﻿Feburary 2017

Feburary 2017

2/3/2017

Q1: Why do you suppose the defendants did what their peer, Christian, had told them to do when they claimed they didn't look up to him?

Q2: The defendants stated different reasons as to why they committed the crime such as it being a joke, because the victim wasn't putting enough "effort" into their sport and for "culture". What do you believe to be the real intent of the crime?

Q3: Throughout the cases both Joshua and Matthew gave very simple and vague answers, yes and no. While Carlos kept trying to justify his actions using "culture". Do you feel the responses of each of the defendants was affected by each other's answers? Why or why not?

Q4: How do you feel about the parent's attitude towards the incident? Do you think their punishments were fair in this situation or too lenient? Why or why not?

49 Comments

Alejandra Garcia Period 5

2/3/2017 01:59:36 pm

Q1: I think the defendants did this to the victim because they thought Christian was cool and popular.
Q2: I think they did it because Christian told them to do it.
Q3: Yes, because they were probably to all agree on one thing so they don't say different answers.
Q4: No it seemed to easy and I feel like they weren't really punished.

Darlene Garcia per.5

2/3/2017 01:59:57 pm

Q1. I think the defendants did what Christian told them because he was probably popular and they wanted to be like that too.
Q2. I think the defendants did this because they felt pressured by Christian to do it.
Q3. I do think the answers by each of the defendants were affected by each other's answers because they probably did not know what to say so they answered according to each other's answers and maybe to cover up for eachother.
Q4. I believe some of the parents attitudes were not right. Their punishments were fair leading up to the case because they were long punishments maybe more could've been done so that they may learn their lesson.

Janette Segura Per. 5

2/3/2017 02:02:56 pm

Q1 I think that the defendants did that to their peer because they all had something against the victim/the victim was seen as an easy target.
Q2 The real intent of the crime was that they all, for some reason, disliked the victim.
Q3 Yes their answers were affected by each other's answers because their stories had to coincide.
Q4 The parents did not do enough to punish their children. I feel like if they took the whole situation lightly.

Denise Medina Period 5

2/3/2017 02:06:07 pm

Q.1: I feel the defendants did what their peer told them to do because they did look up to that person since they were just on JV and Christian on the other hand was on varsity so they wanted to be cool with the older guys.
Q.2: I feel the real intent for the crime was because the victim wasn't following the rules of the team and they were just trying to get revenge.
Q.3: I think the only person that was effected by the others answers was Adrian because once Carlos brought up culture Adrian switched up his answer if he was pressured to his actions or not.
Q.4: I think the parents attitude toward the incident was unfair Because their actions call for way more punishment then just taking their x boxes away for a few months.

Lazarus Fuentes

2/3/2017 02:14:06 pm

Q1: Most likely, they had no reason not to harass the victim. Whether or not they looked up to Soto, they imagined it to be a funny joke and took the idea. So it became, "Oh that sounds funny, sure we can do that."
Q2: Their real intent was to play a joke on a teammate. Hazing is not a universal culture in sports but it is easily a subculture and occurs everywhere, being seen as positive motivation someplaces unofficially but officially as negative everywhere else. These four were acting out of boredom and it went too far and instead of helping the team it hurt them.
Q3: Most definitely their answers were dependant on each other. They each went in there with a certain plan of action and as more reasonable defenses came up throughout the trial they 'cut and pasted' pieces into their answers. The most notable example of this is when Adrian repeatedly changed the reason for his actions.
Q4: The parents, especially in Adrian's case, seemed to have little or no real, in terms of discipline, reaction to the incident. Coming from a time when hazing was even more common, I think they downplayed the events to decriminalize their children and to try to preserve their innocence, at least in their own minds.

Rafael Gonzalez

2/3/2017 02:16:57 pm

Q1. The defendants claimed that at first they did look up to him because he was a good football player and they wanted to be like him. However, after the incident, they lost their respect for him and I am not sure that this was because they got caught or because they felt that their actions were immorally incorrect. However, even though they respected Christian, they could have just not done what he wanted them too, which shows that they wanted to do it too.

Q2. I think their real intent to commit the crime was because they felt the need to be part of the "cool kids" in the football team. Christian, a really good football player told them to commit the crime, and since the defendants wanted to be in good terms with him, they did what he asked for.

Q3. No I don't think the responses of the first defendants that answered the questions influenced the answers of the rest of the defendants because Carlos was the first to bring up the excuse of it being a culture and it looked like he was just trying to save himself. However, Matthew was last person to answer the question and he didn't give the excuse of culture and instead acted like he felt, which looked remorseful.

Q4. I think that because of the level of the crime committed, a decent punishment would be hard to give to these kids, so I believe that the punishments given were somewhat adequate. However, it seems like Carlos was given a less punishment than the other defendants and this counted against him when trying to come up with his sentence.

Jose Lara

2/3/2017 02:47:03 pm

1) They wanted to seem cool for a player who they had looked up to for so long.
2) I believe the students did this as a form of punishment for the victim because they did not believe he was a vital team member.
3) I believe Carlos answered in a way where he would appeal to the audience while the rest answered honestly and truthfully.
4) I feel like the parents were to linient and made excuses for the children to try and defend them.

Krystal Marquez per. 6

2/3/2017 02:47:53 pm

1. The defendants did what their peer Christian had told them to do because they felt like they would fit in and did not think they would be punished since "jokes" like these are done often among the football team.
2. The real intent of the crime was to make the victim feel scared to come to practice/ put more effort in.
3. The responses of the defendants were not affected by each other because each seemed honest while Carlos seemed to have practice his responses before hand
4. The parents were too lenient on their punishments because these kids committed a serious crime (could have been treated as a felony) and punishments for these crimes are more severe than just taking electronics away.

Jamie Baeza (Per.6)

2/3/2017 02:49:02 pm

1. I feel that the might've done what they did because he was "such a good player" so they felt they needed to "respect" him.
2. I believe that they did it because they felt pressured too. Since the "star player" of the team suggested it, they might've felt like they couldn't let him down.
3. I feel that it was affected because some realized what they did &' they had to just accept the consequences. While another felt that he needed a scape goat so he used the word "culture" to make it seem like his actions weren't very harmful.
4. I feel that their punishments weren't very harsh. The defendants just got their electronics taken away for a few months but nothing more was done. The parents probably just felt that they were children and that they didn't know any better. So they didn't treat it w/ much severity.

Hugo Vera period 6

2/3/2017 02:52:15 pm

Question 1: The defendants did what they were told because in a way they admired him.

Question 2: In my opinion the real intent of the crime was to make Ramon feel bad .

Question 3: I do strongly feel that the answers of each defendant affected one another because it seemed to me that Matthew knew that he didn't really know why he did it, and Carlos was misusing the word culture to sound as if that was the real intent of commuting the crime .

Question 4: the punishments the parents gave to their children were not that harsh becuse every parent said the only punishment was no xbox. I don't think the parents understood the severity of the crime

Viviana Cabrera per. 6

2/3/2017 02:52:18 pm

Q1. I think the defendants did what Christian told them to do because they wanted an excuse to go after the plaintiff or because they actually did look up to him.
Q2. I believe the real intent of the crime was as a joke that would just be funny to the team mates who had a hate towards Ruben for whatever reason.
Q3. Yes I believe when Carlos saw the two previous boys answer with a simple no he most likely believed it would look good on him if he defended his no better.
Q4. I believe their punishments were too lenient and didn't really affect them at all. The punishment that was given was as if the phone/ technology was the problem of the whole situation when in fact the problem was with the defendant and a punishment should've been made to deal with that.

Katia Andrade per. 6

2/3/2017 02:55:08 pm

1. The defendants probably did what they did because they wanted to look cool in front of their friends.
2. They probably committed the crime because they believed it would be funny and most of their peers were making fun of the victum so they wanted to fit in and they probably thought the victum was an easy target.
3. I don't think each of the defendants actions would've affect their answers because by this point they were all just concerned about defending themselves and avoid getting into more trouble.
4. I felt the parents didn't put as much attention as they should've. I think their punishment were too lenient because their actions were serious.

Elisa Martinez

2/3/2017 02:55:22 pm

1. I believe the defendants listened to Christian because they believed that he was a well known student and maybe thought that it would be funny and cool.
2. I believe the real intent of the crime was to pull a joke on the victim.
3. I do not think that the responses of the defendant was affected by the other responses because they spoke in their own way because Carlos was the only one who was talking a lot and taking blame for his part as well as the other defendants. They did not look at each other before responding to a question.
4. I feel like the parent's attitude towards the incident was not very serious because they did not give their children a strict punishment. All they did was take away electronics which does not seem like a strong punishment since the defendants said that they were always working on school work so they would not have had time to be on any electronics.

Daniela Guerrero P.6

2/3/2017 02:56:42 pm

1. I suppose the defendants did what their peer said because they felt it was something that might make the feel empowered.
2. I believe the defendants comittied the crime because the victim was an "easy target".
3. Yes, I believe the defendants went off of each other's responses because I didn't feel each of the defendants honesty in most of the answers. The defendants would answer right away after their peer would answer and it would be the same answer.
4. Their punishment wasn't fair because their punishment didn't teach them not to do it again. The parents were very lenient with their punishment.

Andrea Garcia -Period.6

2/3/2017 02:58:02 pm

Q1-A. I believe that they did what Christian told them to do because they were scared that he'll judge them or would think they were cowards.
Q2-A. I believe the reasons were because the just didn't like the victim & wanted to make him look dumb.
Q3-A. I do believe that their responses were affected with one another because they might very always wanted to stay with the story & didn't want to be changing up.
Q4-A. I feel like their child didn't deserve so be there. I think they were fair but it was to lenient with Adrian because he the one that actually made more unwanted physical contact.

Anthony Acosta P:6

2/3/2017 03:01:09 pm

Question 1: The defendants probably did look up to him like he was a cool guy and they didn't want to seem like they won't do it.
Question 2: I believe that they actually did do it as a joke (which was not) and it was not culture at all what they did, iam not and have never been a football player but I have never heard of anyone doing that to a other teammate.
Question 3: Carlos using culture was not right he just kept saying over and over that it was culture but yes I believe it had an affect. Joshua kept saying that it was a joke but Carlos kept saying it was culture so their answers really didn't make any sense at all.
Question 4: They were really not showing any emotion towards the incident they were just there except Adrian's mom, when someone brought up the second incident Adrian's mom became pretty defendant. Their punishments were nothing at all, getting punished for 5 to 6 months is nothing and the parents saying they took their phone away and their systems is nothing but what they got for their sentence was well deserved.

Janette Hernandez. Period 2

2/3/2017 04:01:10 pm

1. The defendants claimed that Christian was a great football player that the coach admired. So I believe that the defendants listened to their peer, Christian, because they wanted to demonstrate that they were like him.
2. I believe that the defendants also faced some type of this bullying or " culture. "
3. I believe that Matthew and Joshua knew that what they did was wrong and that there was no excuse, but Carlos attempted to use " culture " as an excuse.
4. I believe that Adrian's mom was trying to protect and hide information in order to protect her son. I believe that the punishments should have been more severe.

Jesielle Valles per 6

2/3/2017 05:05:22 pm

1. I supposed that christian was someone they looked up too even though they said they didn't they followed what he told them too feel more popular.
2.I believe the real intent of the crime was to mess with the kid because they thought it was funny.
3.There answers didn't weren't affected by the other defendants answers.
4.I feel that the parents should of punished there kids a little more because there choice of taking down a kid, harassing, and making fun of the situation should of made the parents want to take more than just the electronics.

Francisco Rodriguez

2/3/2017 08:47:14 pm

Q1: I believed that the defendants would listen to Christian because he's a grade higher and so they believed what there where doing was cool and funny, in which they thought they could gain "respect" from the upperclassmen.
Q2: I believe that the real intent was that it was just a harsh prank among friends, but they didn't think that it would cause the victim to feel uncomfortable.
Q3: Yes, because some of there answers contradicted themselves. For example one of the defendant said "peer pressure" and the one of the defendants father stated it was "culture and so the defendant that used "pure pressure" changed it that it was culture.
Q4: I believe that the parents consequences where rather lenient but fair as well because they could've have put more months on their punishment but that was all, there was really nothing else they could take away and it's not like they could harm there kids. There wasn't really much more they could have done.

Jayleen D. Per5

2/5/2017 07:26:04 pm

Q1. I think the defendants did what Christian told them to do because they could have wanted to impress him by going along with his plan.
Q2. I belive the real intent of this crime was to join in on all the bullying that was done to the victim
Q3. I do not belive the response of the other defendants affect the answers of other. I belive this because many times we did get different answers and if the answer did rely on the answers of other defendants we would get about the same answer from them
Q4. I do not agree with the parent punishments. I do think they were very lenient because they had no curfew and were capable of doing something like this again.

Ashley Cota Period 5

2/5/2017 07:59:43 pm

Q1: The defendants did what Christian told them to do because they felt that this was pay back towards the victim for always being "Lazy" in football practice. Q2: I think the real intent was that it was pay back for not always puting enough "effort" in practice. They all felt the same way at one point were they agreed that we was the "weak link" that didn't give 110% into practice. Q3: Each response that was given did seem to effect the others answers. They started off by all agreeing in the beginning but slowly started to defend themselves. After there opinions drifted there answers became simple. Q4: I felt that only two of the parents were concerned about the incident and the others didn't mind it to much. In this incident I felt that Carlos and Mathew had more of a harsher punishment than Joshua and Adrian. It should have been switched the other way around. Joshua and Adrian did so much more then Carlos and Mathew.

Nick Rodriguez

2/16/2017 11:04:31 pm

Q1:I feel that the defendants did what their peer said because they did look up to him. They claimed he was a star player so they might have wanted to be like him.
Q2:I believe the real intent of the crime was because the defendants felt as if the victim wouldn't fight back.
Q3:Yes I feel that each of them affected the others answers because they did not want to answer differently and be left in an awkward position.
Q4:I feel the punishments were too lenient because these boys humiliated a boy who did nothing to then. Punishments should have been more harsh.

Sureya Obregon

2/17/2017 07:13:02 am

1) I think the defendants did look up to Christian. I feel that in a way they wanted to be like him.
2) I believe that the real reason why they did it was because they didn't like him.
3) I don't believe that they were affected by one another's answers. Their responses could've been a reflection of their personalities.
4) I think that some of the parents knew that their child had done wrong and were going to accept the punishment given & others were trying to justify the actions by speaking of "culture". I think that their punishments were fair because they reflected on the way they acted throughout the session.

Jessica Zapien

2/17/2017 07:32:25 am

1. The defendants did sort of look up to Christian or at least somewhat agreed with his dislike of the victim, even if they did not know him well. It is easy to go along with that sort of dislike of someone, but it should never get that far.
2. The real intent for the crime did not seem to be culture or even truly a joke, at least not a well meant joke. Yes, perhaps it would be a joke to Christian and those who did not like the victim, but ultimately the victim seemed to be targeted over his lack of '110% effort' on the team.
3. The answers of each defendant was often wholly affected by the answers of the others. Most often towards the beginning, a defendant would say an answer and all of them would simply agree, sometimes just modifying the answer a bit. There were some times where it was more clear that the answer a defendant gave was not based upon the words of the other defendant though, such as the reason this crime was committed.
4. A couple of the parents gave very lenient punishments and seemed to only care for getting the whole process of teen court over with and making their child seem as innocent as possible. Another didn't seem to care much to be there at all, which was shown through their actions. The others did not talk as much, but seemed to take it rather seriously. Most of the punishments seemed rather decent though.

Georjean Ortega

2/17/2017 07:59:59 am

1) I believe Christian may be or have been on a popular high school status, so the defendants did not think to oppose the ideas Christian had inititated but not take part on.
2) I believe the real intent of their actions were to feel cool and, in a way, raise their self-esteem by showing themselves as the superior person/people to another person.
3) Yes, especially by Carlos, because he seemed to get as much detail in the discussion as possible which may have made the other defendants feel like he had all the answers. Also, there were a few times where he would answer a question that was not directed to him or all of them in general.
4) Some of the parents seemed to truly not know of what their children do, except for the one parent who wanted her child to look like he hadn't done anything else wrong. Especially, when she tried to hide the fact that Josh had been part of the mouth guard incident. Also, I think their punishments were not fair in this situation. With other situations, these punishments are common, but from what these four defendants had committed, I believe the parents were too lenient with them.

Destiny Rivera

2/17/2017 08:29:51 am

Q1: The defendants mostly likely did what Christian had told them to do because they felt he was an authority figure. Even though the claimed they didn't look up to him, they probably saw him as a "cool" friend or someone they wanted to please.
Q2: I believe the defendants committed this crime because they didn't really like the victim and because they are used to being around a rough atmospheres. They believed it was okay to victimize someone because that's something that they're constantly around. It gave them a chance to hurt someone they didn't really like.
Q3:Their answers didn't really seem to be affected by one another because they all had different excuses that led to advancements in the case. Different views were brought up but if they had the same experience they had the same answer, there was really no room for them to lie.
Q4: Different parents had different reactions to the incident. Most of the parents said they taught their children not to do things like that and that they didn't know the coaches approved of it. One of the parents thought it was apart of the football culture and said it was normal. Parents may have been a little too lenient with the punishment. With Carlos' punishment though, he was able to focus more on school without football. Adrian was also removed from the negative atmosphere when his parents moved him schools.

Haha Villarreal

2/17/2017 09:25:40 am

Q1:They did what they did because I think they wanted to get Christian's attention because they all said they looked up to him because of how he plays.
Q2: I don't think it was a because they are all family because the defendants were saying that he didn't put effort and didn't try hard enough.
Q3:Carlos seemed to be explaining too much and trying to make the incident seem like it was a thing they do to try to cover up what they did.
Q4: I feel that the parent's punishments were good because they don't interact with one another that much anymore because they faced the consequences and they don't want to associate themselves with people who will get them in trouble.

Adam martinez

2/17/2017 09:50:59 am

Case 1 I believe that the kids did it because they didn't want to be looked down upon,they wanted to show the senior that they were reliable and cool to hang out with.
Case 2 I think that I probably could have been a joke at first but it went to far it should be a crime.
Case 3 yes they didn't want to give each other away so they kept it leveled headed.
Case 4 the punishments were fair for what they did the the victim will probably hurt him mentally and have others make fun of him.

Andrea Chavez

2/17/2017 10:01:26 am

Q1: The truth is that people lie. And even though they claimed that they didn't look up to him, peer pressure can still be noticed.

Q2: I believe that the defendants have mental health issues that were brought up by past negative situations and for some reason, they have lost compassion and empathy. The real intent could have been to cause pain and harm to another person, the same way pain and harm were caused to them.

Q3: Once again, peer pressure and outside influences do affect others. And in this situation, I believe this was the case. So, in a way, and possibly unconsciously, I feel that the responses were affected by the answers of the other individual.

Q4: I feel like the parent's attitude was kind of relaxed and quite lenient. Mostly because they probably don't see the severity of the situation.

Bianca Aispuro

2/17/2017 10:36:20 am

Q1: I suppose the defendant did what their peer Christian did even though they stated they didn't look up to him because in their eyes the fact that he was a good player made him someone to look up to.

Q2: The defendant stated different reasons as to why they committed some saying the victim didn't put effort into the sport or saying it was part of there culture I believe the real reason why they committed the crime was simply follow the order of Christian as they didn't believe or think about what they were doing.

Q3:Throught the case both Joshua and Matthew gave very vague answers while , while Carlos kept trying to justify his actions through "culture". I believe the responses were not affected by each other because they must have each been trying to make them self sound good using what they believe to bethere best defense.
Q4: The parents attitude wowards the incident was not acceptable somethough it was ok and justifiable through the "culture " of the sport while others believed there son had done nothing wrong and simple grounded there son for 2 months.I believe there punishments were far to lenient and should have been more especially from te parents that should want to there kids to grow up and be good people in the coummunity.

Janae Vasquez

2/17/2017 10:49:45 am

From the way the defendants spoke about Christian, it seems as if they listened to him and did what he told them because they want to impress him. The same excuse was used multiple times that it was just meant to be a joke and it was apart if football culture. I don't believe this is true and was just used as an excuse. I believe the parents were a little too lineant.

Yulissa

2/17/2017 10:52:17 am

1.I think the defendants followed Christian because they were on the jv team and he was a better player and although they did not look up to him, they followed his instructions because his bad-natured ideas could be towards them next time.
2. I believe the real intent of bullying the victim was because he did not emphasize enough effort into the team. My reasoning is because when the defendants were asked whether they had anything against the victim, one replied that he did not take the team and practices serious making him vulnerable to bullying from his team mates.
3. I think their answers were not dependent on eachother because they were each too focused on trying to make themselves look less involved in the situation. Some answered vaguely and honestly, another emphisosed his change by demonstrating his grades and justifying the culture, and another had another incident with the victim after the accusation of bullying at the bleachers.
4. The parents had reasonable punishments of taking away their devices and not allowing them to go out with the exception of school because it would have the children realize what they did wrong.

Maria Domingo

2/17/2017 12:30:00 pm

Q1: In my opinion I believe the defendants did look up to Christian because he was the best player on the JV team and also becaue he was older. If the defendants didn't look up to Christian they would have done the offense.
Q2: I believe their intent of the crime was to hurt he victim because the victim was not random. Most people who have been victims of a crime are usually different and don't fit in with a certain group. If it was culturally normal in Football would the whole team have taken participation? If it really was just a joke why hadn't anything like this has happened to he defendants.
Q3: yes the responses of the defendants affected the answer to the other defendants. Whenever they would respond they would go off the answers of he other. If they answered with a yes or no the other defendants would do the same.
Q4: I believe their punishments weren't good enough. The defendants committed something really bad and all they did was take away electronics. The punishment should have been a bit more severe. And as to their responses they were too vague and not descriptive.

Adrian Flores

3/3/2017 01:03:19 pm

Q1: Although they claimed not to look up Christian. All of the defendants most likely did especially since they behaved in such irrationally behavior.
Q2: I believe that the real intent of the crime had to do with the relationship that each of the defendants had with the victim. It seemed as though all of them didn't like the victim which is why they committed the "prank".
Q3: I don't think the responses affected the respondents of the other defendants simply because they all seemed to have their opinion on why they did what they did and each of their personalities were different.
Q4: I think the parents were really embarrased on the behavior that their sons underwent and they seemed to be fully involved in their lives. The punishment the defendants received at home did seem reasonable.

Ray Garicia Period 5

3/10/2017 01:23:24 pm

Q1:i believe that they felt peered pressure to what he suggested not because they fear him, but because the is someone of "authority" to them
Q2:i believe there was intent because they seemed bothered that the victim wasn't good so i believe there was intent to harm
Q3:Yes i do because as the other kids were simply saying yes or no carlos was putting himself on a pedestal
Q4:I believe parents will be parents and try to defend their kid but were not happy to be there. I believe everyones punishment was fair except carlos's because he got less because of "school"

William franklin

3/10/2017 01:26:37 pm

Q1: I feel that they feared him. They were telling the truth they don't look up to him.

Diego Rojas

3/10/2017 01:27:34 pm

-The defendants did what Christian said because they were in on it. They target the victim and they admitted it.
-I believe the real intent of the crime was to bully and undermine the kid to leave the team. Maybe they didn't want him playing anymore so they want to kick him out through force.
-I don't think the responses were influenced by the other kids'. They all had very different forms of responding and all spoke in different tones.
-I don't think the parents knew what their kids had done to the full extent. They acted like it was a normal thing, or like a fight in school, but it was much more. The kids could've been tried worse, and the parents didn't seem to care at all.

William franklin

3/10/2017 01:29:45 pm

Q2 I believe the real intent of the crime was punishment and the excuse of "culture" was just. A cover up for what they did.
Q3 I feel once they hear/heard the culture response it would have been more wise to go for the vague answers
Q4 I feel that the charges were accurate for their crimes comitted

Emily Lopez per. 6

3/12/2017 07:14:26 pm

1. They most likely listened to him because he was older and the best player on the JV team. Even though they didn't admit it, they did look up to him in a way. They saw him as a leader and agreed to listen to him.
2. I believe the real intent was just that they saw it as a meaningless prank. I don't believe any of their personal relationships with the victim were the reason for the incident.
3.I feel that Mathew and Joshua's responses were sincere and that they truly felt guilty for their action. However, Carlos's excuse of "culture" seemed to be premeditated. It is likely that Carlos was told what to say or that he was only trying to say what the judges and jury wanted to hear in order to get a shorter sentence.
4. I feel that the sentences from the parents were normal punishments for misbehavior, but the parents should have given them a more severe punishment to let their children know it is not right to treat people the way they treated the victim.

Bianca Arias

3/17/2017 08:08:24 am

Q1: The defendant fell into peer pressure because he wanted to fit in with the rest of the team.
Q2: I feel that the intention was to bully the victim. The term, "culture" was used as alternative to cover up their true intentions.
Q3: Yes, because as one of the started to use the words "culture", the defendants changed their minds about what they had said at the beginning and kinda just agree with what the previous guy said.
Q4: Most of the [parents did not seem to upset about the situation. If they had not gotten into that much trouble, they would of probably not cared about their actions as much. Some of them had mentioned their experiences with football and said that they had done similar things. Although, I did believe that their punishments were reasonable and were not that lenient.

Jasmine

3/25/2017 05:52:08 pm

Q1. I suppose that the defendants did what their peer Christian had told them what to do because they wanted to be accepted as one of his “friends”.
Q2.What I believe to be the real intent of the crime is that was to bully the victim.
Q3.Yes I do believe that both Joshua and Matthew responses of each defendants was affected by each other's answers. I believe this because Joshua and Matthew began to also say the same thing as Carlos that it was “culture”.
Q4.I believe that some of the parents attitude towards the incident was not too understanding the the victim. I do believe that their punishments were too lenient. I believe this because the victim was completely humiliated on social media

Andrea Roa

3/31/2017 01:19:11 pm

Q1: I believe the defendants did it because they wanted superiority, and Christian took the toll towards 'friendship'
Q2: I think they did it to be known as something and wanted attention/ make a name for themselves. I don't believe it had anything to do with the victims performances or culture; it was the matter of fact they thought it would be funny / "cool"
Q3: yes, because they all wanted to be on the same page, I also believe there was something missing for this case like for instance It was too vague, Carlos just wanted to prove a point which wasn't really necessary. It seemed as if the 'story' was missing/ didn't really add up, there was some kind of unknown aspect about this case due toward the simple yes and no response.
Q:4 I feel the parents were too lenient; instead of facing the wrongs of the incident, they were just trying to dodge it and protect their children. They didn't realize the fault of their children's action they were too busy trying to protect them.

Jazmin Mendez period 5

5/22/2017 01:40:36 pm

1.i think they did it because because they felt like they needed to do what their peer Christian said or else they would feel like they would be disowned from Christian
2.i think it was more of a prank then more of a "culture" meaning.
3. I feel that Matthew & Joshua felt truly guilty about what they did. On the other Carlos seemed like he didn't care because all he kept saying was that it was a "culture" thing.
4. I feel like some of the parents were too lenient and might not have even cared about this. I think they weren't punished enough.

Daniel Reyes

5/22/2017 03:05:08 pm

Q1: I believe they did because they thought he was cool and popular, even though they didn't look up to him.
Q2: The real intent of the crime was to make fun of him.
Q3: No I don't believe so. I believe they gave their own opinions.
Q4: The punishments in my opinion were way to lenient. They did not get punish enough for the actions they did.

Arthur Perez

5/30/2017 02:05:05 pm

Q1 they probably did look up to him they just didn't know thenselves
Q2 they probably did it for different reasons i think they thought it was funny to do this
Q3 I think they did affect each other especially the last one to answet maybe they thought their answer made them sound guilty
Q4 I think they were good but in situations like that where they show such a lack of empathy and respect to other its hard to decide a punishment

Angel Ramos

6/1/2017 12:39:56 pm

1. They looked up to him mainly because he's some sort of idol and gain some type of popularity.
2. Whether it was a joke or not someone did end up getting hurt and they "intended" for a funny outcome to occur from it.
3. Yes, they all agreed on participating on the joke so they are all responsible for the joke.
4. Honestly feel like they were not properly punished for the actions they did and how far this has gone, because teen court takes any type of intent to harm another human being is a real serious case.

Alfredo Alfaro period 5

6/1/2017 01:16:44 pm

Q1: The defendants wanted to look cool by going up to a player that looker up to for a long time.
Q2: The defendants did this as a punishment to the victim because the defendants seen the player as a vital team player.
Q3:I think that Carlos answered in way that he was not honest to the audience mean while the other defendents answered honestly and truthfully.
Q4: I think that the parents were only making excuses and trying to defend their kids and no their punishments were not fair because of what they did in this case.

Samantha Hernandez p.6

6/1/2017 02:58:50 pm

1.they looked up to him so they felt like they had to do what he said .
2. The intent of the crime was to make fun on him .
3.They all agreed to participate in the joke ! So they had the intent to do it .
4.They went to easy on them and I fell like they desevered a larger punishment , they did mean to do what they did .

Jose Hernandez Per.6

6/2/2017 12:05:15 am

Q1: I believe the defendants wanted to gain popularity due to Christian's high status on the football team and thought by doing the actions they would become more popular.
Q2: I believe the real intent of the actions taken were due to some form of hatred towards the victim and as the court session went on they started to realize how out of hand it got and just started saying random words such as "culture" and "being a prank."
Q3: I believe that as the court progressed they were being individuals with different perspectives trying to find a story in which every single one of them looked innocent. In other words, they winged it and tried to lie to the jury in order for them not to look as bad as they did.
Q4: I believe the parents were being too lenient towards their children and some of them even tried to justify their child's actions when in reality they should have been harder on them in order for them to learn.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Feburary 2017