As it turns out... that doesn't even apply.

It looks like the ORINGAL autopsy was correct and the reason he died was due to his sickle cell problem and not due to the beating or suffication.  With no reason to know of the sickle cell problem you can't really even charge them with child neglect and culpable negligence.

If they were found guilty for anything they would of been out on appeal.

Actually, she checked his vital signs.  Nothing criminal was actually done here.  The beating wasn't a contributing factor to his death under either autopsy.

He died of a Sickle cell trait.  He collapsed because of it while running laps... the guards thought he was faking... the nurse checked his vital signs... they were fine... then all this happened to get him to stop "faking" which was common in such programs.

In reality he was dieing of an unknown disease that nobody knew he had.

Nothing they did was culpable in his death... outside of not knowing that he might have a rare gentic disorder that was never reported to them.

Your outrage is misplaced.

Not really - they still used corporal punishment on a minor.

So they didn't kill the boy, fine. And beating people up may be an acceptable punishment in Florida, fair enough. Doesn't make it any less disgusting to me.

It's quite a lot of outrage for corporal punishment.  Your acting as if the nurse was a nurse at Auschwitz or something.

Which actually is a great example of just how far most people really would go under such circumstances.

Most people are a lot more docile to authority then you'd think.  You very likely aren't any different.  This afterall was MUCH less then say what was portrayed in the Milgrim expierement.

It's rather unfair to show such anger and rage at people when in reality you would likely act the same way.

True, most people are willing to do terrible things when pushed in the right ways. Hell, most people are willing to become mass murderers under wartime.

But there are/were people who weren't like the most, like this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arndt_Pekurinen

I don't know whether I'll be able to hold on to my principles as long as he did, and I'll probably be never really tested for those since Finland has a viable alternative to being drafted, but I'm sure as hell going to try.

EDIT: And as for the nurse - I don't consider her a monster. I consider her a medical professional who stood by and watched as a teenager was beaten by six adult men. As I said - americans might find it acceptable, it might be legal - hell, it might be encouraged. I disagree in the strongest way. Let's leave it at that.

Most people i'm sure "try".  The expierments on it afterall do have people object.  It's just they are generally coaxed otherwise.

While such expierments involved WORSE negative impacts on those involved who are totally innocent, for no perceviable goal.

Unlike this situation.   Where the act was very minimal, it was done with minors who committed serious crimes and violated probation, with the goal to make sure these people don't screw up their lives as adults.

The comparison you draw is quite drastically different.  "As you don't eat men their is no point in butchering them."

Here there was a point, and it's something that wasn't fatal, and really should never be fatal... hence the nurse being on hand. 

True, as am I. I won't know for sure whether I am able to hold on to those principles or not if I end up with a difficult choice, so that's all I can say at this point.

You can have the best intentions (those are what the road to hell is paved with) and still end up making things far worse with your methods. I'm not a believer of the "ends justify the means" - line of thinking, at least not in this case.

The scale might be, but the core issue is the same - whether people would or could do something that's against their beliefs when coerced by the current authority. Most people do, some don't. 

But it is, and it always can be. A single punch can kill a human being when the circumstances are right, and you don't have to be a martial arts expert or to attack a dying human being to do it.

Not that it was the case here, but still.

1) It doesn't really change the point

2) The core issue isn't the same... the scale makes it not so.  One involves the death.  The other involves bruises.

3) No, but being a county sheriff, you are in fact trained and know what kind of attack can and would hurt somebody.... these were in fact... trained proffesionals... and they actually had the nurse there to diagnose any problems.  That's why they actually did cause the ambulence when significant problems arose.

1) Doesn't still make it acceptable to use corporal punishment on minors IMO, regardless of how controlled or well-intentioned it is. I do understand why they did what they did, I just disagree with it.

2) Fine, I'll drop this.

3) I never believed they actually tried to cause any long lasting damage to the kid. Doesn't really change anything IMO.

1) I also disagree.  However I think your level of outrage is far out of place.

2) Agreed.

3) Sure it does.  They are trained proffesonals.  There was no risk of them actually beating him to death.  (outside of malice.)  You argued that it doesn't take a trained person to kill soemone with a blow... which is true... however if you are a trained person you can make sure you won't kill someone with a blow.