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

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The young man arrested was involved in an on going felony, Aggrevated Robbery.

The common law, and most state law statutes have what is called a Felony Murder Section.

To generalize the law, a person can be charged with Murder, if during the commission of, or in the immediate flight from a inherently dangerous felony ANYONE gets killed by Any other party.

It links the murder to the felony, making it like strict liability.

In a homicide someone is responsible. The way the law looks at it is BUT FOR the felons activities, the homicide would not have occured.

The DETERRENCE factor is that if you are a party to a dangerous felony, as a principle (one doing act), as a issue before the fact (master mind but not actual participant), or issue after the fact (hide them out, give them aid etc.) you are also liable for the homicide of anyone, that is commited by anybody during the ongoing felony.

So if one thinks (I am only the look out, so if something happens I am not guilty of anything) they are wrong. They are just as guilty of the crime as the ones holding the gun.

I agree with your analysis, however by extension, take a specific cause and effect scenario like the economy (or lack thereof). Bernake et al and Wall Street through criminal manipulation of the monetary system directly cause a prove-able effect of an increase in violent crime. Therefore, Bernake et al is culpable of indirect causality, masterminding, aiding and abetting and/or an associate (or maybe he his bunch are simply @ssclowns and puppets) to any increased violent crime. By Bernake et al and Wall Street showing that they can commit heinous financial crime through fraud, malfeasance and criminal misrepresentation, they thereby directly promote an increase in financial crime and would therefore be again culpable of indirect causality, masterminding, aiding and abetting or an associate to any increased financial crime. In either event, they (meaning the decision makers at least) should be charged collectively with however many counts of murder, rape, assault, fraud...etc. are above the "curve."

If it works charging the little guy with murder, it works for the big guys too.

Cheers - Dave

I am no expert or even a novelist in this matter, but the switch from a inherently dangerous felony such as aggravated robbery, to a felony such as embezzlement, is viewed in the common law in different lights.

There is no doubt the wall street crooks are culpable of many crimes and were tortfeasors in many we do not even know of. The common-law as I understand it will only transfer the Mens Rea of the dangerous felony to the Actus Reaus of the homicide if the underlying felony was inherently dangerous. Murder, Rape, Arson, Robbery, Burglary, are considered dangerous felonies, and as such the Mens Rea to commit these crimes can transfer to be combined with the Actus Reaus of the homicide to allow a charge of felony murder.

If the malfeasance of the Wall Street type people is linked to others, then they can be charged as aider and abeters either as additional principles or as issues before or after the fact, to the same felony as was the original crime or tort. If you can somehow link the crimes and they were of the type considered inherently dangerous, then you could find them culpable of felony murder if a homicide was involved. In general, white collar crimes usually are not ascertained to have been of a dangerous nature, though the harm they cause is often just as horrific.

I can agree some of the laws seem harsh. These laws have been around a long time, these charges happen everyday in courts around the land. The thing that shocks people is they are unaware, until a news article arises, of what the laws they really live under are. Perhaps this will make some of them go to the library and pick up statutes of their states and read them so they at least understand the consequences of their actions.
Most will not, that is why we have Lawyers.

I have not only had guns pointed at me, I have had to run from maniacs shooting those guns. The stuff you see on the news is barely the tip of the iceberg of what really happens in any city. People routinely die from being shot and it rarely makes the news. My friends incident did not even make tv, and only like three local independant weekly papers actually did an article. Of course this aint about him anyways.

Yes it does not bother me that the kid is being charged with armed robbery. But the kid did not pull out a gun and shoot his own friend in the back. The police offcier shot him in the back. I am not saying the officer acted illegally. Kudos to the officer foor defending her life. It however makes no sense as stated already to charge the friend with murdering his own friend when the police officer was the one who killed the armed teenager in self defense.

It is just unjust to take a self defense killing by a LEO, and turn it into a murder charge onto the unarmed teenager who had no intention of killing his own friend and in fact did NOT kill him.

They try to find an impartial jury for a white lady who killed her own daughter, and then charge a non-white boy with murder of his friend who was shot and killedby police in self-defense?

Nobody is fooling me around here, or in the justice department. The justice department is only out to protect the rights of white European-descent American citizens. All the spanish and colored are just seen as subhuman to the legal system, and undeniably many people on ATS. Anyone can see it with the types of comments posted.

Dont believe me? Look at all the outcry in the thread of people being brutalized by police for dancing at the Thomas Jefferson memorial. All white people. But a poor kid from a colored neighborhood of Chicago is charged with murdering his friend who was killed legally by the police? Oh that is ok, because he was just a criminal anyway. Yea he is a criminal, and he should be charged for the crime he committed, ARMMED ROBBERY! He was never holding a weapon, he never pointed that weapon at his friend, he never pulled the trigger and send the bullet into his friends back. That was the legal action of the police. He is a poor minority kid so just add him to the statistics right??

Anyone who is defending that the unarmed teenager be charged with murdring his friend are hypocrites, and you better be damn proud that Obama used Auto-pen to extend the Patriot Act. You better be damn proud that the police brutalized those people dancing at the memorial. You better be damn proud that the military tortured inmates at Guantanamo (if you call being forced to pile up on each other naked real torture, more like hazing). You better be damn proud of the police who slam skateboarding teenagers onto the ground on youtube videos.

If you do not agree with any of the above, but think its ok for a unarmed teenager who witnessed his friend being killed by law enforcement charged for murdering him, that makes you a hypocrite. Yall know who you are, and you better just sit there and not protest anymore when the autorities act out of line, because you approve of such actions.

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

Huh? You act like you disagree and I guess I could have been clearer but read it again, maybe a little slower and you'll see we are saying the same thing.

Ah, I missed the phrase "in their minds"... and so I thought those words were actually in your mind. Corrected then!

Star then!



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


I replied to this earlier post and didn't think original quote was nesc to include since it was an esoteric convo. Edited it in to fix it after review of link. Thanks for the heads up.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
I'm still confused, who is it that actually committed a murder?

The boy has in the eyes of the law commited the murder of his friend, although it was the police officer that pulled the trigger..
k)

reply to post by ShadowAngel85

At least it was a stupid criminal kid, so nothing important is lost. Holding someone at guy at aged 15 is despicable. So kudos to the cop for getting rid of this human scum

Thats a bit harsh.
It is easy to judge someone without walking in their shoes...

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
Killing someone in self-defense is the lawful killing of someone who was trying to kill you.

Maybe it was self defense, and maybe it wasn't.
As of right now, this is alleged, and has not been proven.

Maybe he tried to kill the officer, and maybe he didn't.
That is only an assumption. I have not read that he tried to kill her. I have not read any mention of ammunition. As far as I know, it is possible that the gun wasn't even loaded

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
the article stated that one of the armed robbers was removing a firearm. If I were the officer, I could only interpret that gesture in so many ways... but keep in mind these punks robbed someone at gunpoint, so I doubt their intentions were good.

Not exactly. The article stated-

Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction,

Holding the gun.
Allegedly turned in the officer's direction.
He was shot in the back.
Bullet in the Back + Self Defense = Conflicting Details

Everything I assumed came directly from what I read in the article.

The only thing that should be assumed is 'Innocent, until proven guilty.'

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
I'm opened to hearing a direct answer that somehow makes sense of a law that makes it okay for a police officer to kill a criminal and then pin the homicide on someone else as if it were murder, which would imply that the police officer committed murder and would technically be getting off scotch free.

I never said it makes sense. I never said I agree with this. I think it's a bunch of BS.
We agree on this, and it is silly to continue this conversation.

I was merely trying to point out that the reasoning, which you have used to reach this conclusion, is slightly flawed. Many within this thread are assuming that the allegations are undeniable proof.

Nothing has been proven other than what has been admitted.

Brandon Ross was involved in the robbery.

The officer felt threatened, and killed Tatioun Williams by shooting him in the back.

reply to post by Annee

If you are part of a crime - - you are part of a crime - - period

Yes and the crime the boys were part of was armed robbery. If the police had not turned up no other crime would have taken place.

reply to post by Annee

As far as I know - - this is quite common. If you commit a crime - - you are responsible for anything that happens during that crime.

I am not disputing that, what I am trying to say is that this law is absurd and should be tailored more specific...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

 

So.. once again people decide to break the law, and instead of accepting accountability for their stupidity, we blame the cops for shooting a person who was pulling a gun? It doesnt matter if the other kid pulled the trigger or not, he was present when the crime occured, and participated in actions that resulted in the police being force to shoot the other schmuck who wantd to go down john wayne style.

I am saying that people should not be held to account for their actions, but this was not directly his action. Nor am I trying to blame the cops for shooting a person pulling the gun. If the police officer felt she was indanger she had every right to defend herself. On a side note I do find it dubious that he was shot in the back, but that is another topic I guess.
I feel bad for the lad he has gotten himself in some hot water....

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

The second punk is darned lucky the cops didn't shoot his ass as well. If it had been me I'd have been tempted to go all "Bernie Goetz" on his ass.

I dont get peeps sometimes. The death of a human being is not something to make light out of..

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by purplemer

 

I disagree with you...robbery serves no purpose in our society regardless of age...the less there is, the more safe we are.

I wasnt trying to say robbery is a good thing. Yes you are right the less there is the more safe we are...

So basically this whole thing is related to crime deterrence? If I commit a certain type of crime along with some other accomplices, and police gets to shoot and kill one accomplice, there is a chance that I can get charged for murder?

I dig the deterrence factor there, but how many 16-yr. olds know about this fact? Is that being taught in school, or is it meant to be a learn, experience, and "tell everyone about the horror" kinda thing? I remember that case in Singapore back in the 90's when the authorities whipped a minor (US citizen) multiple times as punishment for sticking bubble gum somewhere - because it was the law. The kid, being a foreigner, probably didn't know he could get whipped for "vandalism". Sure, no foreigner ever spit a bubble gum out in public ever since, but you know why.

reply to post by Annee




nevermind.

Just like bush/clinton/bush.....just worse.

for gods sake, he has commies in his group.

This is mission creep.

In the 'stan, when a group of resistance fighters get killed along with civilians - the resistance fighters get the blame, not the American who dropped bombs on them.

Of course, the Americans will take credit if they decide not to kill the civvies, but if they decide to; then that is the fault of the resistance.

Mission creep.


For example: When some cops eventually calls in an airstrike that kills citizens on the USA mainland, then the cop is not responsible for killing them. The person he was bombing is responsible for killing the citizens.

It is the new logic.

reply to post by purplemer


while the argument to justify charging an accomplice
SOUNDS reasonable,

we all know there is a double standard here,
oh so he chose to participate in a robbery?
but the officer didn't have a choice but to shoot to kill?

so why confront them head on on a busy street?

did you know cops will invade your personal space and spray you in the face with spit to trigger a fight or flight response, that's right folks, if you choose to wipe your face, self defense has been established, and you will be accused of assaulting that cop.

after said officer and his accomplices finish assaulting you.

and the judge will dismiss your claim of innocence with the same pathetic arguments posted here by some.

"Weellll, you shouldn't have done that"

of course the real reason for this is that prisons are a business
so surviving accomplice has to do double duty for himself and his dead buddy at the private plantations
refereed to as privatized prisons.

reply to post by wardk28


i'm sure if the authorities wanted they could find something to charge you with as you and every body else is in violation of at least ten laws/statutes among the millions on the books plus the hundreds if not thousands of new ones created everyday

"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up
against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful
gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but
we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to
rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack
down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes
them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding
citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted --
and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll
be easier to deal with."

-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

so if it should happen to you i suppose you'll just "suck it in"
can't be claiming that "ignorance of the laws is no excuse" now can you?
especially if it was just passed last weekend.

were confronted by police officers a short time later, the Chicago Tribune reports. When the officers told the teens to stop, Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction, Fox Chicago reports. Fearing for her life, the officer shot the 15-year-old, killing him.

in other words all he did was turn around
and frightened said cop into killing him

as a previous poster pointed out some kid's only get to make one mistake

reply to post by capod2t


well as you seem to be an open minded fellow

perhaps this may be of interest

Focus on the critical sentence: "Yet, when a victim explodes or acts out in unacceptable ways, these same officials are shocked and indignant."

What exactly are these "unacceptable ways" of exploding or acting out? Who decided they were "unacceptable"? Why is it that "reluctant school officials" will not "take definitive action" against the bullies -- thus tacitly conceding that the bullying itself is not all that "unacceptable" -- while the same officials are "shocked and indignant" when the victim protests too strongly?

This pattern, and certain of its origins, will be found throughout history, in every culture around the world. The pattern is a simple and deadly one: the oppressor -- that is, those who are in the superior position, whether they are parents, school officials, or the government, or in a superior position merely by virtue of physical strength -- may inflict bodily harm and/or grievous, lifelong emotional and psychological injury, but the victim may only protest within the limits set by the oppressor himself. The oppressor will determine those forms of protest by the victim that are "acceptable."

You see this pattern with regard to many helpless, lonely children in addition to Billy Wolfe...
The oppressor may inflict unimaginable cruelties on innocent victims -- but the victims may only protest in ways which the oppressor deems "acceptable." The profound injustice is obvious, but not in itself remarkable or unexpected: this is how oppression operates. But ask yourself about the deeper reason for the prohibition. This is of the greatest importance: the victims may only protest within a constricted range of "permissible" behavior because, when they exceed the prescribed limits, they make the oppressors too uncomfortable. They force the oppressors to confront the nature of what they, the oppressors, have done in ways that the oppressors do not choose to face.

Take some time to appreciate the unfathomable cruelty of this pattern. You may be grievously harmed and even permanently damaged by the actions of those who hold unanswerable power -- but you may only speak about this evil and its effects within the very narrow limits set by those who would destroy you. If you are killed, the identical prohibitions apply to those who still manage to survive and who would protest the unforgivable crime committed against you. In this manner, the complacency and comfort of those who possess immense power and wealth are underwritten by the silence forced upon their victims. The victims may speak and even protest, but only within severely circumscribed limits, and only so long as their rulers are not made to feel too uncomfortable, or too guilty. Anything which approaches too close to the truth is strictly forbidden.

Memo to the Victims: You Yourselves Will Pay for the Crimes of the Ruling Class
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...

powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...

The law is not some Platonic Form plucked from the skies by the Pure in Heart. Laws are written by men, men who have particular interests, particular constituencies, particular donors, and particular friends. (The same is now true of women as well, of course. But for most of our history, it was men and only men. Straight, white men, to be precise; see here and here.) Laws are the particular means by which the state implements and executes its vast powers. When an increasingly authoritarian state passes a certain critical point in its development, the law is no longer the protector of individual rights and individual liberty. The law becomes the weapon of the state itself -- to protect, not you, but the state from threats to its own powers. We passed that critical point some decades ago. The law is the means by which the state corrals its subjects, keeps them under control, and forbids them from acting in ways that the overlords might perceive as threatening. In brief, today, in these glorious United States, the law is not your friend.

reply to post by MJZoo


read the op
the kid had a gun in his hand [which may or not may have been loaded by the way] and was yelled at, and turned around and was shot.

if the cop had no problem killing the kid in the streets
then why did the officer seeing kid had a gun, 1st attract his attention and not fire to wound?

no they tricked the kid into turning around to "establish self-defense".



klepto-crats and mass-murderers on the genocide scale get to strut openly. and get paid to address audiences
one of them is in the WH right now if not for his being in the "in crowd" he could have wound up like this kid, and not necessarily for committing a crime all on the basis of skin color.

po'-folks are sent to the plantation to pick cotton for massa

it is the ultimate immorality to hold a person responsible for another persons actions.

jail-time for armed robbery? fine.
murder no. it's all about getting more work out the newly branded slave.

understand now?

reply to post by newcovenant


don't worry not everybody here thinks that
or at least not me

reply to post by grey580


but that's what a privatized prison system is all about. the same crap some of us complain about re abusive working conditions for a measly pittance in china is being done in many of those prisons.
so yeah kid will be put to work
for a chinamans salary.

didn't a judge get convicted recently for sending kids to a prison [privatised] in exchange for commissions?

then there are certain sparsely populated [and mostly wasps at that] states in this country [USA]
that do not allow prisoners [and usually colored] to vote, but they are counted at census time.
and thus are stealing- Cough Cough receiving more than their fair share of federal funds.
profit all around.

who says slavery was abolished in this country?

it just got a make over.