Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I simply dont buy that there is any deterrence factor whatsoever in these laws and sentences.

If deterrence were the idea there would be PSA's all over the place and sentencing would be broadcast all over the place.

As it is the vast majority of these first time offenders and offending kids have no idea what the consequences are or could be.

Ever talk to a kid? They dont know jack about the current affairs of their surroundings. They have no understanding of consequences.

If it's a deterrent we're all supposed to be supporting then educate the hell out of kids in schools, on television, on radio, in flyers around town.

All any of these kids know about consequences is that some cop might haul them in and some judge will give them "street cred" by locking them up for a brief time in some dorm with their peers.

They dont understand the real consequences.

Because there is no coordinated effort to pass this information on to the masses there is no validity to the deterrence claim.




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

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.



Semper


Cool! That means we can charge John Pistole with child molsetation and child pornography.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaiju
 


Zero sympathy and pity? Yeah wake up this is America if that was charlie sheen or any other celebrity he would of walked by now with no murder punishment so I dont see how you get zero sympathy when rich people walk away from crimes



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Yes the law states that there is no lesser charge for being an accompllice. Everyone involved in acting out the crime are charged equally. This avoids the situation of one person "I was just there when the robbery took place so if I get caught, the charges won't be that bad". Now with this case, just because he is charged with murder, doesn't mean he'll get convicted of murder. The procecutor will probably offer the suspect robbery 1 or whatever the state's equivalent if he pleads guilty. Since the officer did not comit murder but acted in self defence, no murder took place for the suspect to be charged with. So I doubt this kid will see capital murder but hopefully he'll spend the next 30 years in prison.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
edit on 28-5-2011 by wardk28 because: Double post



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
The moral is, dont do the crime if you dont want the punishment.

uuuummm, but he didn't.

Based on the information that has been provided in this article-

The crime that he did, was robbery.
The time that he is going to get, will be for murder and robbery.

Doesn't seem to correspond with this particular moral too well, does it?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Well see here's the thing. If you want to break the law, shouldn't you check up on the laws you are about to break? It's not the government's job to make sure everyone knows all the laws and penalities. The laws aren't hidden and anyone can find any info they want on them. Just like driving, the excuse of "I didn't know" is no excuse. The law also keeps the case from being tied up in court for years trying to sort out who should be charged for what in crimes committed.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


He hasn't been convicted of murder though so you don't know what kind of time he will do. I think the court system is trying to send a message.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
Well see here's the thing. If you want to break the law, shouldn't you check up on the laws you are about to break? It's not the government's job to make sure everyone knows all the laws and penalities. The laws aren't hidden and anyone can find any info they want on them. Just like driving, the excuse of "I didn't know" is no excuse. The law also keeps the case from being tied up in court for years trying to sort out who should be charged for what in crimes committed.


Yeah, since he knew beforehand that a scared female cop was going to shoot and kill his friend, he should have gone online and looked this up.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wardk28
 


Nine times out of ten people committing crimes arent very smart. Stopping by their local library and perusing the RSA's isnt going to happen.

We're not talking about career mobsters or organized Don's here.

The burden is on the government if they are going around excusing their policies as deterrents.

Like a hidden and unlabeled mine field is a deterrent.

Making a note of the minefield somewhere in the back of a legalese tome so you can technically say it isnt hidden and you advertised it. That doesnt fly with me.

It's not a deterrent.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


He hasn't been convicted of murder though so you don't know what kind of time he will do. I think the court system is trying to send a message.


So then they should send it. They should drop flyers all over the poor neighborhoods and advertise what happened on liquor store windows.

Otherwise nobody but the status quo and the paranoid paper scanners will even notice the "message" that is being sent.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


Yeah cause if someone had a gun pointed at you, you would try to reason with him. "You know if I shoot and kill you, your friend over there will be charged with murder. So you better not". Law enforcement are taught to shoot to kill in the academy if their life or the life of another is in danger.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Any person who, while committing a crime, or having just committed a crime, pulls a weapon and points it at an armed person, e.g. police officer, doesn't need to Google that they will be shot (at). It's suicide by cop. Even the dumbest criminal s know robbery is a crime, illegally possessing a firearm is a crime, and pulling a weapon on a cop is a crime.

That kids is responsible for the other kid's death, one way or the other, be it pursuant to homicide, manslaughter, complicit to felony death, etc.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Again, how is it the government's responsiblity to make sure everyone is educated in the laws? Besides do you really think that is gonna stop crime? How do you know the kid didn't know the law? Doesn't mention that is the story. Did he know you can get a life sentence for committing a robbery with a deadly weapon? So what, you think since he didn't know that law that he should be given a free pass on this one?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


A gun in his hands doesn't automatically make him grow up fast.

It might make him seem all grown but you would be making a mistake and would be wrong.

He was mimicking adults yes, but he was and still is young and stupid a child, a teenager.
He may have been desperate. He may be pure evil waiting for a chance to strike but again he might be like the Kevin Bacon character in Murder in the First - a pathetic victim himself caught in a bad situation.

It is like that sentence...Eats shoots and leaves.
You have to have the punctuation before you can determine if they are talking about hungry, burglars or Panda bears. You HAVE to know underlying circumstances here as well and not make a blanket judgement.

All of us somehow managed to survive our worst mistakes.
For other youth there is just the one and game over.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I simply dont buy that there is any deterrence factor whatsoever in these laws and sentences.

If deterrence were the idea there would be PSA's all over the place and sentencing would be broadcast all over the place.

As it is the vast majority of these first time offenders and offending kids have no idea what the consequences are or could be.

Ever talk to a kid? They dont know jack about the current affairs of their surroundings. They have no understanding of consequences.

If it's a deterrent we're all supposed to be supporting then educate the hell out of kids in schools, on television, on radio, in flyers around town.

All any of these kids know about consequences is that some cop might haul them in and some judge will give them "street cred" by locking them up for a brief time in some dorm with their peers.

They dont understand the real consequences.

Because there is no coordinated effort to pass this information on to the masses there is no validity to the deterrence claim.



This is certainly the truth.
Ugly and sad but none the less the truth.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wardk28
 


Im saying if the government is claiming their laws are deterrents then they should use them as deterrents. What good is a head on a pike if nobody sees it?

I never made the claim that they are deterrents. I claim the exact opposite.

This is the best of all:


Besides do you really think that is gonna stop crime?


So why pretend there is any deterrent factor at all?

All we have here is petty vengeance. No attempt to rehabilitate. No attempt to deter. Just petty vengeance.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Again, how is it the government's responsiblity to make sure everyone is educated in the laws? Besides do you really think that is gonna stop crime? How do you know the kid didn't know the law? Doesn't mention that is the story. Did he know you can get a life sentence for committing a robbery with a deadly weapon? So what, you think since he didn't know that law that he should be given a free pass on this one?


C - I - V - I - L - I - Z - A - T - I - O - N



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I am interested in your position on law and justice not being a deterrent. I am not coming after you, I would just like to learn more of your position on what, from your perspective, would be a deterrent other than our current practice.

While I agree that our correctional systems could do better in the whole "rehabilitation" thing, there are a great deal of opportunities provided there insofar as education, groups, etc.

Should the shooter (kid) not be held responsible for this accomplice's death? Should he not be held accountable for the robbery?

This is a kind inquiry.
edit on 28-5-2011 by capod2t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

edit on 28-5-2011 by wardk28 because: double post






top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join