There is one choice, 1 vote for bob2314's debate

how much longer?

• how much longer

  (New York City) Michael Sandy, the 28 year old gay Brooklyn man who was beaten and then chased into the path of a speeding car, died Friday, hours after his family instructed doctors to take him off a life-support machine.

  Sandy had been in a coma since the attack. Doctors at Doctors at Brookdale Hospital told the family Friday morning that Sandy would never regain consciousness and was brain dead.

  Three Brooklyn men have been charged with hate crimes in the attack on Sandy.

  John Fox, 19; Ilya Shurov, 20, and Gary Timmins, 16 are charged with assault and robbery as hate crimes. New York City Police said Friday afternoon that the charges will be upgraded to include murder.

  A fourth man man accused of being an accomplice is cooperating with police and reportedly led investigators to the other three.

  Police allege that Fox and Shurov posed as gay men, cruising an Internet chat room looking for a mark to rob. They met Sandy online.

  Chat messages between Sandy and the men were reportedly found on his home computer and a printout from his computer showing directions to Plum Beach, a popular cruising area, were found in his car.

  Police allege that Sandy arranged to meet Fox on a street corner in Sheepshead Bay. The two then drove the short distance to the beach where the other three were waiting.

  When the gang began beating him Sandy bolted for the nearby Belt Parkway with his attackers in close pursuit.

  They caught up with him in one lane of the highway and as Sandy broke free he was struck by a car, sustaining massive injuries.

  The attackers were last seen rifling through Sandy's pockets before fleeing.

  The car did not stop and police earlier this week appealed for the driver to come forward.

  ©365Gay.com 2006

  Voted for by bob2314.

  View 15 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • ragman
    October 16, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    hello

    I have a question for you. I went to the website that you have listed and read an article about Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine in California. And here is the question. Why does anyone have the rights to tell someone that there beliefs are wrong. If the Torah tells the Jewish people that Homosexuality is wrong then why should they be forced to support it? If I was a lumberjack I wouldn't go to a school that thinks that tree's are remains of their Gods and tell them that they had to allow me to cut down there trees because it was my right. Help me out here. Why do I think that person’s religious rights should be held as valuable as homosexual’s rights?
  • 
    Dwn
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You have to understand, Bobs a crusader, But his part in the crusade is to justify and recruit.He doesnt need validity, if he can find nothing else he will make up BS and rant that its true till he turns blue....ummmm pink I meant pink
  • 
    bob2314
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    the rainbow warrior

    dwn the story right there go to the new york times they must have ran a story. i don't see how i could have been more forthcoming i credited the article?
  • 
    bob2314
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    A private institution can do anything it wants. However if it receives public money ( fed. Or state support) It must conform to law. It also must conform to what its board and users want.
  • 
    Applehead
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Premeditated crime is the worst kind. People like these most likely have been brought up surrounded by prejudice and don't know much better (not that this excuses their behaviour). "If the Torah tells the Jewish people that Homosexuality is wrong then why should they be forced to support it" They should not be expected to "support it" but should be expected to respect that not everyone believes the same things. It's understandable that people become aggitated when the issue at hand is so personal but if you post a debate you have to expect people to debate it.
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I agree Applehead
  • 
    petethemeat
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I agree with ragman in a sense, peoples religous rights should be upheld as strongly as the rights of a homosexual. Otherwise a majority of homosexuals could declare it illegal for religous people to marry, persecute/kill religous people against homosexuality and declare religious people disgusting and abbhorent.
  • 
    bob2314
    October 17, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Actually I thought I would get more debate going on the hate crime aspect of this case a subject I am of two minds on.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Don't mean to be slack, but the attackers technically didn't kill the guy. The driver of the car did. It would appear that they should be charged with assault and theft if found guilty, but not murder. Maybe accomplice to a crime or not informing the police of a death, but not murder.
  • 
    petethemeat
    October 21, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    The very conditions of the way he was killed would still legally classify as murder.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 25, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I would oppose such assumptions. And yes, I have been in a situation such as this, and no I don't agree that such accidents, however appualing on behalf of the attackers, constitutes as first degree murder. That's the type of stuff you give someone the death penalty for, in your country (don't know if Brooklyn enforces the death penalty).
  • 
    petethemeat
    October 26, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Not my country, we dont use the death penalty (which I am grateful for). I can only explain the reason they are being charged for murder in British Law. In this chain of consequence there is an intervening act between the stabbing and his death. This can occur where the victim takes evasive action and is killed by this. An example of this is R. vs Pitts (1842) when the victim jumped into the river to escape attack but drowned as a result. The defendant was held responsible for his death. The Judge is left to decide if the atcion he took to evade was unreasonable and I doubt he would declare this mans actions unreasonable. The foresight of consequences in this case does not prove specific intent. But the men realised that by achieving their main aim they would also cause the crime for which they have been charged. This is a high enough level of intention to be charged with murder. It would be very easy to prove a high level of recklessness or basic intent so at the very least they would have been convicted of manslaughter.
  • 
    Oral Fixation
    November 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Hmmm...

    I strongly disagree with the thougth of charging the cars driver for assult...You have to think, if you were driving down the road in the middle of the night, would you expect some random man to literally jump right out in front of you. Granted, the pedestrians have the right of way, but if you were going the speed limit, not much could have been done to prevent the accident. However, the hate-crime committers should be punished as appropriate for causing this.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    May 16, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Thats not what I said. 'They' was referring to the attackers.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: