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

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Outside of the info given, we can "what if" this forever. If he committed robbery, doesn't matter what he stole, they used a gun to commit the crime. Without a weapon or force, it would just be considered theft of property. Robbery has a hefty prison sentence in itself. He deserves it because he did the crime. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. You keep asking about a gun. We know the teen that was killed had a gun. The other kid knew his friend had the gun because it was used in the robbery. So I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at.

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.

The state I reside in has a similar law.

I have seen it used many times from felony DWI to bank robbery and to fleeing from the police.

But never seen it used in this fashion in this state . At least not yet . I feel the application of the felony murder in a case like this is overly broad for the reason the law was made for .

Besides one article stated the wound was from the back

Originally posted by nahsik
reply to post by SyphonX

 

If you feel so against this then why don't you lobby for it to be changed instead of complaining on a forum such as this. Oh wait you won't. So nothing has changed.

And then your going to tell me that your making light of this issue, that people need to be aware of what is happening to American society. You speak but you don't take action. So nothing has changed.

We don't have to deal with the same premise here in Australia.

That is the weakest, most tired, trollish piece of rhetoric on the internet. Strawman & flamebait much?

I don't get it, this is an internet forum, are we not supposed to discuss issues here? Not voice our opinions?

Who are you to demand by accusation that we provide to you, good noble sir, some form of proof that we have taken action outside of this forum?

Your post is insulting, out of the spirit of ATS, and internet discussion forums in general.

If you don't like people voicing their opinions, then maybe you should find another hobby.

Wow.

Fail logic in this one . . . and this is coming from an ex-cop

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

Outside of the info given, we can "what if" this forever. If he committed robbery, doesn't matter what he stole, they used a gun to commit the crime. Without a weapon or force, it would just be considered theft of property. Robbery has a hefty prison sentence in itself. He deserves it because he did the crime. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. You keep asking about a gun. We know the teen that was killed had a gun. The other kid knew his friend had the gun because it was used in the robbery. So I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at.

Due to the fact that you have difficulties comprehending logic, this is my last reply to you.

There are a few substantial differences between conversations on an online forum, and a verbal conversation.

Originally posted by wardk28
You keep asking about a gun.

One difference in particular, would be this-> Prove it!
Disregard your claim that I "keep asking." Just find one example of me asking a question about a gun, within this thread. If you can find one, I will make an exception and give you one more reply.


you "KNOW" what he "KNEW" Were you there? Do you know these kids personally? Are you the scared trigger happy officer, that shot this young man in the back??
How is it possible for you to know, what he knew, when you don't even know what really happened??



'what if' 'cut and dry'

Innocent, until proven guilty.

I'm a firm believer that our government is trampling our rights under the constitution, and it kind of goes against common sense to charge this young man for "muder". That being said, I honestly don't care what happens in this case, because it's time for punks who commit these crimes to made an example of. Too many people look the other way as our society falls to crime and corruption. The kid didn't murder the other one, but dammit, I say fry the bastard anyway. Armed robbery should be treated the same as murder or rape in my opinion. If the victim resists, these thugs are prepared to kill them. That should be enough to prosecute on conspiracy to commit murder, AT LEAST.

Kid will plea out and get 20 years, probably serve six or ten and go rob somebody else when he gets out.

reply to post by Nakor420


Respectfully, the statement our government is trampeling all over our rights makes no sense.

Which government?

Which rights?

Frankly I'm astounded at just how many people are supporting this bizarre situation and charge. The police officer killed the person, yet the dead criminal's companion is the one being charged with murder? It's absurd. I can't even wrap my mind around such ridiculous logic.

Does this mean if I shoot and kill someone that I can pin the killing on the person closest to me and take no blame?

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


It's not really that hard to understand if you have any knowledge of laws, whatsoever. This is NOT a new law. It's not even a charge that is only used once in a blue moon. The kid would also have been charged with murder if his friend would have shot and killed the people they robbed. Either way, one of them is dead and hopefully the other one is locked up for a long time. Sounds like a pretty good outcome to me.

I live just outside Chicago, I have worked there doing construction since the Dan Ryan project. If you want to fear for your life, stop in off 95th and State St. off the Dan Ryan, or over by Harlem. The people who control the community are real gangsters and will rob, or kill you given the opportunity.
Check out a simple search: www.google.com...
We were always afraid, and worked in groups. How can anyone feel sorry for this kid, I hope that isn't the point of this thread.
The kid would've shot you, trust me, he would've shot your mom, your wife, and your children. People who carry guns in Chicago can use them well. They aren't bad people, I love the South Side, I just don't wind up there at 2 A.M., or on streets where I know I don't belong. Harold's Chicken-awesome, but people who carry guns and rob people will go through with pulling the trigger.

reply to post by MJZoo


I realize that the law isn't something new, but I'm trying to understand the logic behind this inane law, and I'm also trying to convey how absurd this law sounds.

There are two criminals. One of them pulls a gun on a cop. In defense, the cop shoots and kills the armed criminal. That makes sense to me and I believe that the cop was justified in his actions. But what flies right over my head is the logic in how the unarmed criminal who watched his companion get shot and killed by another person is somehow being arrested for murder when he didn't kill anybody, and even when the cop killed somebody it wasn't technically even murder, because murder is defined by law as the illegal killing of another person. What the cop did was in self-defense. So there wasn't even a murder that took place at all from what I could tell.

Now, if the criminal in question pulled a gun and killed his accomplice, then I can understand that as being murder because the criminal in question murdered his accomplice.

I can even understand if criminal in question was charged with robbery in addition to attempted murder for his accomplice having tried to kill the cop that he aimed a gun at. That's even understandable.

But where does this bogus charge of murder even manifest itself from? It's seriously random.

This is perfectly acceptable.

If you are going to commit a serious crime like robbery, you should accept the fact that you are putting your life on the line. Sure, you may think that carjacking someone wont lead to your demise, but when you rip my door open and a .40 S&W round rips your face open, I hope you're not surprised.

Besides, even if this piece of # WAS only convicted of robbery, he'd be out of prison in less than 2 years to continue a life of crime.

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.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon

That is the weakest, most tired, trollish piece of rhetoric on the internet. Strawman & flamebait much?

I don't get it, this is an internet forum, are we not supposed to discuss issues here? Not voice our opinions?

Who are you to demand by accusation that we provide to you, good noble sir, some form of proof that we have taken action outside of this forum?

Your post is insulting, out of the spirit of ATS, and internet discussion forums in general.

If you don't like people voicing their opinions, then maybe you should find another hobby.

Every post I've seen in this thread has been a scream for a change in laws. You do not discuss but argue with me based on no legal principles or evidence that this defendant should not be convicted for murder. I state what he possible could have been charged under i.e the Felony Murder Rule (not convicted).

I only see responses where people have invented up hocus pocus examples of what if situations? Only subjective belief that what they perceive to be the right ordinance of the law. State your opinion that it's wrong but don't try to justify it as to why it's wrong unless you can back up your statement with some form of evidence instead of creating a fallacy.

I did overstep my bounds here and I know that. I can man up to it and say i'm sorry but let me say something about myself -

My job nowadays as a volunteer paralegal (uni undergraduate) for a legal aid firm is to help construct submissions for defendants likes these in front of a judge. Don't get me wrong, even though it's little, I try to make a change in the hopes that one day I can become a better solicitor and put a stop to these so called ridiculous laws.

If you want to make a change in your country you need to be knowledgeable about society and its laws. They are there to protect you. Know where you stand when it comes to it, don't ignore it.

Wow, a lot of high and mighty people on here. With the economy going down the drain, a lot of people are going to be turning to theft to feed their families. I don't know if that's the case here, but what if it is?

It is nice to know that the US is a ducked up and the UK by way of crazy laws.

Although I do understand and agree that in ther commision of a criminal acr all parties are responsible for the consequences of that act, I feel in this case it is just madness. Why do I feel that? Because It would need to be proven to me that this kid knew his mate had a gun, that ne knew it was loaded and that his friend was willing to use it.

I also agree very strongly that this type of lawe needs to be shouted from the roof tops so that ALL teens and potential miscreants understand cokpletely what they are getting themselves into. This would perhaps deter some of them - although I am not saying this will fix anything, but perhaps protect a few stupid teens from teaming up with the realy bad ones.

Originally posted by Shamatt
It is nice to know that the US is a ducked up and the UK by way of crazy laws.

I also agree very strongly that this type of lawe needs to be shouted from the roof tops so that ALL teens and potential miscreants understand cokpletely what they are getting themselves into. This would perhaps deter some of them - although I am not saying this will fix anything, but perhaps protect a few stupid teens from teaming up with the realy bad ones.

I agree to this.
I think some form of legal studies/ethics should be mandatory to be learnt during high school years for all students.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
Kid will plea out and get 20 years, probably serve six or ten and go rob somebody else when he gets out.

It's a brilliant rehabilitation program isn't it?

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
Does this mean if I shoot and kill someone that I can pin the killing on the person closest to me and take no blame?

Only if you're wearing a badge. Then you can murder whoever you please in the name of justice.