One: 65 years, while long, is not “multiple life sentences.” Two: The 65 years was shortly thereafter reduced to 55 years, though I am not finding any details on why. That 55 years was 30 for felony murder and 25 for burglary and theft (???), consecutively. Three: Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon, so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. Four: A later court changed those to run concurrently, making it an effective 30 years. In this hearing, the victim’s own father made a statement that Smith did not deserve to be charged with his son’s death. Five: This screenshot is dated less than a week after the original sentencing.
Other notes: There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal. The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder. I have to think it was a difficult argument for the defense to make, that Smith “did not intend to hurt anyone.” The prosecution surely had an easier time framing this in terms of “Smith was at least present when someone was murdered the day before [it may have been a short time, hours, since the earlier murder was “around midnight” and I don’t see what time of day the later burglary occurred]. He had to know that continuing to commit crimes with the same group of people could end with death, and still pressed on.”
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
Thank you for this
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
is it possible to fit this level of nuance in a headline?
perhaps reading past the headline is recommended
Have you met people before?
Unfortunately.
It’s possible in a post on Lemmy but OP wasn’t about to do that.
Just included links to help the POS.
Thanks for the context but a court shouldn’t be considering things they haven’t been convicted for unless it’s part of the matter before the court.
Also it doesn’t matter if the police shooting was justified. Charging this guy with the police shooting is, and always has been, fucked up.
65 years is 3 life sentences in the normal world. That’s not a normal sentence for burglary outside authoritarian countries.
a court shouldn’t be considering things they haven’t been convicted for unless it’s part of the matter before the court.
They didn’t consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It’s up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It’s the convict’s entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren’t convicted have having a family or deep community ties?
A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.
This sentence seems long for the kid’s age, but that’s Alabama. Vote.
A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.
For lesser crimes, I can agree, but felony stuff. I think it should be more rigid.
It’s the felony murder rule. You intend the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery. It’s one of the reasons doing armed robberies is illegal.
Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery.
I don’t understand why that is being equated with murder though. If I would have forced my accomplice into the life threatening situation that got them killed, sure, I would be guilty of their death; but if we assume that they went along willingly how can I get blamed that they got themselves in the situation where (someone else!) killed them?
If you commit a felony and during which someone dies, it’s felony murder. Even if you did nothing wrong except whatever felony
Yeah, we’re asking if that’s moral? We already have laws about being party to a murder or conspiracy to murder. Why do we need to automatically extend liability?
That’s the law, but is is actually just?
You shared the intent to do the crime, including all its foreseeable consequences.
Criminal liability criminalizes the forming bad intentions (conspiracy and attempt, inchoate crimes) and the bad action of advancing those intention (completed crimes, choate crimes; robbery, murder).
Felony murder liability says: don’t do that (don’t conspire to do a felony that may likely kill someone and which then did kill someone).
The death arose from the shared bad intent, so the consequences are fairly shared. That’s the theory. I know some people who find this rule controversial. I find it controversial as applied, sometimes, but not in theory. It’s the economics of the rule. Can’t have people hatching dangerous conspiracies to do felonies.
Oh look someone with a Pro-Genocide tag shows up to defend charging people for the violence committed against them.
Such surprise.
Ridiculous. Go touch grass, honestly. “Pro genocide.” You’re so gullible and reactionary. Such a surprise your media literacy is such utter dogshite.
Your name is rather distinctive. But just to make sure I didn’t forget about your shilling for Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes I added a tag. So yeah I’m not surprised you’re in favor of charging people with murder for the police shooting their friends.
But just to make sure I didn’t forget about your shilling for Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes I added a tag.
Thats churlish. You can’t handle disagreeing with someone?
Why not just say: “I haven’t figured out how to handle my emotions yet”?
No I can disagree with people just fine. But I don’t tolerate the presence of people who use propaganda to defend the most blatant and horrendous war crimes. It’s the same as tolerating the presence of a neo Nazi. For the record Israel hit another IDP camp this week, the EU and Human Rights Watch have said Israel is using starvation as a weapon against the Palestinian people, and now 7 of our allies are restricting or refusing arms sales to Israel.
Furthermore I mean what I said above literally. I am not surprised to find a defender of all of that coming here to defend the felony murder rule being used when the police did the killing.
Or, and this just struck me, are you saying my shit memory for people means I’m churlish?
You only reveal your failure to understand my position. Again, sorry I can’t dumb it down for you any further, the subject inherently complex.
Your position isn’t complex. It’s just reprehensible.
Why are you always mean when people disagree with you? I noticed this a lot. You always claim that you can’t dumb it down further to someone else. Strange mechanism to defend your opinion.
Pretty much guaranteed that when you see a ‘shocking’ headline, that there’s context that makes it make a lot more sense that’s either being obscured or obfuscated.
I hate sensationalism so much.
deleted by creator
Here’s another one:
1 you shouldn’t be charged with a murder you didn’t commit.
I feel like that one is super important here.
A lot of people here are discovering felony murder for the first time.
Also seems to be a lack of understanding that just cause you didn’t pull the trigger doesn’t mean you didn’t help create the scenario where a trigger got pulled.
I’m not sure I agree with all instances of felony murder (like when it’s an accomplice who dies), but the general notion is you participated in the events that lead to this person’s death.
Lets say I along with a number of others bought drugs from a dude who used that money to buy more drugs to sell and some of those drugs killed someone.
Is everyone that bought from them responsible?
You’ve got a break in events (going to buy more drugs). However, if you buy someone drugs and they die from them you can be found culpable!
I think the problem is the sentencing can get out of hand.
In this case 30 years is still more than most other countries would give, but its not outrageous like america usually is.
Based on what I was reading, I think they may have thrown the book at all of them because this was the third incident (possibly murder?) this group was involved in that week.
Yeah and it was appealed down as far as sentencing went. Wild story isnt it. Not what I would choose as an example of a miscarriage of justice.
Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon,
Unsurprisingly there’s no footage of this other person in that link. Not that that would justify putting an innocent person in a cage.
There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal.
Why would anyone take a plea deal for a murder that they didn’t commit? The real problem here is this scam of forcing people into plea deals by threatening them with insane punishments in a fundamentally unjust system. It’s gross when people act like refusing a “deal” is some kind of guilt. It’s mostly likely the opposite.
The day before this burglary…
That’s irrelevant to the cop murdering this kid.
… Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man.
Even if this were relevant, did this even happen? Your article is from 2016 says nothing about Lekeith being convicted.
More generally it’s amazing how “normal” people are brainwashed enough to post this kind of copaganda word salad.
There’s no “opinion” here. Teenagers shouldn’t be convicted for murders committed by cops. It’s that simple.
It’s really important to know the details because it’s the details that allow us to parse and challenge injustice effectively.
Knowing the context of Felony Murder and how it applies to this sentencing is not saying ‘this is fine then, no worries’. Rather, it means we can actually talk about the systematic issues in the legal system that enable things like this.
The comment you replied to was in no way ‘word salad’ or ‘copaganda’, it was context.
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
This is not a trial.
And the wall of text dumped above doesn’t make it one, either.
Police murdering someone and blaming others is the discussion. Save the rest for your L2 seminar discussion.
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
Police murdering someone
Shooting someone who is charging you while armed is not murder, dope.
That’s my point. You did not present a “complete and accurate representation” at all. You just recycled copaganda, most of it misleading and irrelevant.
… that article from 2016 says nothing about this Lekeith being prosecuted.
Edit: Parent commenter has since edited their comment to read “convicted” instead of “prosecuted.”
MPD investigators say Jaderrian Hardy, 18, of Montgomery, is now charged with one count of capital murder in the death of Brandon Brown, 18, who was gunned down around midnight on Feb. 22, 2015.
Hardy was served the warrant Tuesday at the Montgomery County Detention Facility where he was already being held on unrelated charges. He joins Jhavarske Jackson, 18, and Lakeith Smith, 16, who were charged with reckless murder in Brown’s death last year.
Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon,
… so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. That is the context here, which I made sure to include in the sentence you selectively edited.
So let’s be clear here, he was charged with felony murder of his accomplice in a dangerous felony. Felony murder is the crime of killing of a person in the commission of a dangerous crime.
It’s pretty debatable if it makes sense to charge someone for felony murder if they were an accomplice, but that’s a different discussion than the framing of “charged for a murder committed by cops”. The cops didn’t murder this guy, it seems pretty clear that the cops acted in self defense here. So it’s not like they transferred the “blame” as it were from murderous cops to an innocent kid.
The reason felony murder exists is that even if there was no actual intent to kill, the risk of death during a dangerous crime is so high it becomes reckless. There’s a similar crime of depraved heart murder where the act that causes the death of someone is so dangerous that one could only do it if they had no concern of killing someone. You go into a felony knowing someone could get hurt or killed and do it anyway, so you are responsible for the consequences whether you “pulled the trigger” or not. A more common example would be if you and a buddy are robbing a bank and your buddy kills a teller or a cop, you get charged with felony murder.
It’s pretty debatable if it makes sense to charge someone for felony murder if they were an accomplice
That’s is the felony murder rule. It’s a transfered intent doctrine. I don’t think the rule itself is very controversial. This isn’t even a controversial application of the law except for the length of the sentence and the age of the offender. While those are motivating factors at sentencing, others have posted the many aggravating factors that apply in the case. And while prior convictions and prior arrests aren’t relevant at the trial, they are relevant at the sentencing.
It’s part of felony murder but not the whole thing. The other parts of felony murder are if your accomplice intentionally kills someone or the death of someone is caused without intent (such as hitting a pedestrian while fleeing).
I could make the argument that by participating in a felony, accomplices are accepting the inherent risk, so if they happen to get hurt or killed that’s on them and shouldn’t be considered felony murder.
That first part is the same part. It’s the same thing. Transferred intent. Your accomplice intends the foreseeable consequences of their actions, and you theirs.
I could make the argument that by participating in a felony, accomplices are accepting the inherent risk, so if they happen to get hurt or killed that’s on them and shouldn’t be considered felony murder.
Sure, I suppose that’s as logical of a thing to do. It’s because of public policy and the social economics of it that we don’t. We as a society and our legal system, at our best, should be indemnifying, like, employees that get hurt on the job, firefighters that get lung cancer and such, delivery drivers that get bit by dogs, Major League Baseball (/s), and gun manufacturers (/s), not convicted felons who conspired to do a thing that could foreseeably and then did get their accomplice killed. They don’t have the political capital to get a law like that passed. Just, as a group, not a lot of lobbying money for convicted felonious coconspirators whose accomplice died in the course and scope of it.
It’s only felony murder when the accomplice is killed by something that justifies making the conduct illegal in the first place. That limits the concern of runaway criminal liability. Also I think just doctrinally, one can’t assume a risk of wrongful death; it would essentially legalize negligent or reckless homicide.
The parent comment doesn’t appear to be copaganda, or even have a stance one way or the other. The comment is context, which is important for discussing the issue at hand. Because of the context, we should not be discussing police brutality or excessive use of force in this case, we should be discussing the immorality of a justice system which allows someone to be charged with felony murder in the case of an accomplice.
To clarify, if this group of teens broke into a home and shot the homeowner, that would be a justified charge of felony murder for all the accomplices. However, their friend chose to essentially commit suicide by cops, and the convicted was running away at the time. Again, the parent comment did not make any qualifiers on the actions of the cops or anyone else present, they posted context with which other commenters can frame their discussion. Nowhere in their other comments could I discern a pro-cop stance, reading with an objective eye. Reactionary pointing of fingers just discourages future posters from providing context.
Before you accuse me of copaganda as well, ACAB, systemic racism is a huge problem in the US, and our justice system is rigged against the most vulnerable.
You complete me.
Mwah
More generally it’s amazing how “normal” people are brainwashed enough to post this kind of copaganda word salad.
Waiting to hear about the drugs they found in his system.
We need more people like you.
I appreciate this more than you know. Thank you.
The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder.
Gee, it’s almost as if there were real crimes he could have been charged with, instead of the bullshit crime of his friend getting killed by the cops.
His friend getting killed by the cops as a result of a crime sprea is grounds for Felony Murder charges. You can say it’s a dumb law but you cannot say the charges are bullshit.
Yes, I can say the charges are bullshit because they’re bullshit. Felony murder in general is bullshit. Felony murder for a murder not committed by a member of the group is extra bullshit. Felony murder charges for a member of the group getting killed by the cops is ridiculous bullshit.
Appreciate you being informative but 65 years is, in most cases due to multiple life sentences. It’s more to do with how many years before you’re eligible for parole, not the expectation of 100 years or something.
I didn’t read into the situation and don’t have an opinion, but your first point is already misleading.
I didn’t read into the situation …
I did. The sentences were 30 years for felony murder and 25 years for burglary and theft.
Which I stated were initially set to be consecutive, and later changed to concurrent. So you didn’t even read the comment you replied to.
It’s still misleading to say “while 65 years is long, it’s not multiple life sentences.” That’s just flat-out not true.
The sentences were 30 years and 25 years. As of right now, they are running concurrently. A “life sentence” is one where you are sentenced to prison for your natural life. A life sentence may be with or without the possibility of parole.
Nobody in the history of language has been more wrong than you are.
I know the US is different than Canada, but up here a life sentence is 25y and then you can get parole.
You might not get it then, but you can. There is no “without parole” legit life sentence.
Different US states have different sentencing guidelines, but generally speaking, you can be sentenced to “life with the possibility of parole after n years” (where n is determined by the judge at sentencing), or “life without the possibility of parole.”
Charles Manson, for example, was sentenced in California, and came up for parole about a zillion times. Was never granted parole, of course, but his parole hearings were a bit of a spectacle for a while.
Charles Manson, you are hereby sentenced to life with parole
Sentencing form
[ ] person is actually eligible for parole
[X] were just fucking with them, never grant parole.
Uh OK. So now I did read into it, and still stand by my statement that you’re being generally misleading. That might not be the case here specifically, but you’re definitely trolling with your first “argument”.
I didn’t know cops needed you to protect them when they sentence people to death. You a union member?
I don’t know how you figure that sentences of finite numbers of years are life sentences unless you’re being willfully obtuse.
You should also note that I have not made any arguments. I’ve only provided additional information beyond a screenshot of a very old tweet, which is publicly and easily available, and I have stayed as far from editorializing as possible.
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
Not the person you’re arguing with, but just to be clear, in the US, life sentences are either determinate or indeterminate. The former are for the remainder of natural life. The latter typically have a fixed part
(25/30 years, in this case)after which parole is possible for early release, but can extend up to the remainder of natural life.So when we say “multiple life sentences” it doesn’t mean sentencing for the duration of a multiple of their remaining natural life, it means that there are multiple sentences that have the possibility of life imprisonment.
Edit: I see what you’re saying. In this case, these were both fixed sentences, not indeterminate life sentences.
deleted by creator
I didn’t read into the situation and don’t have an opinion
You literally gave your opinion directly before this statement.
I meant an opinion on the situation regarding the subject of the article and the circumstances they’re in.
Does that make sense?
Makes sense to me
deleted by creator
What even is multiple life sentences, never understood it
Each conviction carries a sentence. It is not unheard of for a particular conviction of many to be overturned on appeal, or for a sentence for one charge to be modified. In such a case, the remainder of the convictions or sentences remain in place.
There is a certain person who was recently convicted on 34 counts of fraud in New York State, and because of the “specialness?” of this defendant, the Supreme Court decided after the jury returned all those convictions that this defendant is immune from prosecution for certain kinds of crimes. This gives the defendant a ripe avenue to appeal those convictions. Some of those convictions may be overturned on the basis of that immunity … but not all of them.
The same concepts apply to any convictions and any sentences, including the death penalty. Not only is it just to render consequences for each crime committed, it is also a safeguard to ensure that someone who is convicted of multiple felonies does not escape all consequence in the case that only some of the sentences change in the future.
This very case of Lekeith Smith is a perfect example. 30 years for felony murder, 25 years for burglary and theft, served concurrently. There is a fair argument for overturning that felony murder conviction; there is no such argument for overturning the burglary and theft conviction.
I do recall hearing about either precedent or laws relating to being involved in a crime where if someone is killed all involved get charged with the murder regardless of who actually committed it, so that could be the reasoning here.
Though I don’t recall any of the specifics.
Thats exactly what they are talking about, felony murder.
They are likely saying that there are solid arguments both ways on it though.
I think the biggest issue is not that he doesn’t deserve jail, he does. But if this exact crime had involved white teens, he would have gotten a few years tops
class, not race
Oh no… Class divide is whether it happened at all or gets swept under the rug… Race divide is how harsh the sentence is, but no one’s making anything disappear
deleted by creator
What difference does that make to millions of the same race who are living in poverty?
deleted by creator
It’s OK. We’ll lead.
deleted by creator
Jeez it only took one comment to go from “hello, fellow leftists” to “DER SICH ALS TRÄGER SEINES BESTEN BLUTES FÜHLEND. UND DIESES WISSEND ZUR FÜHRUNG DER NATION ERHOBEN HAT UND ENTSCHLOSSEN IST. DIESE FÜHRUNG ZU BEHALTEN, WAHRZUNEHMEN UND NICHT MEHR ABZUGEBEN.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You can edit your comments instead of replying to them. Better yet, keep the glacial takes inside.
This is probably “felony murder”. The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of felony, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder for that person. This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.
Classic example: you and a friend decide to hold up a bank. It goes sideways and a bank security guard shoots and kills your friend. You are guilty of murder because your friend died because you both decided to commit a felony.
Now do the j6 insurrectionists.
The white ones with white skin and Confederate flags? Oh see, that’s…that’s different… because they’re wh- …patriots?
Hmm, never thought about it like that. I guess that whole mob could be on the hook for killing Ashley Babbitt. I guess it’s a good thing for them there’s no federal felony murder rule.
Exactly cops died and yet they all got light sentences. The system is fucked and should be torn down. He is a kid and should be getting help not prison.
J6 was a crime against the federal government on government property in the District of Columbia.
The feds do have this felony murder law, but it seems to be narrower in scope than many state laws. For instance, the case where law enforcement shoots a perp did happen at the capitol, but it seems like it can’t be charged as felony murder under the federal version of the law.
Also, the federal law lists specific crimes only that can be used as underlying felonies, and I suspect that “obstructing an official proceeding” and even “insurrection” are not specifically on that list. Possibly, the feds would have had to charge and convict on simple burglary to apply felony murder.
I don’t think any felony murders were actually charged. And a great many J6 defendants were charged with no felonies at all, so they would not be eligible.
Didn’t they steal some things?
Burglary doesn’t actually require you to steal anything, but yes they did, and yes the feds probably could charge burglary on some of these defendants.
It is a stupid law being applied in the most ridiculous way, by being punished for the police’s actions.
But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015,
They fired at the police and one died as a result. They were all charged with murder.
Seems the law is being applied correctly.
As for the law itself I’m pretty torn on this. If someone dragged my kid along to a crime and they died as a result I’d have no problem with them getting charged for their murder.
And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?
That’s exactly why I’m torn. Be pretty hypocritical not to allow it to be applied the other way right?
And it was 25 years anyway for the crime plus it seems there was a lot more going on in this case including a couple other murders.
No, it’s not hypocritical because you’re missing (or ignoring) intent. Someone pressures your relative into doing a crime, reluctantly. Now the other criminal gets killed and your reluctant relative is on the hook for a murder they didn’t commit during a crime they didn’t really want to be a part of.
That is in no way comparable to a mastermind gathering a bunch of stooges for a suicide mission and getting them to commit death by cop.
Fair point.
But here he did shoot at the cops.
No there wasn’t. That was a separate case that we don’t know the disposition of. That commenter brought them in but in any court that kind of argument is banned unless they were convicted or it’s part of the matter before the court.
You are missing the point of the argument. Prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation anyway; except in extreme circumstances. This type of law and sentence only exists to feed the for-profit prison system.
Most importantly! Why the fuck are common thieves being put in prison for life when the Boeing execs — whose premeditated fraud directly killed of hundreds of people — are chilling with the plutocracy on their 3rd yacht?
I mean they’re being put away for shooting at the cops and robbing people.
But your point about the execs stands.
This case does seem pretty open and shut tbf.
The top comment makes it seem like Smith wasn’t some unwilling participant in the burglaries
Which has dick all to do with the murder charge. It is not normal to charge someone for a murder they didn’t commit.
Hey, don’t blame me, I’m just replying to them. I wasn’t the one to bring it up
And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?
Seems the law is being applied correctly.
Yeah that’s what they said about the holocaust.
I don’t think it is
Let’s be clear though: being legal doesn’t make it right.
Which, to be clear, is a fantastic way to charge people for the police hurting them. And not okay under most moral systems.
committing some kind of feeling
When I hear that old song they used to play
I begin dreaming
‘Til I see Marianne walk away
I see my Marianne walkin’ awayYeah. I eventually noticed that.
That’s so fucked up. You can legally be held accountable for other people’s actions.
The thing that’s fucked is not the idea of chains of causation. Courts deal with that all the time.
The fucked up part about felony murder in many states is that it bypasses mens rea or intent elements and jumps straight to murder 1 sentencing.
Other people’s actions caused by your own actions
No. You can see in this very case. Our guy robbed the place but he wasn’t the one who decided to charge the police with a gun. That was the proximate cause of the officer shooting and one person made that decision. If we’re going to go further back then where do we stop? His parents? His teachers? His community center sports coach? His friends who weren’t present? After all we’re talking about decisions leading to decisions now. What was the deep cause of the cop firing his weapon? Did his dad get fired, requiring the family to find money in other places? Do we charge the dad’s former boss in that case? After all in that theory case our guy wouldn’t have been at the robbery at all without that firing.
Blaming anything or anyone not involved in the act is the height of rationalization for longer sentences brought by racists and executives in the prison industry.
He wasn’t the one who charged the police but he took part in the crime that lead to that act, he could have stopped the crime from happening or not taken part in it, he chose to join in and that resulted in the death of his friend, he’s responsible for it by being an informed party, just like anyone who knew they were planning it and that didn’t denounce them before it happened.
Oh yes, so we should also arrest anyone who plausibly knew they would commit this crime and charge them with murder too. /s
There was one person who made the decision to fire a gun and it wasn’t this guy.
So basically police just have an open ticket to murder really.
It’s not murder to shoot someone who is charging at you with a deadly weapon.
And there is no question about this being what went down. There’s body cam footage.
That doesn’t sound like the law of a civilized country to me …
It’s not
The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of feeling, and
someone dies as a resulta cop murders somebody, then you are guilty of the cop’s murder.FTFY
This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter… in order for police to pin their murders on minorities despite all reason and case history.
FTFY.
Your argument only holds up if the cop isn’t also tried for that murder. I’m not even an American citizen so I don’t know if that’s the case.
Doesn’t matter if the cop would be tried though, as cops are already immune to the law in america. They don’t need to convict other people for that. I don’t think at all that the purpose of that law is to protect cops.
Your argument only holds up if the cop isn’t also tried for that murder.
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of officers accused of excessive force
The two cases concerned police officers accused of using excessive force when responding to domestic disturbances. In one, officers used beanbag rounds and a knee on the suspect’s back to subdue him; in the second, officers shot and killed the suspect after he approached them while raising a hammer.
Both decisions the court issued Monday were unsigned. No justices dissented.
Cop murdered no one. Shooting someone who’s charging at you with a drawn weapon isn’t murder.
if it isn’t murder, then why is the kid charged with it?? that makes the entire thing even MORE ridiculous!
“Felony murder” is a different animal. It’s kind of like how even though “rape” is generally defined by a lack of consent, there is also “statutory rape”, which one can be charged with, even if the sex was consensual.
To summarize how “felony murder” works:
The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer. The felony murder rule applies only to those crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous,” as the rationale underlying the felony murder rule is that certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether. Thus, when a person participates in an inherently dangerous crime, he or she may be held responsible for the fatal consequences of that crime, even if someone else caused the actual death.
In this case, the “inherently dangerous” felony was armed robbery.
that’s a ridiculous concept from start to finish:
“you stood near a cop when he killed someone, so now you’re a murderer even though you objectively didn’t kill anyone and we know who the actual killer is”
this is completely insane.
it’s not “a different animal”, it’s insanity.
just insanity.
“you stood near a cop”
What disingenuous bullshit, lol. A bystander would never get charged with this, only other people actively committing the same felony with the criminal that died (and it doesn’t matter if they were killed by a cop or died any other way, including accident, if it happened while committing a dangerous felony, all of the criminals committing it are responsible), fuck your goalpost move attempt.
Why the fuck are we going to have different courts for children if we’re going to try 15 year olds as adults?
To feed the racist slavery machine we call the US prison system.
Trying kids as adults in juvenile court is the perfect mixture of draconian sentences and judges that are more likely to take bribes to err on the side of incarceration.
It’s basically the kind of all you can enslave buffet that the prison industrial complex and the politicians they own used to only know in their fucked up dreams.
Just another for-profit orphan crushing machine in the proto-fascist plutocracy that is the USA.
Those are for white children.
I’m not forgiving murderers, teens aren’t children.
teens aren’t children
The Race Factor in Trying Juveniles as Adults
In our own work, we find that race can have a sweeping effect even when people consider the same crime. Prompting people to think of a single black (rather than white) juvenile offender leads them to express greater support for sentencing all juveniles to life without parole when they have committed serious violent crimes. Thinking about a black juvenile offender also makes people imagine that juveniles are closer to adults in their blameworthiness. Remarkably, this was true for both people who were low in prejudice and those who were high in prejudice and for both liberals and conservatives.
So that’s a separate issue, teens of all colors should be tried the same way, a teen committing a murder, no matter their skin color, should be tried as an adult.
teens of all colors should be tried the same way
But they aren’t, for the same reason people with different levels of intellectual and emotional competency aren’t tried in the same way.
a teen committing a murder, no matter their skin color, should be tried as an adult
An individual who fails to demonstrate the core competencies of an adult should not be tried as an adult, because this individual is not functioning as an adult.
But the question we ask after that is… how does race influence the perception of competency? And the answer is that darker skinned people are presumed to be more mature and more intellectually competent than their lighter-skinned peers, without respect to their behaviors or history.
Ok but again that’s two separate issues (people of different color being treated differently during trial vs certain crimes where the perpetrator should be tried as an adult if they’re close enough to being one) and your point about demonstrating adult competencies opens the door to adults being tried as children because they can’t demonstrate adult competencies.
People of all colors should be treated the same by the justice system, I totally agree, that means that if a black 16 y.o. was to be treated as an adult in a murder case then so should a white or asian or first nation, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be trialled as adults.
people of different color being treated differently during trial vs certain crimes where the perpetrator should be tried as an adult if they’re close enough to being one
The issue that unites them is the perception among prosecutors and judges of black people as exceptionally competent and mature.
People of all colors should be treated the same
The question that courts use to determine adulthood is not skin color but psychological maturity. The bias to that answer is caused by maturity being tied back to a perception of skin color.
Simply announcing “All people of the same age should be treated the same” precludes us of the ability to test for psychological maturity. Ignoring senility, mental illness, heavy metal poisoning, and a host of other physiological and sociological factors when determining culpability does little more than to transform a suspect into a scapegoat.
But then the whole engine of prosecution appears to be a means of displaying a muscular state apparatus rather than actually reducing incidences of harm. The purpose of legally “trying someone as an adult” is simply to remove tools from the defense and grant more power to the prosecution. It is designed to give the DA more leverage in extorting a plea bargain from the defendant.
This is basic felony murder shit. Any attorney worth their salt should have been telling him to take the plea deal, because felony murder is a Big Fucking Deal. To be more exact, 46 of 50 states have some version of a felony murder statute, and in 24 of them–just under half–felony murder is a capital crime, and can potentially receive the death penalty.
A good attorney would be communicating this clearly to their client, and make sure that the client understood that going to trial would likely mean decades in prison, and possibly a death penalty; the odds of beating the charge, if you participated in the underlying crime, are very, very poor.
Here’s the basic deal: when a deal occurs during the course of committing certain felonies, any major participant in the commission of that crime are guilty of causing that death. If you’re the getaway driver in a bank robbery, and all of the robbers get killed by security guards, you get charged with murder for their deaths, even though it was legal for the security guards to use lethal force against them. Smith was one of the participants in the burglary, and it was during the commission of the burglary that Washington attacked a police officer and was killed. Because Smith was an active participant in that burglary, he’s guilty of that death, even though Washington was justifiably killed by a cop.
And, BTW, this isn’t bootlicking bullshit. It didn’t need to be a cop that killed Washington for a felony murder charge to apply to Smith. If Washington had attacked the homeowner, and the homeowner had killled Washington, it would have been the same felony murder charge for Smith.
Garbage in garbage out.
If you accept US disgusting legal system as fair or ‘normal’ you can justify this outcome. Its obviously not.
Charging a person with felony murder when no murder was commited is not justice no more than Saudi Arabia executing people for being gay.
I 'll also give you some personal advice, no non-bootlicker preemptively disclaims being a bootlicker.
I 'll also give you some personal advice, no non-bootlicker preemptively disclaims being a bootlicker.
People here seem to think that anything that could even remotely be taking as being favorable towards cops is bootlicking. It’s not bootlicking bullshit because the person that kills the burglar is not relevant to the charges. Moreover, it’s not relevant whom Washington attacked; if it had been the homeowner that had been attacked by, and shot and killed Washington, the charges would have been identical.
I’m not in favor of the way most cops conduct themselves, but I’m even less in favor of being attacked by someone that takes umbrage with not being allowed to burglarize my residence.
I am not complaining about the cops’ behavior here. While the cops are the boot a bootlicker shows their submission to the wearer of the boots; the US “justice” system in this case, not just the police.
People here seem to think that anything that could even remotely be taking as being favorable towards cops is bootlicking. It’s not bootlicking bullshit because the person that kills the burglar is not relevant to the charges. Moreover, it’s not relevant whom Washington attacked; if it had been the homeowner that had been attacked by, and shot and killed Washington, the charges would have been identical.
I am not arguing that US law is not being applied correctly, I am arguing it is immoral as unjust. You accepting US law on this issue as just is precisely why you are a bootlicker.
I’m not in favor of the way most cops conduct themselves, but I’m even less in favor of being attacked by someone that takes umbrage with not being allowed to burglarize my residence
I don’t give a shit about your residence in that shithole of a country.
Life is much better when you learn how to live without bitterness and hate. There are only so many breaths we take, why waste them on stuff like this.
It’s OK I can handle life fine. Do you actually have an argument to justify your support felony murder?
Dunno you sound pretty tightly wound up to me. You don’t even live there, why are you so angry?
It’s incomprehensible to you that someone could be revolted by injustice that does not affect them?
I do think it’s you that’s wound uo, probably cause I mocked the US. Cry me a river.
Exactly. I’m not even particularly opposed if you take part in a violent felony that resulted in death so long as it’s a victims death. Participants dying by accident or by external deadly force especially police use of force getting charged is fucking dumb.
Why? Just because it feels wrong?
Their decision to break and enter directly lead to a persons death. Why do make a distinction between who’s life it is?
If your actions lead to a persons death, you should be charged for it.
The flip side of this is what? As long as you have others do the murdering you can’t be charged?
Walk me through why its wrong?
What? its not just “a person’s death.” There is a huge difference between your decision to commit a crime leading to an unwilling participants death and your decision to commit a crime leading to the death of your co-participant.
-
Let’s say you and I go rob a bank right now. A security guard starts giving us problems and I shoot him in the face. I should be charged with murder, makes sense.
-
Let’s say we are robbing that same bank. Same security guard is giving problems and I shoot him in the face. You can be charged with murder, I see the argument.
-
Let’s say we are robbing that same bank. Everything is fine and no one gets hurt, but as we are walking out a cop shoots me in the face. On what planet does it make sense to charge you with murder when I am the one who accepted the risk of getting shot in the face by deciding on my own to commit the crime? If you robbed the bank alone, you would have committed the exact same crime and only been charged with robbery, not murder, because I wouldn’t have been there and wouldn’t have been shot in the face.
In the case of number three, you would have to be a violent threat to be shot in the face legally. If the cop knows you have no weapons and are not harming anyone, say a silent robbery, then shooting you in the face is excessive force and the cop should be charged for murder (I understand the politics prevent this, but if cops had to adhere to the law too they would be charged).
Besides the fact that this is not the case to hold up as an example of bad felony murder. The guy was part of multiple violent events, and its reasonable to expect that he knew if he carried on with his friends someone would surely be hurt.
People need to be held accountable for making bad decisions that lead to harm or death, no natter who it is. This person got a slightly heavy punishment, at most.
-
Because it is wrong.
Because police need to be held to a higher standard and everyone is responsible for themselves not anytime else. We have negligent homicide laws for almost every reason that would be covered under my statement.
Sure. You know there are people in prison who were not even physically there for about crime that wasn’t intended by them to be a violent crime? It’s exceedingly broad.
No we have independent laws for that as well.
Morality, is not difficult. If a kid breaks my window playing baseball I don’t go and demand payment from everyone playing, I just talk to the parents of the kid who actually broke the window.
If the people you are committing felonies with shoot at police, you are responsible for what happens next. This is the worst case to use as a bad example of felony murder. Its textbook.
Bringing up other examples that are not similar to this case helps how?
You’ll notice the person convicted did not shoot at the police nor was that the plan. It may be textbook but the textbook is fucked, eugenics is technically textbook are we saying it’s right because at one time it was accepted?
That’s what you just did bud, why complain.
If we plan to steal gum get caught and run and your buddy, not you pulls a gun you did not know about and shoots at the officer and your buddy is shot dead. Are you then your buddies murderer?
Its textbook as in the logic is solid and settled. Has been for ages. You can’t have it both ways, you have to pick a side and this side leads to those who choose to be part of violence being held accountable. Are you opposed to RICO cases as well?
The sentencing should be far less but whether they are guilty or not has no bearing on that.
Edit to answer your question: no but you’d have to convince a jury you had no idea violence would happen. Most would agree stealing a pack of gum is unlikely to lead to violence. It could but it would need more context, and likely additional escalating crimes.
In the case of this post though, thats not what happened. They had been on a string of violence prior and in this case on of the thieves charged an officer with a gun pointed at them. They had murdered someone else the night before. Context matters.
Robbing a bank and killing a person are two very different crimes. Intentionally killing someone is murder. Unintentionally causing a death is a different moral failing altogether, and should be treated differently.
They as a group put a persons life in danger. That person protected themselves. What exactly is wrong with holding the group responsible for their actions? Should the cop be held accountable for defending themselves?
If it was the homeowner instead does that change it for you? Follow actions to consequences.
If the officer did not commit murder how then could could anyone be charged with felony murder for a murder that did not happen. Justified homicide is specifically not murder.
If their actions could forseeably lead to violence and death, and that actually happens, yes they are responsible.
I’m from the UK here. That would be manslaughter. Not murder. The whole concept of felony murder is insane and illogical. They went in to rob a place, and theft here would probably be like 5 years actual time behind bars. Here, the case would sit against the cop, and it would be weighed up to be self-defence, so no real charge. This dude, unless he had intention to kill, but simply was involved in the process of theft, then he really shouldn’t be held responsible for other people’s actions because he made a decision to go there. He’s just a dumb kid who made a silly mistake. Basically taking their life away for a fuck up.
The part of the brain that processes risk isn’t fully developed until like 24ish, so holding them accountable for something they cannot accurately make a decision on is weird punitive nonsense. Has it led to an actual decrease so is effective as a deterrent? Nah.
We don’t know his intentions for sure because he didnt have the capability to kill, only the one thief had a gun. We do know that they had been going around as a group robbing and killing prior to the event, so its fair to say that they knew going into that last robbery there was a good chance someone would get hurt or die. Thats why he’s guilty. I think the sentencing is wrong for a minor by like, maybe 25 years or so though.
Murder is a strict intent crime dumb dumb.
They intended to commit armed home invasion. The results of that are theirs to bear. Dumb dumb.
K
deleted by creator
Fuck off twat
deleted by creator
I mean, that’s still mighty fucked up. So you’re accomplice couldn’t run as fast as you and you get charged with their death someone else caused? How are people ok with that?
And yes I totally understand that it was a justified shooting but charging someone with murder when they didn’t murder someone one is insane as fuck.
The story says they got into a shootout, one of the thieves ducked under cover until it was over.
I think it would be different if it were an excessive use of force case.
It’s pretty simple to understand: you were a participant in the underlying felony that lead to someone’s death. Had that underlying event not happened, no death would have happened. Because you participated in the event, you share the legal responsibility.
It’s the same general principle as RICO (racketeer influenced and corrupt organization) laws; when you participate in a criminal undertaking, you’re responsible for the results of that activity. If you don’t want to be responsible for the results, then you shouldn’t participate in the crime.
…And if you do participate in the crime, take the goddamn plea deal instead of expecting that the jury is going to nullify the results, because jury nullification is both very rare, and leads to a lot of undesirable results.
Don’t even have to be present. If you say and planned an armed robbery with a gang, then fell asleep and they went out and enacted the plan, and someone died (either a gang member, or a third party) as a result. You’re liable if they can prove that involvement.
If I’m responsible for, or significantly involved in planning the robbery, but I’m not part of the execution of the robbery, then of course I should be charged. That’s not significantly different from hiring a hitman to commit a murder for me.
That’s what criminal conspiracy charges are all about.
It is simple to understand that that is the rule. Its also very simple to understand how absolutely fucked up that is.
Next time they shoot another innocent person and murder them at the wrong address is the person who’s address they were supposed to be at going to be held responsible?
To add to this, say an addict buys drugs from a dude but that dude is a cartel member and murders a family after a few months. Addict didn’t give him the gun, maybe addict didn’t even know he was cartel but because of ol’ Rico since you interacted with a criminal organization your hands have blood on them too?
Next time they shoot another innocent person and murder them at the wrong address is the person who’s address they were supposed to be at going to be held responsible
If you want to take that to an illogical extreme, and say that any connection, regardless of how tenuous, should be charged, then sure. Except that’s not the way that the laws are written.
since you interacted with a criminal organization your hands have blood on them too?
This is a common argument in the general public and politically. If you buy cocaine, you’re directly supporting the cartel activities in Colombia. You can’t buy ethically-sourced cocaine. If you buy heroin, you were supporting insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan (or, were; now that the Taliban has political control of Afghanistan, they’ve sharply cut poppy cultivation, much to the detriment of the farmers).
Any attorney worth their salt should have been telling him to take the plea deal
Apparently, he was the only one of the four charged who didn’t take a plea deal.
At the same time, seems his plea deal was for 25 years, only 5 less than the 30 he got.
Also, unless I’m mistaken, that sentencing was a year and a half ago, wonder why it’s coming up now out of nowhere…
This that kinda shit that makes me come back to Lemmy.
I’d go to court if the difference was just 5 years. Although I’m sure he could have received more.
This is a bad law for obvious reasons. Not least of which is that literally anyone can be charged with a crime for simply being with a criminal if it works the way you explained it.
It would make more sense if it had guardrails that required the police show the crimes were planned and coordinated together.
It’s a state law, so it varies by state. Most states have a list of qualifying felonies. And you have to be an active participant in the underlying felony, rather than simply present. In this case, Smith actively planned and participated in the felony (a burglary).
You have to participate in the same crime knowingly. Its not just that you have to be near them.
For example if I drop you off at a bank and leave, and then you rob it, I very likely would not be charged if I didnt know what would happen.
And yet none of Ashlii Babbit’s co-conspirators were charged for her murder. Even the ones that brought a gun.
Gotta be committing felonies. Overthrowing the government isn’t a felony until the house, Senate, and president impeach them or something lol.
Context copypaste from tumblr:
[iguanodonwildman]:
“So I checked up on this case, and it turned out his sentence was reduced…
to 55 years
55 years for a unsuccessful burglary, theft, and the murder of a friend that was killed by police, when his only crime was breaking and entering when he was 15 years old.
This is the most up to date article I can find on it: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years-idUSKBN243246. “
I just finished my comment above with links to contemporaneous reporting, figured you might be interested.
It’s so transparent how much of a hard-on you’re getting with your justice rage. “I’m just presenting the facts”, yes, just like the unjust legal system we are all living under, you have confidently defined the “reasoning” behind the conviction. The debate and conversation around it, is for the citizens to discuss the absurd practices of the justice system, which you are just being a speakerbox for with no personal context. That’s already been done by the justice system so why regurgitate and post multiple links to your enlightenment.
After the first comment I just scrolled by after reading, then you’ve plastered your masterlink of pleasure confirming the pleasure and how much you want others to view it. What’s your personal opinion on a 15 year old being charged in this manner? Does this 15 year old have the full faculty of an adult? Do you believe a 15 year old is an adult or just for this case? How do you feel about the murder charge? Yeah, you can hide behind the law, but I would rather hear what your actual opinion is especially after seeing a post you’ve done like “The less racist a country is, the harder it is to detect enemy spies. #showerthoughts”
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
that just about says everything I needed to know about you.
k
Felony Murder is a bitch, just like whoever wrote that headline.
Have you considered that maybe felony murder is fascist bullshit and the headline writer is completely correct to call it out?
They chose to commit a crime together, then they got into a shootout with police.
The responsibility lies with the people who chose to commit the crime in the first place.
Breaking and entering is stupid dangerous, they knew that. Thats why they had a gun.
OK, this, much like the specific law involved in this situation, is ridiculously reductive.
Did they break and enter? Yes. Did the friend, who was shot and killed, engage police with a weapon? Yes. Did the guy charged with murder force his friend into the situation that led to his death? NO! The kid who was killed decided to engage the cops with a weapon, while the kid who was charged ran into the woods.
The law just seems like a poorly veiled means of piling additional charges on to criminals, no matter how petty the crime. I’d bet there are probably some more wild situations where the justice system managed to butterfly effect their way to linking some petty crime with something not at all associated with the crime itself.
I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you’ve helped create a scenario where someone ended up murdered. I think it’s ridiculous that one of your accomplices can be that person though.
The real issue with this case is that he is 15 (16?). Obviously he should have been treated as a juvenile (especially since it sounds like they were all kids).
I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you’ve helped create a scenario where someone ended up
Imagine we used that on white collar crimes.
A lawyer helped register a company that later went on to commit fraud. Charge her because she helped create a scenario where someone committed fraud. Charge the IT manager because he hooked up the computers that were later used in the fraud.
It seems pretty basic, but you should charge people for things they actually did. If multiple people planned a crime but only one person was caught executing the crime, you can charge them all with conspiracy. That makes sense. On the other hand, this seems to involve charging someone with a crime that wasn’t part of the plan. If it was a potential foreseeable consequence of the plan, there are crimes for that: reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.
I just can’t imagine a real scenario where someone did something wrong, but there are no laws on the books that match the wrong thing they did. So, instead, you have to charge them with the crime someone else did instead.
I think RICO is a white collar equivalent to the concept of felony murder, although maybe not a 1-to-1.
You get a harsher penalty by basically being involved/contributing in a large operation.
They’re not really equivalent. With RICO if you’ve committed multiple times of crimes from a certain list, and those crimes are related to an “enterprise” you can be charged with racketeering.
You’re not being charged with crimes someone else did. You’re being charged with masterminding a bunch of crimes. RICO charges are used against people at the head of an organization. Felony Murder is used against people who have the bad luck to be part of a group when someone else in the group pulls the trigger.
RICO goes after the organization in organized crime. It fills in a gap in the laws that maybe wasn’t there already, because none of the other laws went after the planning and organizing of the crimes. Felony murder seems to just exist to pile additional charges on someone who had already committed crimes that were already on the books, and make that person additionally responsible for the actions of a different person.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Felony murder would perhaps work if you were directly involved. For example, if the guy had been active in a shootout with the cops with his friend, or e en if he was then only one shooting at the cops and his friend was shot and killed, then yeah sure I get it. But here, the only common thread in the incident is the robbery, the surviving kid ran into the woods to escape while his friend actively engaged the cops. They weren’t acting together at that point. Otherwise, yeah I agree that there also should have been safe guards in place since he was a minor at the time as well.
If there’s a 2-man team of a spotter and a sniper, the sniper is pulling the trigger and the spotter is calling the shots, then sure, charge the spotter with murder too.
In virtually every other case, there are already crimes for what the other person did. Use those existing crimes.
This also makes me think of SWATting. Yeah, it’s awful to do that. But, 99% of the blame for a successful SWATting should fall on the cops. Someone makes a claim over the phone, and as a result you kick down a door and charge in, guns blazing? SWATting wouldn’t work if cops could go to prison for kicking in the door at a house where nothing was going on. If that were a risk, they’d stop and verify the facts before making a decision that could ruin their lives. The only reason it works is that cops are given immunity for just about everything, so there’s no real downside to shoot first and verify assumptions later.
Charging the kid for his buddy getting killed by the cops is some kind of black mirror garbage that can only happen in a world where cops can face no responsibilities for their actions. If we lived in a world where cops could face responsibility for their actions, the cop could get charged with murder. Now, he’d easily beat that murder charge because he was acting in self-defense, as the guy he shot was shooting at him. How twisted is it that the person who actually fired the killing shot could claim self-defense, but the person who was running away at the time can’t make that claim because he wasn’t the one who actually fired the shot?
deleted by creator
You live in a fantasy land where distance apparently prevents consequences.
You know what, answer one question. What else besides run into the woods could that kid do, considering he had no weapon? Armed home invasion already is a 20 year felony, you don’t think if he had a gun too he wouldnt have engaged the police?
You are framing this incorrectly. They didnt make different decisions. They were committing crimes as a group. As a group, they had at least one gun. They were using this is backup in case they ran into a homeowner or police. The person with the gun did exactly what was expected of him by the rest of the group, while those without guns rightfully ran from gun fire and his from danger. If they had guns however its likely they would have been expected to assist.
When people act as a group and every step of the way they keep moving forward instead of stopping, you have to at some point hold the whole group responsible. If this person had decided to sit this robbery out, then they would only have to deal with the other murder they committed the night before with the same group.
Theres more to the story and the headline is about as misleading as can be, considering he didnt even end up with that much time.
If only this “committing crime as a group” could be applied to corporations, so we’d end up with the whole board in jail whenever there is wage theft, price collusion, environmental negligence, money laundering, etc, etc.
If the board is involved in making illegal decisions or below standard decisions, they can be held accountable.
It doesnt work out well in america because rich people defend themselves far better than average folk.
So you are saying none of them knew he had a gun or would use it, despite being part of violent crimes literally the day prior where someone was shot and killed.
The group had a gun, not one person. They were a group robbing and hurting people, and part of the reason why they all felt so bold is because “we have a gun”.
If you act as a group you will be punished as a group, its simple. It doesnt matter the division of labor, you can’t protect yourself legally that way.
That is an insane leap in logic. You can have a trial with multiple co-defendants that results in different punishments, or separate trials for each defendant with different outcomes.
He should be punished for the crime he committed. His friend had a mind of his own, and agency over his own actions. No one forced him to engage the police.
As I said before, the way this law is written is just an excuse to find ways to pile on more charges.
If the plan was “go into this house and kill the occupants” and the group executed that plan even though only one person pulled the trigger, that would be one thing.
The plan was never “go into this house, wait for the cops to show up, get into a shootout with the cops, and get shot by the cops”. Or, if it was, the kid who was charged sure didn’t follow that plan because he ran away instead or getting into a shootout. There are a variety of possible crimes for someone who was part of a group: conspiracy to X, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.
At a bare minimum, if someone in a group is charged with X, it should be necessary to prove that the group’s plan was to do X. In addition, it should be necessary to prove that the group did X. That seems like it should be the absolute minimum. In this case, what’s absurd is that the group didn’t even do X.
In this case, the “murder” was the “murder” of one of the criminals, and the person who did the “murder” was the cop. It’s absolutely ridiculous that if the cop were charged with that murder (and somehow wasn’t just automatically immune) the cop could invoke their right to self-defense, and would almost certainly be acquitted. But, the person who was running away from the crime scene at the moment the murder happened can’t use the self-defense justification because he wasn’t the person who fired the shot.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I figured that. Thanks for the confirmation though.
i don’t care how the law does it. if you break into people’s homes with weapons, i want you removed from society. i’ll advocate for a more humane society in which people don’t have to do that, but my first priority is making sure that armed home invaders aren’t allowed to exist in the same society as me.
What are you arguing? I 100% agree he deserves to be punished… for the actual crime he committed, which was robbery.
law will always be imperfect. i’m not advocating for anything other than removing violent criminals from society. i don’t care how it gets done, really.
I don’t care how it gets done, really.
We know, that is why you are being called out?
You’re looking for revenge, not justice.
deleted by creator
Well jeez, if only there was a crime you could charge them with for that instead.
They were charged with both, although I don’t think thats worth what you think it is.
Breaking and entering is one of the harshest charges, especially if its occupied at the time. The penalties are in the decades as well.
Someone was going to get hurt from their actions whether it was the homeowner, police, or the thieves but it doesnt matter which gets hurt because every life is worth the same, criminal or not.
Are people here arguing criminals should be free to commit crimes on each other because its victimless?
Noone even knows what conditions led these kids to do these crimes. I can guarantee you it wasnt just for fun.
Fucking bootlickers, man.
Did he though, or his friends? The whole concept of manslaughter, and murder in the first and second degree is based on intent. Robbing a place is not as bad as murder, I’m sorry. That’s ridiculous.
Guns can be used a deterrent. I mean, the US have nukes. Mutually assured destruction. There isn’t the intent to use it, just to have it to protect yourself. It’s weird they hold kids to a higher standard than their own foreign policy.
Breaking and entering is stupid. It isn’t a plan to murder someone though.
Armed Home Invasion has very strict penalties for good reason. How could you not think they would expect if they behaved that way it was likely they would kill someone. They literally did it the night before.
Are we really going to pretend the defendant was unaware of the crimes going on and that the group had a gun? He was just a scared kid right?
deleted by creator
Yes, if a crime you are committing results in a police death of a person then you are liable
In the US at least, not Canada
Love that people doing crimes are held to higher standards than cops
Well of course he should be charged for burglary and theft. He did commit those crimes, but I don’t think he should be charged with murder. He didn’t shoot the gun, the cop did. I’m not necessarily saying the cop should be charged with murder though.
Maybe the pig tamers need to step up their fucking game?
Yes, you’re reading it right: “whom was shot”.
Whomsoever wrote that should be shot.
deleted by creator
You really have to wonder who benefits from sharing such bullshit lies like this post.
So you have a link to factual information pertaining to the actual event, right?
The top comment on this post has links for multiple false statements made in the post. LINK
And the post’s source is Tumblr.
Headlines are always abysmal at impartially presenting facts.
This happened in 2015. The now ~25 year old kid’s sentence has been reduced to “just” 30 years. https://aldailynews.com/advocates-back-effort-to-amend-alabamas-proximate-cause-murder-law-prosecutors-push-back/
The kids were robbing houses, a neighbor called the cops, the kids bolted when the cops showed up. The cops shot them in the back despite there being no threat to anyone’s life… except those the cops shot at.
How the murder charge isn’t just a case against the cop shooting unarmed teenagers who were committing a crime without any risk to life and limb is astounding.
Kid and his buddies were definitely on the hook for the burglary, sure… but that’s certainly not decades of prison. It’s been ten years now, the kid should have been out of prison at least 9 years ago. Burglary just shouldn’t be a long term sentence for 15 year old children.
In one article posted on this case, one of the teens charged an officer with a drawn gun per body cam footage. If that’s correct, then that teens life was forfeit the moment he pulled the weapon. It’s stupid to commit a burglary, it’s really stupid to do it with a gun, and it’s suicide if you pull it against a cop.
Ah, here we go. The omitted devil from the details. Of course that will be left out when they talk about getting the kids off the hook.
It is quite fucked up to be guilty by proxy for murder but that’s the law there. I think it should be changed but I have exactly this much influence in alabama’s house and senate:
I think we all agree on that. But the other 4 having the book thrown at them just for robbery is a bit… Fucked.
Of course, the prosecution must have used the classic legal argument “why are you hitting yourself?”
According to this: https://www.wkrg.com/alabama-news/lakeith-smith-resentencing-alabama/
The time was for two charges, theft/burglary and felony murder. The resentencing set the prison term to 30 years, effectively setting the sentence for felony murder alone at 5 years.
So you’re telling me they give the police incentive to shoot people, as a game, to send people to jail for even longer, because they think it’s fun and hilarious?
No, no one is telling you that.
