Jump to content

30 y/o son kills father over allowance?


armadillo
This topic is 3337 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

And he is going to be on someones dance card at The Big House!

 

 

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/34/02/62/7351478/3/920x920.jpg

 

 

 

 

Authorities charged the son of a hedge-fund founder with murder on Monday after the 30-year-old allegedly shot his father inside his parents’ Manhattan apartment, police said.

 

Thomas Gilbert Sr. , the 70-year-old founder of Wainscott Capital Partners Fund, was shot once in the head inside his Turtle Bay apartment about 3:30 p.m. Sunday, police said.

 

The son, Thomas Gilbert Jr., was taken into police custody at his home in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood on Sunday night. Police said he was charged Monday with murder and criminal possession of a weapon.

 

Mr. Gilbert Jr. made no comment as he was escorted, in handcuffs, from the 17th Precinct police station to a waiting police car Monday evening.

 

He was expected to be arraigned late Monday or Tuesday morning. An assistant to Alex Spiro, an attorney at Brafman & Associates, said the firm was representing Mr. Gilbert Jr. but declined to comment further.

 

A law-enforcement official familiar with the investigation said Mr. Gilbert Jr.’s parents told their son some weeks ago they were reducing the weekly $600 stipend they paid him to $400. The couple also paid the rent for his $2,400-a-month apartment, the official said. Mr. Gilbert Jr.’s next contact with his parents came when he appeared unannounced at their apartment Sunday, the official said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but point out that no one has said "boo" to the assumption of facts no one can know at this point (i.e., that Gilbert will plead or be found guilty) in this case (or in many other similar cases), but when it comes to allegations of sex crimes -- mostly committed by famous and powerful men against women -- inevitably someone says "innocent until proven guilty" and intimates that the person accused should be given the benefit of the doubt no matter what.

 

This is not intended as a slam or criticism of the OP but as an invitation to think about why this is. Maybe there are good reasons for this that don't have to do with gender bias or attitudes toward sex, but if so, it would be helpful for to articulate (to oneself, at least) why that is rather than to leave such assumptions unexamined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but point out that no one has said "boo" to the assumption of facts no one can know at this point (i.e., that Gilbert will plead or be found guilty) in this case (or in many other similar cases), but when it comes to allegations of sex crimes -- mostly committed by famous and powerful men against women -- inevitably someone says "innocent until proven guilty" and intimates that the person accused should be given the benefit of the doubt no matter what.

 

This is not intended as a slam or criticism of the OP but as an invitation to think about why this is. Maybe there are good reasons for this that don't have to do with gender bias or attitudes toward sex, but if so, it would be helpful for to articulate (to oneself, at least) why that is rather than to leave such assumptions unexamined.

 

Most Americans assume the individual who has undergone the famous perp walk is guilty, regardless of whether a trial has taken place. In some countries, the perp walk isn't allowed because of the damage that does to the person's reputation for the remainder of their life even if they are found guilty. 65 million Americans have a record to some degree and nearly all employers ask applicants if they do. I'm not justifying breaking the law but allowing for some recovery is better than a lifetime of struggling. A job cures a lot of ills and is more likely to keep someone out of trouble. Some states have "ban the box" laws which don't allow employers to ask about this history until they've decided to make an offer. Some limit how far back the investigation can go.

 

We also like to lock as high a percentage of our populace up for as long as possible (convicted people committing violent crimes though get less time inside than white collar criminals). The US has the highest percentage of its population in prison as compared to other "developed" countries. As most realize it is better to be guilty and rich than poor and innocent because governments in the US have unlimited funding (from taxpayers) and public defenders are either unavailable (because a defendant has "too much" money/assets - that's a temporary thing if they don't plead guilty) or are over worked and need to plead out cases. "Justice" in the US is defined differently depending on whether someone is caring or not. There are too many who have a "string them up high" attitude towards everything someone else is accused of but likely cheat like hell on their own taxes :)

 

So while the US may not have draconian punishments like some countries including Saudi Arabia, Americans are very punitive and believe its ok to punish someone for life seemingly regardless of the crime or how long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...