Junior Guzman-Feliz has been laid to rest.
In his death remains more questions than answers. Millions of people have tuned in to the tragedy of this young man’s death and hope that everyone involved receives what they deserve.
Everyone jumped for joy when the men who savagely killed Junior were arrested and reduced to their new status of inmate in the New York City Department of Corrections. I hope they are showed the same amount of humanity as Kalief Browder. They deserve every punishment the laws allow.
Justice still hasn’t been served though. There is one person noticably absent from this conversation: Stephanie Astacio. This all started because Stephanie had sex with a boy. There are mixed reports if this boy was her boyfriend or someone else she engaged in intercourse with. Somehow a video of herself engaging in sexual acts ended up on social media and her brother was made aware of it. Stephanie, in an attempt to protect her lover, pointed out Junior instead and the rest is history.
Stephanie has been called a victim and a lot of her information is protected due to her age. I’m tired of Stephanie being called a victim. I cringe when people allude to her age and insist she needs to be protected. If she’s grown enough to have sex, allow it to be recorded, lie on an innocent boy, and be the catalyst for a murder, I refuse to cloak her in the innocence of childhood. Her lack of home training and values is loathsome.
If you recall the details of the Emmitt Till murder, young Emmitt was murdered for whistling at a white girl. Decades later, the woman who accused him of whistling at her said he never deserved to die because it never happened. While Emmett’s death was racially motivated, it was clear he was a pawn in a racially unjust society. Fast forward to 2018, the #MeToo movement is beginning to feel like what racial politics felt like to black men during the Jim Crow era and we need to protect our son’s more now than ever from a movement that is out of control.
Women’s Rights have come a long way and the #MeToo movement has been birthed in a new era of feminism. Supporters of the #MeToo movement have gotten behind Stephanie Astacio, insisting she is a victim.
The only victim here is Junior. Stephanie is a liar and an accomplice to murder. When she put a target on Junior’s head and had him killed, regardless of her intentions, she became as guilty as the men who killed him. Yet, people still defend her.
I’m far from a rape apologist. I’m a mom to both a young girl and a young boy so I carry a different perspective on the intersectionality of women’s rights, the #MeToo movement, and protecting our boys from extremists of these two groups.
Females are not more valuable than males.
Males deserve to be protected too. How can we publicly crucify the store owner for Junior’s death but not the girl who intentionally pointed him out, despite knowing Junior was innocent?
There needs to be Justice for Junior and that won’t happen until Stephanie Astacio has been arrested and charged accordingly in the brutal slaying of Junior Guzman-Feliz.
Mark my words, if Junior were my son, Stephanie would be in a morgue.
As a mother of a young boy I strongly agree with you. This young lady has to pay for what she has done, she needs to seriously be charged with murder.
I agree with Blaka, here. This is a horrific case, but going after the girl would only spread the injustice. I’ve looked up the case and by what I found the girl was 12 or 13 when this happened, clearly a minor. Also, I wasn’t able to verify that she purposely fingered Guzman-Feliz. Everything that I’ve found says that it’s case of mistaken identity. But even if she did intentionally mis-identify Guzman-Feliz, which is not certain, would it have been better if she had correctly identified the actual boy? Then, it would have been him that was killed, still another victim. The point is that this gang culture is sick, no one deserved to die because of consensual sex, even though the girl was under age. What should have happened is that they went to police and reported what was apparently statutory rape, not play vigilante. I think it’s an absurdity to compare this to Emmett Till, the circumstances are completely different. For Till, it was an example of the worst of white supremacy. In this case, everyone involved at least seems to be the same ethnic and racial group, some type of black and Latino. Your analysis of this case is truly flawed, it seems that your intent was to use it to criticize the #metoo movement, which is perplexing. A case of an underage girl filmed having sex, whether consensual or not, and then being made to identify her sex partner, is a textbook example of sexual oppression. Trying to tie this to Emmett Till is disingenuous and makes a mockery of that legacy.
I have 3 Boys and a Daughter and I cried so hard when this news came out not only because he was innocent but because of the violent nature of this crime so many families broken and affected because one person decided to publish an intimate act. What is this world coming too? No respect for our privacy, our intimacy, or our bodies. The first question if this young girl intentionally pointed someone out to protect the person who actually embarrassed her and had no respect for her no matter what her age something must be done. So she can learn to make better choices. I understand that she probably at her age didn’t understand what was going to happen to this young man but how will she learn that her actions caused another their Life? There are some mistakes that just can’t be forgiven because of age and when you are considered a victim it doesn’t make it even to choose another victim. And if that video wasn’t consensual then that boy should go to jail too. I hope all of the truth comes out in this case and all parties get their just punishment.
But Ruth, at this point we can’t even be sure if the girl intentionally fingered the wrong person. From what I’ve found, it appears that she told them who it was, but then a mob of the gangsters took out an went after Guzman-Feliz, because they thought that it was him. Here’s a link to a Twitter account, with a side-by-side photo that shows how much alike the two boys looked: https://twitter.com/monielovex/status/1010369084175863808/photo/1. If you go to this link, you’ll see how it was possible that they went after Guzman-Feliz thinking he was the other guy. But here’s the thing; when people insist on penalizing the girl they’ve giving no consideration for the impossible position that she was in. Lets say that she did identify the other guy, that the mob didn’t make a mistake, and then went on to kill him, not Guzman-Feliz. If this had happened do you mean to tell me that it would have been alright? That it’s permissible for a mob to go out and commit vigilante justice, act as judge, jury and executioner, because it was the right person? Sure, if this had happened Guzman-Feliz would be alive, but another young man would be dead. Would that have made it better? I don’t think so. Even though the girl was statutorily raped, what should have been done was to report it to the police and let them handle it. What you and Ms. Ramos don’t seem to grasp is why this is wrong. It’s not wrong because the wrong boy was killed, it’s wrong because ANY boy was killed. The point is that street justice is illegal and wrong, no matter what the motivation is. By harping on punishing the girl for purposely identifying the wrong boy, which again is unverified, and which takes no account of her being pressured to identify ANYONE, what you all don’t seem to realize is that you’re arguing in favor of mob violence, as long as it’s the “right” person. Now, if you believe this then I don’t suppose there’s any reason to argue. I will just have to conclude that we have a diametrically different conception of justice. The point is, as I’ve already noted, there is absolutely no reason to blame the girl. At worst, she sent them after an innocent person, at best she didn’t, but the mob made the mistake. Either way, there’s no evidence that she directed them to kill anyone. Rather, she too was a victim of a culture, which views her as an extension of her group, not as an individual to be valued for herself. They took the action that they did less for her sake than for their own sense of propriety. In any case, it does not appear that she planned or desired this crime to happen. People really need to be rational stop letting their emotion guide their opinions. The perpetrators have been arrested and will be punished, and this is all that needs to happen, going after the girl on some trumped up charge would serve no purpose, other than to victimize her more than she’s already been victimized. This is way there’s no action by the DA to charge her, it simply makes no sense.
Skeptic, you make some VERY good points, and I largely agree with your argument. BUT, I do think more investigation is warranted before we can wholly “pardon” the young lady, either. For example, do we know (and I haven’t been able to verify from what I’ve read of the case so far) that she was “pressured” to identify someone by the males seeking to exact “justice”? Under that circumstance, it doesn’t matter if she knew what brand of justice was coming to whomever she intentionally/unintentionally identified; a choice made under duress cannot be charged as a crime (according to our justice system). I will say, I’m no legal expert. The whole of what I know is largely informed by way too many hours watching real-crime TV and Law & Order marathons. I’ve also read a book or two. That said, is it beyond reason that she may have–whether in an effort to exact her own revenge for her besmirched reputation or save face from the inevitable whore shaming that was to come–actively identified a young man to send (or goad) the mob into action? I’m clearly only theorizing, but I don’t think such a circumstance is far-fetched. Under that theory of events, I hold her culpable. It’s one thing to be pressured (as in the criminal definition of duress) and another thing to be compelled by fear/embarrassment to act irresponsibly, egregiously, or criminally. I know it’s easy to presume duress because of the sexual oppression of women in our cultures (many are at play here), to your point. But we should not, lest we find ourselves prescribing to the ideologies perpetuating that oppression, e.g. she couldn’t/wouldn’t have sacrificed a young man’s life/reputation to save/repair her own. Sure she could have! Not because gender has no bearing on that sort of motive, but because youth DOES have great bearing on that sort of motive. Kids who don’t want to be embarrassed, lose friends, or fear reprisal will lie, fall into bullying kids they have no personal contention with, start rumors to deflect their own guilt, ad infinitum. I say this all to say that if this young lady was simply trying to avoid public shame or perhaps was justifiably upset about having her sex tape aired, and that motivated her to identify a young man for any recourse, then I think she is culpable. If a group of kids is pushing another kid, each one taking a turn as the group urges and taunts, and when it’s my turn, I CHOOSE (yes, under peer pressure, but NOT duress) to push the kid too and he falls and cracks his head open and dies, I hate to say it, but I’m responsible at 12 or 15. I presume that was Juanita’s connection to the Emmett Till case; the woman who falsely accused him was not under duress and arguably feared no reprisal from saying nothing OR telling the truth about what occurred. I didn’t HAVE to push the kid; I could have walked away. I’d have lost my friends, perhaps be teased or bullied, but that kid would also be alive. The same (or similar) goes for the young lady in this case. Of course, my argument is moot if the facts of the case have already proven that she was under duress. Otherwise, until it is known for sure, both sides ought to reserve judgement on whether the young lady deserves an apology or an indictment. But I think it worth investigating, as she is key to the motive of this case. Aaaaand that was a long a$$ diatribe.
Modern Deborah,
I suppose we’ll have to accept that we simply see this differently, period. As I have noted, even if the worst scenario is true, that she willingly mislead the mob, and we have no evidence of this, there’s also no evidence that she knew for sure that they would kill the person. If this were the case, then it could also have been possible that she thought that they would have beaten the person up at worst, not kill them. The primary point here is that we don’t know and none of the reporting thus far has proven it. In any case, it just floors me that people are so intent on criminalizing a 13 or 14 year old girl who had no direct hand in the killing, bottom line. This is NOT anything like Emmett Till. As I’ve noted, in that case you had whites committing a crime against a black boy, based on a lie from a white woman, not a child, unlike in this case. In the Till case, the perpetrators were tried, with a rigged jury and were acquitted, and justice was denied. However in this case, multiple perpetrators, and it’s critical to note of the same race and ethnic group, have been caught, charged, and will certainly be convicted. For the umpteenth time; this. Is. Not. Emmett Till revised. You have to perform serious mental gymnastics to hold this case comparable to Till’s. It’s not, and we need to stop using the Till case as a prism for this one. I think if people stopped doing that they’d see the folly, and quite frankly the cruelty,of wanting to charge a minor as though she was the mastermind of a crime, instead of collateral damage herself. The problem, I think, is that those who demand that the girl is penalized are being emotional, instead of being pragmatic. When you look at the facts of the case dispassionately, as you ideally should when evaluating any crime, it’s abundantly clear that the girl has no criminal liability, indeed she too is a victim. I am relieved that the prosecutors in this case have rationally determined who the guilty parties are, and that the girl is not one of them. This is as it should be, intemperate and misguided appeals to sanction the girl notwithstanding.