It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boy arrested for murder after police shoot and kill his friend.

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by MJZoo
reply to post by Abney

Haha, that's funny because I JUST re-read the title and thought the same. And I've been following it since the beginning. He wasn't arrested for murder. He was arrested for the armed robbery and consequently charged with murder because he was involved in committing a crime which resulted in a death.

Your are right, I was tired when I wrote it. The thread title is a bit misleading. However that does not demean from what has happened here..


posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Formerly known as "The Hand of One is the Hand of All" this has been a part of the criminal code ever since there has been a criminal code.

This law is not new.

Everyone knows that if you drive the vehicle for the bank robbers, you will be charged with bank robbery as well.

The "kid" made the choice to Rob that innocent citizen and during the robbery someone died. He gets charged with Murder.


So say a drunk kills someone behind the wheel, by this logic charge the bar that sold him the drinks? If it was a friend's party, charge the friend with murder too? Yeah this makes all the sense in the world.

Like as much sense as TSA "molestations" er, I mean "pat downs":.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by Sinny

Hey I like tea! I actually have a friend from Bristol and her and I often debate the differences in our cultures. It usually just leads to arguing over semantics.....sound familiar?

Anyways. I CAN understand peoples point of view on this topic, I really can. And, in all likeliness, it won't be a "murder" charge handed down to him. If anything, it could be some sort of wrongful death charge. Heck I wouldn't even be surprised if the "armed" part of armed robbery gets dropped since he didn't have a gun. But the point it seems like most people here are skipping over is that these kids are criminals. They just skip over the fact that they robbed people, with a gun (doesn't matter who has it) and start saying "oh all these laws are stupid" Yeah, well, even if they are stupid laws, the fact remains that they ARE laws and the kids KNEW they were breaking the law. The situation could have just as easily escalated and the kid could have shot the person they were robbing. In which case BOTH kids would be charged with murder. But, like we said....stay on topic.

If anyone is interested, I actually have been researching and I've found a loophole that could keep any of you from ever falling victim to these stupid laws. The loophole is......

Don't commit crimes. I think I found it filed under "People v Common Sense" Law could differ from state to state though.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by MJZoo

Once when I was a kid I stole a candy bar from a store. By your vague definition of commiting a crime, I too am a criminal. Does this mean that I deserve to be arrested for murder if a police officer in the store shot and killed someone out of self defense who was trying to kill the police officer?

There's a reason why crimes that are committed usually have a specific name and a specific charge that accompanies them. And there is a reason as to why not all criminals are charged and treated the same.

This law is stupid, and it deserves to be called stupid.

Part of what you explained in your post reminds me of the movie Minority Report where people could be arrested and charged with murder before even commiting the act. They were arrested for said crime based on some kind of premonitional foreknowledge of a murder and murder suspect that the arresting officers believed would take place.

This kid was arrested flat out for murder. He was not arrested for attempted murder, nor was he arrested for premeditated murder, or anything like that. The kid was arrested for murder in a situation where a murder didn't even take place. The cop shot and killed a criminal out of self-defense, and the dead criminal's living accomplice was arrested for murder. That is absolutely ridiculous.
edit on 29-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:10 AM
How sad is it that our society has come to this?

It's a terrible situation when their cultural standards are such that these boys thought it was a good idea to take someone else's belongings at gunpoint.

It's a terrible situation that the police officers in question had to resort to homicide to protect themselves instead of reasoning with these young boys.

It's a terrible situation that the law has to be made that incriminates all parties for the worst of the connected offenses.

It is a terrible situation that this kid watched his friend die and is now on trial for his murder.

It's a terrible situation when ATS can see the injustice, but the courts cannot.

No winners here, only the loss of the American Way.

'Without Liberty and Justice for All.'

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:21 AM

Originally posted by lifeform11
actually, i can answer this with an example from when i was a kid as to why it is wrong. me and my mates were walking down a street, no crime was being commited, i had NO intention of commiting a crime and as far as i was aware there were no intentions of anybody i was with either. one of my mates for no reason i could fathom, picks up a brick and lobs at a window, i have never known them to do anything like that before and as it became apparent i was pleading "don't do it" "what are you doing?"

but right there, that action HE commited i could be arrested and cautioned, just for being there (uk law at the time, i am unsure if it has changed since). how is that fair?

Yep. Guilt by association. Pick better friends.

Did you then leave your friend - - go to the authorities and report it? If not you are an accessory to a crime.

edit on 29-5-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by Annee

yes i was guilty for doing nothing other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, hence get a caution.
it could happen to anyone, even you.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by Annee

would i not be guilty of leaving the scene of a crime if i did go to the police station and they got to me before i got them? half way there? would they believe i was on my way to report the crime?

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

You are the type of person I'm talking about. Stick to the topic. This has nothing to do with some kid stealing candy. You're response is one of the stupidest yet in this thread. How is it a "vague" description of a criminal when they committed armed freaking robbery? They do have a specific name for what they charged him with.......armed robbery and murder. It doesn't matter whether you think a law is stupid or not. It's a law. They knew they were breaking a law. On one hand people want less crime and then in the same breath they don't want to charge criminals with crimes.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Annee

yes i was guilty for doing nothing other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, hence get a caution.
it could happen to anyone, even you.

It has happened to me.

It recently happened to my 17 year old grandson. He was in a car with some friends. Two of them stashed alcohol and drugs under the front seat - - unbeknownst to the 3 in the back seat. He and the other two in the back seat were released because of their honesty - politeness - and good manners. He immediately severed friendships with the two in the front seat.

This law is the law for a reason. I actually remember when this became a law. One of the reasons was to include: get-away drivers - look outs - scouters - masterminds - etc.

Often the person planning the crime would go free - - because they didn't actually commit the crime.

So it is right all involved be charged under the law. It is in trial that it will be determined if he is actually guilty of murder.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by Annee

lucky your grandson he got understanding cops, not all are you know, but some are really nice people.
also lucky for your grandson the driver did not have a gun unbeknown to him and it was'nt pulled on the cops, otherwise he may also be facing a murder charge.

fair enough if they are charged and then it is decided in court but if they are convicted of murder what then? i think it would be unfair, but that is just my opinion.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:48 AM
as i read through this more and more, im baffled at how few of you actually know the laws. YES, its murder, they're crime led to the death of a person, be it an innocent or one of the criminals, it was THEY'RE crime that caused this. It seems the line is being skewed here. Y shouldn't the officer of shot him?!?! I would have. He just committed armed robbery and is now turning on me ?!?! Shoot him. Charge his friend, and maybe, just MAYBE, idiots like this will get a clue. DONT BE STUPID!!

Point being, if you don't like the law, then don't go rob someone with an unstable accomplice, or hell, just don't rob people, and you won't have to deal with the law. I believe in the law. If any person commits a crime that leads either directly or indirectly to the death of another, its murder. Even if it involves a cop shooting your buddy b /c you decided it would be cool to run around with a gun and point it at ppl for money.
edit on 29-5-2011 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Annee

would i not be guilty of leaving the scene of a crime if i did go to the police station and they got to me before i got them? half way there? would they believe i was on my way to report the crime?

That would be determined - I'm sure.

If you were headed home to tell your parents - if you went to the house that was attacked to report it to the owner so they could call the authorities - if you were headed in the direction of the police department.

I would have left regardless. I know I would have left - because something similar happened to me - - and I immediately disassociated myself from that person. However - - I did not report it. I was a teenager and I thought like a teenager. I did not want to get the other person in trouble.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by MJZoo

Haha, yes it does sound very familiar, still cant get my head round your "football & soccer" lol

I must say I totally agree armed robbery is a serious offence and these lads were criminals.
However, as someone above mentioned the whole thing is a sorry situation...There are many aspects that need to be taken into account to make a good moral punishment..and clearly the law over looks these.
But as you say the law IS the law and must be abided..its just a pity nowadays many laws arent even known about untill the deed is done..unless you study law books :/
I also find it a shame we have to come here on ATS to voice our opinions on it as they fall on deaf ears elsewhere.
edit on 29-5-2011 by Sinny because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by MJZoo

Do you lack the skill of comprehension or are you intentionally being obtuse? I wasn't off topic, bud. Far from it actually.

I suggest that you re-read the part in your post where you ambiguously stated that the kids were criminals. I specifically addressed the vagueness and inanity of that statement in my initial response. You say that certain people skipped over the part where these kids were criminals, and you say that certain people skipped over the part where these kids are armed robbers. More accurately to say is that you skipped over the fact that these kids were criminals who specifically committed the crime of armed robbery and not murder.

Now again, I'm not debating that the law is the law, I'm trying to convey to you the specifics about the crime in which these kids committed and explain to you how the crime these kids committed was NOT murder, which was a bit of obviousness that seemed to elude you. You seem to agree that just because a law is in place that said law isn't open to scrutinization. That is dangerous thinking. Just because a law exists doesn't mean that it ought to exist. Do you get what I'm saying?

A murder did not even seemingly take place, so for that trumped up charge to be brought up in the first place is beyond rational, and the fact that there is a law in place that allows for this bogus charge to be brought up is beyond ludicrous.

I was using your own logic against you. But now that you know how vague and asinine that particular part of your post was, can you please explain to me how my post was stupid and off-topic? You say that these kids are criminals. I agree, they are criminals, and should be charged FOR THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED, which you even acknowledge as being ARMED ROBBERY, which is not MURDER. Hopefully that clarifies it for you well enough.

But by the vague and stupid logic that you seem to be defending, I am also a criminal for having once stolen a candy bar. Does it make sense to you that theft somehow becomes another crime other than theft? And I was using that example to illustrate how there are specifics charges for specific crimes that are committed, and that it is stupid and illogical for armed robbery to be turned into murder when a murder did not even take place. Is any of this beginning to sink in for you? This is exactly what my previous response to your post was explaining.

Can you please tell me who was murdered, because a cop killing a criminal in self-defense is not murder. So who was murdered? People want less crime, people want justice, people want criminals to be charged for the crime in which they committed or were going to commit. But I seriously doubt people want to be arrested and brutalized by a police officer for a crime they didn't even commit. And I doubt any sane person wants laws that exist where one crime can inexplicably become another more serious crime. In example, armed robbery becoming murder.
edit on 29-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:33 PM
Charge the guy with what he did.

Armed robbery.

What didn't he do? Shoot someone to death. The cops did that.

What has happened here is that the prison system doesn't want to lose out on a valuable income unit (prisoner). So they apply the actions of the police (murder) to someone else so that they can still have that bed filled and realize the income potential of the complex.

America is a messed up place. Our citizens WANT stuff like this. While the guy is a crook and should be behind bars for robbery--he shouldn't be for murder.

It's so vindictive, we have a witch hunt society--just like we thought "other countries" have.

Nobody should be locked up or charged with a crime they didn't commit.

Our laws shouldn't be worded so that it could happen this way.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:43 PM
This has been, sadly, the Modus operandi for the American Governement for many, many years.

Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 30 years for murdering a Federal Agent, even after the witnesses AGAINST him confessed that he did not kill anyone, nor did he have a weapon.

The prison state continues.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:15 PM
In my state, Florida, we have the same law and I think it should be facilitated throughout the country. It is a great deterrent in many cases and where it is not a deterrent, so what. At least we have one dead criminal and one in prison for murder. I cannot believe these fools who disagree with this law. If your family member was hurt or killed by these hoodlums, you would want both their heads on a platter, even if his partner was just the guy who held the door.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by felonius

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by felonius

Yes he is guilty. He was involved in the commision of a felony involving a weapon. By association, he is everybit as guilty.

Who, again, did the boy shoot?

Im missing that part.

As I understood the story, two boys robbed and murdered some one.

Ahh a stereotypical Texan. No conscience, no concept of right or wrong beyond that of a level of a dog. What is next, we are going to start hanging 12 year old boy's for stealing a loaf of bread like they did in your good old country of the UK?(I am guessing your heritage from Texas goes back a bit making you atleast half to full [Scott/English]Anglo).

Since 16 year old's are so mature why not give them the vote? If they can be held to the same standard as an adult then they should have the same rights as an adult. Heck in the "good" old US of A an 11 year old boy is held to a higher standard then a grown woman. So if women are held to a lower standard but are legally able to vote why shouldn't boy's who are held to a much higher standard be denied the vote?

Doesn't seem right. And if you look at it from a neurological perspective, ask any cop what will instantly lower the male crime rate; a 30th birthday(most males fully mature mentally between mid twenty's to thirty). Sure these kid's, because that is what they are, have done wrong. One paid for it with his life, the other is going to end up doing life.

It doesn't sit well with me that the dead beat parents and the dead beat community that led those children astray will not be punished. And it turns my stomach to see those with the mentality of a hunting dog so eager to pass judgment. It is one thing to defend your property, self and friends. If you have to defend yourself, you gotta do what you gotta do. And if it involves something hard like a maniac child, it just makes it all the sadder. But to act so callous about it is beyond damning.

Ahh. Another Obama newbie.

Welcome to ATS. Thank you so much for the insults as well.

BTW, Texas Volksdeutsch and Scots are my blood line.

Right and wrong on the scale of a dog? Really? You can have your opinion.

hanging a 12 year old for stealing food and a12 year old stealing food and killing someone are different issues.

You forgot about the killing convienently.

16 year old maturity. Ahh. Now your an apologist. At 16, anyone with a brain knows not to steal and kill. If it were as simple as stealing food because they were hungry, why did they have a weapon? Intent.

I'm so sorry it doesnt sit well with you. I'm sure your opinion would be different if one of these punks had put a piece of lead in your gut. When you had recovered, would you still be "oh, the poor lads".

Run a business in a rough neighborhood. Understand what its like when the closest law you have to protect yourself is the .45 tucked in the back of your pants and 5 guys come in to attempt to rob you.

Callous? No friend. Just reality. Age is meaningless in this story. Had they capped the cop, would you be among those going "Yeah! Kill the pig!"?

Nature is RED in tooth and claw. Make sure YOUR the one at the top of the food chain.

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:39 PM
I believe it has started. Some of this hasn't his other states but I believe it soon will. Now if this keeps up, Texas will break off and other states will break off the USA as well for this kind of action.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in