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

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


So we both agree that no matter who knows what, crime is going to happen. Doesn't matter if the kid knew the law or not. Doesn't matter if the government educates or not. Its actually the parents' job to teach their kids that pulling a gun on someone and robbing them is wrong. My kids are 12 and 10 and know that they are going to prison for a long time if they rob someone. As far a rehabilation, when he gets to prison, he'll be able to get his GED and even a college degree or trade. Thats probably more then he would have gotten out on the streets. The fact of the matter is that this kid made a choice.

Originally posted by newcovenant
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.

As far as we know, from the small amount of information that is provided within the article, he never had the gun in his hands.

Originally posted by wardk28
Its actually the parents' job to teach their kids that pulling a gun on someone and robbing them is wrong.

Since this one tiny fact, is what a majority of your comments are based on, you continue to ignore it, so I am trying once more to point it out. As far as we know, he did not pull a gun on anybody.

this is NOT right..
sure he was an accomplice to a crime,
and were a shop keeper or bystander or even a cop killed, he would be held as an accessory to murder..
but HE gets charged with murder even though the cop fired the shot???
THAT is an indefensible law..
I have never in my life heard of a cop shooting a perp, and another perp is prosecuted for what the cop did..
ridiculous..

reply to post by capod2t


For the most part I believe criminal motivations are immune to deterrence.

The criminal either doesnt care if he's caught or even wants to get caught (see "street-cred" and gang initiation), the criminal doesnt think he will get caught, the criminal commits the crime in the "heat of the moment" (in which case there is no thought present, certainly not one of deterrent consideration, or the criminal is just bat # nuts and doesnt care about or understand the action/consequences at all.

Also, if we are to believe that this system is set up to deter there would be plenty of notice and education surrounding that.

Ask any kid or adult what the consequences are of any given crime and the answers are all over the place. Murderers getting out in 5, armed robbers getting death, tax evaders serving 30 to life, etc....

The general population has no idea what the consequences really are for any crime pointing to complete ignorance of the system that is alleged to deter.

Where is the deterrent in sending a child to time without explanation? Where is the deterrent in suspending an insubordinate employee without a clear explanation?

I believe our entire vengeance based punishment system is absurdly flawed entirely. Inconsistent punishment is just one problem. You cant train a dog with inconsistent practices. The other problem is dumping offenders of one sort into close proximity with offenders of another sort. Making soft offenders hard doesnt help anyone. Then there's the lifelong stigma attached proving that there is no such thing as "time served" leaving all offenders regardless of crime locked in life long prisons. Then there's the host of non-crime crimes stemming largely from prohibition and popular opinion.

And, of course the topic at hand, ignorance among the population is proof positive there are no deterrent qualities in the current system.

All we have here is a vehicle by which barbaric bloodlust can be satisfied. No deterrence, no lessons learned, no rehabilitation. Just a population foaming at the mouth for someone to suffer.

reply to post by pccat


Maybe you should read up on laws a little more then.
It's not some magical new law that was made up for this situation.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it. All good points, many with which I agree, however have you considered that the conditioning of what is "acceptable" in our society/culture begins at young ages? Doesn't it begin at home with the parents (don't hit, don't bite, don't steal money from your sister, obey the rules or suffer the consequences)? Add to that the rules at the schools and other institutions, where lessons are taught and learned (cheating, skipping class, smoking in the bathroom). Churches (where applicable) generally teach the biblical moral code, as well as how it applies to modern culture.

Organized sports teach degrees of honesty, integrity, rules, as well as the consequences of wrongdoing - a pitcher balks, batter takes base. Reckless slide tackle results in a yellow card. Holding by the O-Line is a 10-yard penalty.

Our whole life is built around what is expected of our behavior and the consequence on non-conformity. People don't know what their sentence might be in most cases - even lawyers and judges have to rely on the books for that - and many may not even consider it. But the 3-strike law I believe has had an effect. Either way, I believe all people know what's against the law and that jail time is a strong possibility should they engage and get caught. They know this going in. Whether they care matters not.

These two kids knew the possible consequences of this crime.

In sum, I believe law is a deterrent, albeit not a strong one but one of which the consequences are well known.

So the law is designed to ENCOURAGE Police Officers to KILL one of the suspects. That way they get to increase the charges and conviction rates of murders in the city. Nice. Crafty laws they got going on over there in Chicago.

On second thought, after the cops KILL a suspect, the law is also ENCOURAGING the remaining suspects to go ahead and start killing people since the suspects now know that they are going to be charged with murder anyways.

This law is a danger to the community. Once you know you'll be charged for murder (you didn't commit), then you've got nothing left to lose.

reply to post by newcovenant


All the actions shouldn't be judged under the umbrella of the initiation of the crime? Why do that does that make it easier in court? Their combined actions have nothing to do with the one kids decision to pull a gun or the cop to kill him.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
So the law is designed to ENCOURAGE Police Officers to KILL one of the suspects. That way they get to increase the charges and conviction rates of murders in the city. Nice. Crafty laws they got going on over there in Chicago.

On second thought, after the cops KILL a suspect, the law is also ENCOURAGING the remaining suspects to go ahead and start killing people since the suspects now know that they are going to be charged with murder anyways.

This law is a danger to the community. Once you know you'll be charged for murder (you didn't commit), then you've got nothing left to lose.

^this^

Such laws are not "tough on crime" they are unjust in their own right. The law places undue responsibility for the interaction between another person and the police. He is not the legal guardian, so it is fallacious. It does not even fall in line with "guilty by association" in any logical sense. "but they were commiting a crime"....and? They should be charged with more crimes? Some people are insane, I swear.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by newcovenant

 

All the actions shouldn't be judged under the umbrella of the initiation of the crime? Why do that does that make it easier in court? Their combined actions have nothing to do with the one kids decision to pull a gun or the cop to kill him.

I am not saying they do and I think they should be taken individually as isolated parts of action and reaction. Just saying this is probably the reasoning used to hold one kid responsible "legally" for the death of the other even though a 3rd party pulled the trigger.
I didn't say it was right.
Still pulling a gun is a suicide move and I don't think the police were in the wrong. What about court? This is where they'll sort it all out and get to the bottom of each persons motivations and response. That cop could have disabled without killing the kid. If he couldn't - I think that will be something he should have to prove as well.

i see nothing wrong with the murder charge for this one and think about this often, it was the ones who planned that robbery, decided to roll with weapons, and left the house to do harm to others that led to this boys death. the remaining thug probably assisted in planning the robbery, didn't stop his friend from possessing the weapon, and will likely hold an unreasonable grudge on cops and keep gangbangin anyway if not thrown away.

now they should fine the parents to pay off prison fees and keep surveillance on associates.

Originally posted by pplrnuts
Dont be a criminal and stuff like this wouldnt happen.

Yes?

No, you can be a criminal and get away with it. Just make sure you commit your crimes on a grand scale, and that you rob millions of people, or murder thousands of people.

Only little people go to jail for murder and armed robbery.

Originally posted by MJZoo
reply to post by pccat

 

Maybe you should read up on laws a little more then.
It's not some magical new law that was made up for this situation.

reading up on laws is not the problem here..
and yes I understand its not new for this situation..
but the application of said law is Bull snit, and you should know it..
so lets say I am in the passenger seat of a car and the driver is pulled over..
the driver being a little bit tipsy decides to not cooperate with the officer,
said officer pulls out a taser and tasers the driver, driver dies from cardiac arrest..
do I get charged for murder/manslaughter?????????????????

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

What they did was wrong but to charge the one kid with murder is BS. If we are gonna use that logic then President Bush and a lot of others should be in jail for the same thing.

reply to post by pccat


Why are you comparing apples and oranges? They committed ARMED robbery and when the police confronted them a FIREARM was pointed at the cops. What the hell does that have to do with drunk driving? Get over it. If you don't want to get in trouble, then don't commit crimes.

reply to post by KoolerKing


You are right. They should be tried as criminals. And so should corporate executives and others who hire mercenaries to kill off political movements that might hinder their plundering of a nation, and lots of other people who make billions of dollars robbing the people of a nation by sending in armies to get rid of leaders trying to prevent that.

The laws are bullsnip. Because they allow crimes done by the rich and powerful on a grand scale and come down like a ton of bricks on people even talking about doing the same crimes, in essence, on a small scale.

That is a complete abuse of the law. This law does not mean a police officer can can murder someone and redirect the charge to the accomplish. This law means, that those involved in the crime as victims can be considered murdered even if it was not intentionally done.

Ie. you rob a bank teller at gun point and they have an asthma attack and die. Even though you didn't directly pull the trigger, your actions still proved fatal. Its also one of those incredible grey areas where the other side would argue the risk that person would have died that day anyway from an asthma attack,though it ludicrous.

This is exactly the law that was brought up in our law class, and where an actual case was debated without us knowing the answer. I was on the prosecuting team, and the real outcome was guilty.

This is a law designed for those kind of instances, but its not designed in the case of an officer shooting the suspect.

reply to post by newcovenant


I do think the police were justified but to charge the other with murder is just stupid. We went to war with Iraq and many civilians died. How many were charged with murder? Under this stupid logic we invaded Iraq for no reason
so are we guilty as well. Charge him with armed robbery and negligent homicide but murder is not warranted.

reply to post by KoolerKing


Why do people keep talking like I disagree? I think it is wrong to charge the kid for murder not only wrong it is lacking any kind of basis in fact. It is absurd, preposterous, all of the above. Hence the thread I guess.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Technically no, he may not have had a gun but whats your point? He was still part of a plan to rob someone with a firearm. That's like saying someone pouring gas on a building really didn't start the fire because the other guy lit the match.