Multiple Life Sentences for Minor in Police Shooting He did not Participate in.
Multiple Life Sentences for Minor in Police Shooting He did not Participate in.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
You're seeing someone being human to you and perceive it as anger or sadness.
I'm neither, just being polite to a stranger that is obviously hurting for some reason.
Humanity is getting slowly better all the time. It's too slow sometimes, but things are moving in the right direction.
But trolls are not human!
But reverse trolls are.
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.
Bro, you're not going to get anywhere with "it's the law!". We know that, clearly, we're saying it's fucking stupid. Yes rico, though I think most people would agree.
We have a law that's lesser and used in states without felony murder called negligent homicide, that's literally what the article is about.... It's what we're talking about and have been the entire time ...
Yeah that isn't a thing, the jury doesn't care when it comes to felony murder because that isn't an aspect of it, that's the point.
No they had been on a string of robberies, I haven't seen reference to a violent robbery aside from the one the officers interrupted which only turned violent once the police arrived. So yes context matters, agreed.
Okay well stealing gun isnt a felony, so no felony murder. Almost like theres limitations to the law. The issue I take with this post is the example used is deceptive. If this was meant to be an honest debate then they wouldnt leave out so many details. I even disagree with applying felony murder in some cases, but this isnt one of them.
When I said it was settled logic I meant the basis of it hasnt changed for a while. I don't really see how people don't understand that people can act as a group.
The person this post is about surely deserves some time in prison for what happened. Even if it was just the home invasion charge he could have gotten 20 years. This person will be in prison for a long time for multiple crimes besides this one.
Yes it is, what are you talking about, depending on the firearm it's a federal crime. They didn't leave it details, you haven't read them. This one case you didn't bother to read about is the one that didn't sit well with ya, good to know.
I don't care, you bullshit excuse is the same shit that enabled shit like Jim Crow and the thirteenth amendment not actually banning slavery.
They deserve a punishment for the crime they knowingly participated in, yes. It wasn't home invasion, neither home was occupied. In fact iirc the house the shooting happened in was abandoned at the time. Sure, so let's pile on a bullshit charge to a 15 yr old, totally sane and logical huh?
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.
He could not foresee that his accomplice was either armed or an attempted murderer. There's no claim he resisted as far as I can tell just that he and two others took part in what they thought was solely going to be going into buildings not shooting at cops.
I don't think anyone is responsible for summer else's actions, you can do you time for your actions serving time for someone else's is fucking weird.
Yes he could and he likely did. Them having a gun is partly why they are able to go around robbing people. The whole group likely knew it, it had been used prior as well, and the expectation in a group like that is that if things go wrong the person with the gun will handle it.
Everyone else did the only thing they possibly could do when a gun fight broke out and they had no guns, run and hide. They should not get credit for doing the only possible thing at the time. Its likely if he had the gun it would have been expected he use it to defend the group as well.
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.
What evidence is there if that side from yo feelins.
K
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.