that Stolarcyk was also assaulted and that fact the police didn't seem too interested in.
All in all, it sucks. We're talking about an underage drinking party that didn't turn out very well.
Annother interesting thing, after reading the article in the OD, is that Hill's girlfriend makes no mention of the fact that her boyfriend assaulted Stolarcyk. Matter of fact, not only assault, but cowardly, hitting him from behind, for no reason at all. Based on everything publicized, Stolarcyk was never part of the initial fight which sparked everything. Neither was Hill. I can understand the girlfriend's frustration but what is the likelyhood Stolarcyk would have gone after Hill had Hill not struck him first?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 11, 2008 12:55:53 GMT -5
Froggy, I know what you mean, but not just using this case as an example even though the victim does have a family. When one is killed due to someone else's actions no amount of time sentenced brings any kind of justice to the victim's family. Alot throw out, "justice was served or now the family has closure," that is the most stupidest statement I have ever heard and I guess you have to be a member of a victim's family to understand why.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Mar 11, 2008 13:05:02 GMT -5
You are 100% right, bobbbiez. When you have lost a loved one at the hands of another, there never is any "closure" - no matter how much time has gone by. I know this from personal experience and I'm sure there are others here that will agree with me from their own experiences.
Whoever started the term "closure" didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 11, 2008 13:07:03 GMT -5
How true, how very true!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Mar 11, 2008 13:11:41 GMT -5
I'm sick of that word "closure". I wish I never heard it uttered again, serioulsy.
I know where you are coming from, thelma, about losing a loved one to another, but those involved in actually killing him are going to prison. Nothing ever presented, to me anyway, would have pushed me to convict Stolarcyk of the higher crimes. While happy is the wrong choice of words, satisfied might be more appropriate. The girlfriend should be somewhat satisfied with the outcome. The ones who worked in concert, and concocted the idea of the sock-pool ball combo are going to prison. The one kid who was a victim first at the hands of her boyfriend has some level of responsibility to take and the lower assault charge is appropriate. On the flip side, Stolarcyk doesn't get to seek justice against his assailant.
|
|
|
|
Post by WestmoGuy on Mar 11, 2008 14:08:57 GMT -5
You know what the WORST part of all this is besides someone loosing their life?
Why didn't anything happened about all these kids who were there drunk at this party? Most if not all were underage. I've been told about the host of the party. Seems this is a usual event at his place.
All the kids were drinking there supposedly. Why has nothing become of that or did they look the other way because of what else happened at the party?
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Mar 11, 2008 14:35:09 GMT -5
If the district attorney's office didn't have proof of manslaughter, felony assault or gang assault, why did they bring the case to trial?
|
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Mar 11, 2008 15:24:35 GMT -5
If the district attorney's office didn't have proof of manslaughter, felony assault or gang assault, why did they bring the case to trial? Because they were going to try all four together. Its a leverage move to get one to roll over on the others. Once two of the four took pleas, they still had two left. But it was too late into the trial when the third one pled out to stop the proceedings. They weren't far from closing arguements when that happened. From everything I've read about this, I don't even think the prosecution even linked Stolarcyk to the other three defendants. The other three were all tied together in one way shape or form, either related or as friends. I don't recall if the other three even knew Stolarcyk or not, prior to that night. Westmo, you hit the nail on the head. When does the other shoe drop on everyone else at the party? Especially the host of the party. I remember news of this breaking last year. I was like a pool ball? what the hell were they thinking? You'd crush someone's skull with one, its no wonder Hill died. |
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Mar 11, 2008 15:49:40 GMT -5
You know what the WORST part of all this is besides someone loosing their life? Why didn't anything happened about all these kids who were there drunk at this party? Most if not all were underage. I've been told about the host of the party. Seems this is a usual event at his place. All the kids were drinking there supposedly. Why has nothing become of that or did they look the other way because of what else happened at the party? ....................................... Who was the host of this underage drinking party? Was he/she the homeowner? OR - was he also another underage kid? IF - IF the host was over 21 AND had a Homeowner's policy, he/she would be held responsible for all the injuries everyone incurred PLUS Hill's girlfriend as mother of his children could also seek money damages for the loss of Mr. Hill's life. If insurance coverage was not available, the minimum that should be done was arrest the "host" for serving alcohol to underage kids. You're right - why wasn't this done? |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 11, 2008 16:56:22 GMT -5
Nothing will come of the underage party for all the kids who were drinking there, unfortunately. No one was trying to collect evidence against them, e.g. BACs. It's easier for the kids to say "I wasn't drinking." Without proof beyond reasonable doubt, there is no justice for the crimes committed. Not to mention the huge public outcry from the parents that they're kids being kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Mar 11, 2008 23:03:56 GMT -5
As much as I wanted them all to fry- from what I heard its not surprising that he only got 1 year. (Basically for the same reaons that others have posted)- But don't worry- well get him next time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Mar 12, 2008 7:56:18 GMT -5
I like the avatar rrogers40! |
|
Nope! 
When you really think about it, there is no such thing. 
