Cornell student's brutal threats against Jewish peers land him in prison for 21 months

[frauenfelder]

Originally published at: Cornell student's brutal threats against Jewish peers land him in prison for 21 months - Boing Boing

…

[Melizmatic]

undiagnosed autism

Being on the spectrum doesn’t make someone into a bigot who promotes violence.

“functions socially at the age of between a five- and 10-year-old.”

Even more bullshit; most 5 year olds still know better unless they were raised by sociopaths.

[danimagoo]

@frauenfelder

His intentions were the exact opposite of the public’s perception.

[Chuckles]

So did it actually get diagnosed? Otherwise the public defender is apparently doing the “diagnosis”.

[bluehenbear]

@Melizmatic

“functions socially at the age of between a five- and 10-year-old.”

And was still able to get admitted to Cornell University?

[danimagoo]

Socially, not intellectually. I could maybe see that. It’s a stretch, but maybe. Regardless, it’s clearly bullshit.

[GagHalfrunt]

@frauenfelder

His attorney, public defender Lisa Peebles, told NPR that Dai had undiagnosed autism when he made the threats, and “functions socially at the age of between a five- and 10-year-old.” She said “Patrick’s flawed logic is a result of his autism. His intentions were the exact opposite of the public’s perception. Patrick is not antisemitic and is not violent.”

Perhaps that is lawyer-speak for “my client is a moronic edgelord who believes in nothing and mouthed off about things he knows nothing about”.

[danimagoo]

More likely it’s lawyer speak for “This is the defense my client wants to go with. I’m so sorry, I know it’s ridiculous.”

[Serge]

To quote Cheech and Chong: Bailiff whack his pee-pee.

[Otherbrother]

@frauenfelder

His attorney, public defender Lisa Peebles

I know that public defenders have a largely unearned reputation for being incompetent but in imagining a potential defense strategy for this guy I can’t help thinking of the pilot episode of Better Call Saul:

[Saul/Jimmy] : Oh, to be nineteen again! You with me, ladies and gentlemen? Do you remember nineteen? Let me tell you, the juices are flowing. The red corpuscles are corpuscling, the grass is green, and it’s soft, and summer’s gonna last forever. [chuckles; inhales sharply] Now, do you remember? Yeah, you do. [clears throat] But if you’re being honest…I mean, well, really honest, you’ll recall that you also had an underdeveloped nineteen-year-old brain. Me, personally, I…it…If I were held accountable for some of the stupid decisions I made when I was nineteen… [chuckling] Oh, boy, wow. And I bet if we were in church right now, I’d get a big “amen!” Which brings us to these three…

[Karyudo]

I’m inclined to believe the public defender, and accept that some sort of undiagnosed autism is partially to blame. Still, a threat’s a threat and some incarceration sounds right. Hope he gets some diagnosis and treatment while he’s away.

[Davet]

@GagHalfrunt

Perhaps that is lawyer-speak for “my client is a moronic edgelord who believes in nothing and mouthed off about things he knows nothing about”.

But enough about Trump and Musk, what about Patrick?

[anon23281680]

Autism does not cause anti-Semitism. What he did was straight up anti-Semitism and misogyny. He knew it was wrong. He posted an apology after all the threats.

It is disgusting his attorney decided to attempt to excuse his actions by blaming neuro-divergence. It is also dangerous and insulting to all the perfectly not-bigoted people who also autism. If this asshole insisted she try this tactic, gross she didn’t say no but maybe she felt like she had to. But she should have left that argument in the courtroom. She herself admits there isn’t a path to appeal the hate crime charges before his sentence is up. Saying this now is just a way to smear the reputation of people with autism.

[ficuswhisperer]

@Otherbrother

I can’t help thinking of the pilot episode of Better Call Saul

Then the DA shows the video evidence without comment, and Jimmy loses the case.

But what a closing argument!

[ficuswhisperer]

@Karyudo

something that could cause this guy’s thoughts and filters to not work like the rest of ours do, especially if he’s anxious or angry

Hmm, I think that there’s a big difference between “no filter” and encouraging the murder of a group of people simply for existing. You don’t just come up with these ideas from nothing.

[KathyPartdeux]

@Karyudo

Can’t you morons READ?!

You sound upset. Maybe you should take a nap.

[anon29537550]

First of all, speculating on another’s mental health is not cool, nor is diagnosing by press release. And autistics get enough shit. Autism does not cause antisemitism, period, full stop. That said, thete is no indication at all that this person has autism. None. It’s a weird argument for the lawyer to attempt. It’s one that will not fly here.

[anon29537550]

Holy shit, do we really need to prove all the stuff we don’t have now? You can tar with anything you choose, then, since they can’t prove that they don’t have it.

[danimagoo]

@anon23281680

If this asshole insisted she try this tactic, gross she didn’t say no but maybe she felt like she had to.

Yeah, the more I think about this…she didn’t have to make any public statement. She’s under no obligation to do that, no matter what defense strategy she and her client have decided on.

Also, while the client is ultimately the boss, so to speak, specific defense strategy is typically up to the attorneys. A client can insist on testifying, or they can insist on not testifying. They get to decide the plea. But they don’t get to decide all facets of the defense. So yeah, I’m not sure what the defense attorney is thinking here. Without a medical diagnosis, she’s not going to be able to use this defense in court. Even the affluenza asshole managed to get a doctor to testify to that bullshit diagnosis. But to try to use a claim of “undiagnosed autism”…that’s not going to work in court. She would have to get him diagnosed and then argue that he wasn’t diagnosed at the time of the threats. Even then, though…so what? You’re not arguing that he’s not guilty by reason of insanity. Maybe she’s just trying to garner sympathy for a lighter sentence, but even that seems iffy.

As an attorney, you are obligated to basically try everything you can think of that could reasonably be a defense, but this doesn’t seem reasonable.

[Brainspore]

@Karyudo

I can certainly imagine somebody not having that sort of regulation working properly, and I can certainly imagine that being described (whether entirely accurately or not) as “undiagnosed autism.”

It sure sounds like you’re trying to offer a defense based on imaginary circumstances rather than the circumstances actually presented in court.