Scared to death

[coreyfyfe]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A man will spend the rest of his life in prison after he was found guilty in what prosecutors said was a case of scaring a 79-year-old North Carolina grandmother to death.

Multiple media outlets reported a federal jury found 21-year-old Larry Whitfield not guilty of murder Friday in the death of Mary Parnell last year. But they did find him guilty of causing her death by kidnapping her, and that carries an automatic life sentence.

Prosecutors say Whitfield was looking for somewhere to hide after a failed bank robbery attempt in Gastonia in September 2008 when he broke into Parnell's home. Authorities say Whitfield never touched the grandmother, but she suffered a heart attack when she saw him, and he didn't call for help. According to WCNC, Parnell's husband found her four hours later.

Parnell's son-in-law David Hains spoke to WCNC, "He committed this crime with callous indifference. My mother-in-law had a heart attack right in front of this guy, and he didn't even have the decency to call an ambulance...All he cared about was himself, and he can think about that for the rest of his life in jail."




This doesn't sit right with me. The guy was running from a bank robbery, broke into the house, and may have scared her into a heart attack, but I'd blame the heart attack on her own health/age issues, not necessarily the guy breaking into her house. I mean, sure she's dead, and he probably could have called 911 on his way out, but if he never touched her how is it considered kidnapping? Manslaughter I could maybe see, but death as a result of kidnapping? Not so sure.

Thoughts?

[XtreO]

Here I think you could only be punished for that if you did it on purpose. I doubt you'd get a sentence for scaring someone accidentially to death. Doesn't sit quite right with me either.

[BillyRay]

Death due to a kidnapping carries a life sentence, it says so in the article. The fact that she was old and maybe had cardiac problems doesn't have to factor in the courts decision.

Failure to call an ambulance after breaking into her house is also a pretty big aggravating factor. That and the fact that he had just commited a bank robbery. This wasn't merely somoen shouthing boo at an old lady. It was a robber breaking into her property, scaring her (albeit unvoluntarily) while taking her hostage and leaving her to die once she suffered a heart attack.

[NJL]

what a pu$$y for having to kidnap a little old lady. i say fry his ass.

[RWP]

Originally Posted by NJL

what a pu$$y for having to kidnap a little old lady. i say fry his ass.

+1. No way anyone can think this guy isn't getting exactly what he deserves. The lady died because he broke into her home.

[Let It Fall]

Ok and if a pot feel off a shelf and startled her and she dies put the pot in jail? He should be accountable for all the other crimes but not thatt one. That's stupid

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by coreyfyfe

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A man will spend the rest of his life in prison after he was found guilty in what prosecutors said was a case of scaring a 79-year-old North Carolina grandmother to death.

Multiple media outlets reported a federal jury found 21-year-old Larry Whitfield not guilty of murder Friday in the death of Mary Parnell last year. But they did find him guilty of causing her death by kidnapping her, and that carries an automatic life sentence.

Prosecutors say Whitfield was looking for somewhere to hide after a failed bank robbery attempt in Gastonia in September 2008 when he broke into Parnell's home. Authorities say Whitfield never touched the grandmother, but she suffered a heart attack when she saw him, and he didn't call for help. According to WCNC, Parnell's husband found her four hours later.

Parnell's son-in-law David Hains spoke to WCNC, "He committed this crime with callous indifference. My mother-in-law had a heart attack right in front of this guy, and he didn't even have the decency to call an ambulance...All he cared about was himself, and he can think about that for the rest of his life in jail."



Thoughts?

OK, this story makes no sense.

He breaks into grandma`s house. He scares her and she dies. He leaves the body without calling authorities. He is then tried in court for kidnapping her, even after the passage says he never even touched her. Excuse me, but ***? How do you kidnap someone without touching them?

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by BillyRay

Death due to a kidnapping carries a life sentence, it says so in the article. The fact that she was old and maybe had cardiac problems doesn't have to factor in the courts decision.

Failure to call an ambulance after breaking into her house is also a pretty big aggravating factor. That and the fact that he had just commited a bank robbery. This wasn't merely somoen shouthing boo at an old lady. It was a robber breaking into her property, scaring her (albeit unvoluntarily) while taking her hostage and leaving her to die once she suffered a heart attack.

The article the OP posted states "Authorities say Whitfield never touched the grandmother, but she suffered a heart attack when she saw him" that's not kidnapping or taking her hostage. It implies to me she had the heart attack the moment she saw him. That cannot be kidnapping and/or holding someone against their will.

[L-A]

Non-assistance to someone in danger would be a likely accusation. Kidnapping is completely off-track.

[Pitbull Growl]

Dunno all the circumstances but...

If you so much as point a Louisville slugger @ someone and force 'em to sit down, then according to the letter of the law you're guilty of kidnapping by nature of moving someone against their will via the use of force and/or intimidation.

[tplyons]

Manslaughter at best, in the fact that he did nothing to save her.

[ehque]

Culpable homicide?

And yeah, there are many ways of kidnapping someone without touching them, like getting in their car, pointing a gun at them, and forcing them to drive. You probably don't need to touch someone to have the court consider you a kidnapper.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by ehque

Culpable homicide?

And yeah, there are many ways of kidnapping someone without touching them, like getting in their car, pointing a gun at them, and forcing them to drive. You probably don't need to touch someone to have the court consider you a kidnapper.

But even that didn`t happen. From the sound of the OP, the man was simply spotted and then grandma croaked. It doesn`t even say he held a gun to her or anything of the sort. Where they get kidnapping from I may never know, but it doesn`t even sound remotely like it.

Honestly, my heart goes out to the young man. What he did was definitely wrong and he deserves punishment, however, he`s still young and could definitely be helped by intervention. If he in fact attempted to rob a bank then perhaps he hit hard times during the economic downturn and he felt he had no choice. A lot of stuff(much like the other news story with the father who shot his own son) isn`t mentioned in regards to everyone`s situation. Personally, I hope he can appeal to get a lighter sentence, assuming there is more to this story that lines up with my thoughts of what might of happened.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by Pitbull Growl

Dunno all the circumstances but...

If you so much as point a Louisville slugger @ someone and force 'em to sit down, then according to the letter of the law you're guilty of kidnapping by nature of moving someone against their will via the use of force and/or intimidation.

the nature of moving someone against their will via the use of force and/or intimidation?

well you could say that he moved her (to another plain of existence) against her will by the act of intimidatation (breaking and entering).

[Munjibunga]

There are two ways of looking at this. You could say that it was her heart attack that killed her, and the fact that the criminal broke into her house was irrelevant to her death. In which case, you're saying to her and her family, "Tough."

Or, you can say that his illegal entry into her home frightened her so much that it precipitated a heart attack she would not otherwise have had. Then he would be punished severely for causing her death, and you would be saying to him and his family, "Tough."

I'll go with the latter.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

There are two ways of looking at this. You could say that it was her heart attack that killed her, and the fact that the criminal broke into her house was irrelevant to her death. In which case, you're saying to her and her family, "Tough."

Or, you can say that his illegal entry into her home frightened her so much that it precipitated a heart attack she would not otherwise have had. Then he would be punished severely for causing her death, and you would be saying to him and his family, "Tough."

I'll go with the latter.

Still doesn`t explain the kidnapping sentence. The punishment must fit the crime, and to me it doesn`t in this situation.

[cassanova]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

There are two ways of looking at this. You could say that it was her heart attack that killed her, and the fact that the criminal broke into her house was irrelevant to her death. In which case, you're saying to her and her family, "Tough."

Or, you can say that his illegal entry into her home frightened her so much that it precipitated a heart attack she would not otherwise have had. Then he would be punished severely for causing her death, and you would be saying to him and his family, "Tough."

I'll go with the latter.

I'll go with the latter as well but, there is no real way to prove or even disprove she would not have had the heart attack if he didn't break into her house.

[Number27]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

Still doesn`t explain the kidnapping sentence. The punishment must fit the crime, and to me it doesn`t in this situation.

prehaps the prosecution was able to prove intent? that he broke into the house with the intent on using any occupants as hostages. i mean i'm just grasping at straws here, plus i have no idea how hot on his heels the police really were.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Number27

prehaps the prosecution was able to prove intent? that he broke into the house with the intent on using any occupants as hostages. i mean i'm just grasping at straws here, plus i have no idea how hot on his heels the police really were.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Like I said in the other thread, often times the media leaves out these details which would allow the reader to make an educated decision.

[coreyfyfe]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

There are two ways of looking at this. You could say that it was her heart attack that killed her, and the fact that the criminal broke into her house was irrelevant to her death. In which case, you're saying to her and her family, "Tough."

Or, you can say that his illegal entry into her home frightened her so much that it precipitated a heart attack she would not otherwise have had. Then he would be punished severely for causing her death, and you would be saying to him and his family, "Tough."

I don't think it's this black and white, but more likely somewhere in the middle. I would say he should be held responsible for her death, but I don't think that b&e is comparable to kidnapping, and I think that the sentence is a little heavy for a down-and-out 21 year old, but we don't necessarily have all the facts in the case.