MrBoJangelz71
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2014
- 4,972
- 6,078
"True remorse is showing remorse at a level Miller is not capable of" sounds a lot like what I'm saying he's up against: no matter what he does, it will seem inadequate.
YES if what he does is continue to bully and hurl racial slurs at a mentally challenged black kid.
You get that right?
If you continue to do the thing you were charged for, after paying your price, that YOU ARE NOT REFORMED?
If a criminal rapes someone and goes to jail for 5 years, gets out and repeats the same action again, they are not reformed.
According to the courts, the apology was done, as it was part of his sentence, and obviously his sentence could not have been completed if the courts did not receive it. Whether or not there was a mistake on the court's part in delivering it, that may be an issue altogether. But what we know right now is A. Miller was required to issue an apology to complete the terms of his conviction and B. he is on record as having completed the terms of his conviction.
And according to the victims mother, the other person charged apologized immediately, he showed instant remorse for his disgusting actions. Mitchell, according to the mother, did not show any remorse and did not state any remorse till the courts forced him too.
Now, one could say that apology was sincere, even if it came from a court order, but in Mitchells' case, after the apology he continued to racially bully a mentally challenged person.
If you are remorseful, if you learnt what you did is not acceptable, you stop it. That was not the case. He continued to bully and pick on a person that could not defend themselves from it.
It's as disgusting an action as one can commit. He did it repeatedly, he continued to do it after he was charged, and now, today, because it is in the national media, he is stating how truly remorseful he is, not to the family, not to his victim, but to the NHL, and national media.
I never said he suffered severely. I said he paid a legal price, namely a conviction and terms to complete; and if your goal is to suggest that Miller's punishment has not fit the crime, then why are you defending another punishment that, also, does not fit the crime?
I am 100% saying it did not fit the crime, because if it did fit the crime, Mitchell would have instantly stopped the horrible things he was doing to the exact same victim. 25 hours of picking up garbage around your community centre does not equate to being forced to eat a candy that someone urinated on. It does not cover the 100s of hours Mitchell tormented a challenged black kid that had enough hills to battle in life that he didn't need another one cause by some little snot nose racist Dbag that picked and bullied him for years.
He did horrific disgusting things to a poor victim and showed no remorse for it, because he continued it.
And we can talk all we want about reform. At 14 years old, I had enough empathy and understanding that picking on a challenged person is WRONG. To do it once would be awful, and one with a decent moral compass would have huge regrets.
To not have any regrets, to continue to get up everyday and make it a choice to go out of your way to make a challenged person's day as difficult and unbearable as you possibly can, you have something broken deep down in you that 25 hours of picking up trash will not dissolve.
Last edited by a moderator: