Syracuse 15-year-old gets two to six years for 7-cent robbery

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A 15-year-old Syracuse boy will spend the next two to six years in juvenile detention and the rest of his life as a felon as a result of his sentencing today for a robbery that netted him and an accomplice seven cents.

Walsh said he might have ruled differently if Stewart had pleaded guilty, as did his accomplice, Skyler Ninham, 16.

Both Ninham and the 73-year-old robbery victim identified Stewart as a participant in the crime, Walsh said. “And yet you still denied it,” Walsh said to Stewart. “Well, that cost you.”

According to prosecutors, Stewart and Ninham ran up behind the victim Dec. 22 and knocked him to the ground. Ninham kicked the victim and Stewart punched him in the face, breaking his glasses, before the victim handed over the seven cents in his pocket

www.syracuse.com...

While the crime was indeed violent, who ever beat this 73 year old man up came up from behind and attacked him, making his identification of these two kids at a minimum degraded. The judge essentially expected this kid to plead guilty and got angry because he didn't. The "well, that cost you" statement from the judge is childish and inappropriate. In addition, they never recovered the weapons the victim testified the kids were carrying. The case is full of holes and any lawyer worth his salt should have been able to create a reasonable doubt here.

There is no criminal history with either of these two kids.

I am all for tossing folks in jail and that includes minors, but this sentence is unreasonable. If this kid serves the max, he will do a year of jail/penny.

For one they are criminals and the amount has no bearing although 7 cents really makes me even feel more for the victim here.

They committed assault and are therefore dangerous and I`m all for whatever time they get sentenced to.
Most times the criminals don`t do enough time and just end up doing it again.

The assault is what they got charged for. it wasn't the 7 cent robbery.

Did the kid not have a lawyer?
If his defense was just "not guilty" and didn't bring up the blind behind attack defense, then he's got what he's got. And your title isn't completely accurate, a violent beating and robbery was what the sentence was about, the 7 cents part was him having a taste of my bad luck.

I found this story linked on Drudge Report. I think it's notable that they didn't just pickpocket seven cents. They committed armed robbery and beat up an old man by kicking and punching him. The actual amount they stole isn't very relevant. Theft and robbery are not synonymous.

According to prosecutors, Stewart and Ninham ran up behind the victim Dec. 22 and knocked him to the ground. Ninham kicked the victim and Stewart punched him in the face, breaking his glasses, before the victim handed over the seven cents in his pocket

www.syracuse.com...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
While the crime was indeed violent, who ever beat this 73 year old man up came up from behind and attacked him, making his identification of these two kids at a minimum degraded.

...stewart punched the old man in the face... did you read the article you posted?...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
There is no criminal history with either of these two kids.

...doesnt mean they never committed crimes before... its more likely that they just never got caught before...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
this sentence is unreasonable.

...he's going to a juvenile detention center - not attica... gosh... what about the old man they beat up?... doesnt he count?... do you want these young men turned loose with no penalty just because the old man only had 7 cents?... thats crazy...

Originally posted by Heartisblack
The assault is what they got charged for. it wasn't the 7 cent robbery.

No, they got charged for robbery (unless the article is wrong). Confusion arises because many people think that robbery is synonymous with simple theft. It's not. Robbery is theft in the presence of a person along with intimidation and violence (or the threat thereof). Plus, in this case, they could have technically been charged with armed robbery.

From Wikipedia, common law definition in U.S.: source

Robbery:
1. a trespassory
2. taking and
3. carrying away
4. of the personal property
5. of another
6. with the intent to steal
7. from the person or presence of the victim
8. by force or threat of force.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


The title is the title from the story.

An elderly gent gets attacked from behind, knocked to the ground and kicked.

Its dark out

He sees two robbers, both with guns who ask him for money and he hands him the 7 cents he has.

The kids have no prior records, there is no forensic evidence, they can't find the guns, the gent is 73.

There is absolutely nothing to tie these two to the crime other than the statement.

The kid "confesses" while in the box and later recants.

The prison officials recommended that this kid be treated as a minor.

That they convict these two on only his identification is one thing. To give the kid potentially 7 years with nothing other than the victim's word, when that victim is 73 years old and making the identification in the dark after being beaten up is absurd.

I think the violent part comes in a lot more than the monetary. Any body that is willing to beat up/harm someone for money IS dangerous. Especially an elderly person...

The only fact here is that courts are corrupt and biased in their judgements. They have no proof besides an old man that was beat up from behind. No less the old guy wears glasses which means he has poor eyesight to begin with and supposedly at night?

Now when your getting kicked and punched your nothing more than a bobblehead and can't see squat. the judge abused his power on a personal vandetta because he as (Mr.Authority or GOD) felt disrespected and dismayed taht there's someone who doesn't fear his power.

Yeah if the kid did do it he deserves it but I think the judge and justice system need their teeth kicked down their throats, one by one.

Judges,district attorneys, lawyers(who are supposed to defend you) and cops are all in on the big scam.

For those of you who believe in the justice system, all I can say is your a bunch of morons who have never experienced it and it's your type that help to create the crooked system.

As for Ninham, wait till he gets to jail, he's in for it when they find out he's a rat.

reply to post by dolphinfan


...your defense that the old man couldnt have seen them is wrong...

According to prosecutors, Stewart and Ninham ran up behind the victim Dec. 22 and knocked him to the ground. Ninham kicked the victim and Stewart punched him in the face, breaking his glasses, before the victim handed over the seven cents in his pocket

www.syracuse.com...

...emphasis mine...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


The old gent is knocked to the ground from behind and then kicked. the other guy punches him in the face, breaking his glasses, which essentially takes away his eye site.

Now all of this probably happened in under 5 seconds, 5 seconds where the gent was being assaulted and as a consequence disoriented.

What happened to this gent was criminal, no doubt. That they would give a kid potentially 7 years in jail under the circumstances around which this id was made is also criminal.

This judge wanted the kid to be afraid and plead and he refused. That angered this tool of a judge and he hammered him with the sentence.

Now that this is news a real attorney will pick up this case on appeal. They will check out how folks convicted of similar crimes were sentenced. It will be interesting to find out how many other kids across all of Syracuse are sentenced for similar acts. My guess is not many

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

The old gent is knocked to the ground from behind and then kicked. the other guy punches him in the face, breaking his glasses, which essentially takes away his eye site.

Now all of this probably happened in under 5 seconds, 5 seconds where the gent was being assaulted and as a consequence disoriented.

...essentially?... probably?... hypothetical scenarios = fail...

Wearing glasses don`t mean you can`t see without them. I know I wear them myself and I could identify you without them. Can`t read for squat but can still see.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


More than a hypothetical scenario. A probable scenario. A probable scenario typically leads to reasonable doubt.

I realize that I'm in the minority here, but I would simply not convict someone based on a victim only id who is making that ID under extreme duress. I absolutely would not vote to convict were the kid being tried as a adult with no priors.

People don't admit guilt when they were no where near the crime in question, at least in my experience. Sure, cowards exist and I'm sure that here and there people exist who plead guilty to crimes they did not commit simply to avoid the full wrath of the law, but I have to believe that these people are far and few between. Hence, if the kids friend (Ninham) admitted to it then he (Ninham) probably did it. And to go a bit further, if Ninham claimed that Stewart was the accomplice, well, he probably was. Plus, when the guns were mentioned Stewart claimed that they were only BB guns. How did he know that if he wasn't present?

Now, I'm not saying the kid deserved to be tried as an adult. At his age I too would have denied any wrong doing, as that was the best course of action in my mind at the time when faced with my wrong doings - not that I ever committed violent crimes, just the usual petty stuff of childhood.

reply to post by RatoAstuto


Why were these kids even speaking to the police at all? Legally they were entitled to have an adult representative with them, if not a lawyer.

If you interrogate someone long enough, they will admit to anything, especially a kid. It is the primary rationale against torture - that folks will often lie just to get it over with.

An awful lot of "well they probably did it" "well if the gent said he saw them, he saw them" "if he was convicted than he's guilty" and other types of comments. Sounds to me like a lot of folks who have never been jammed up with the law. It ain't pretty. I got jammed up for something I did not do when I was 15 and if it was not for my sister who came in right away and saw to it that my rights were protected, I have no doubt that I would have gone to jail. I had enough sense to not talk to anyone until help got there, probably the best thing my parents ever taught me.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

More than a hypothetical scenario. A probable scenario. A probable scenario typically leads to reasonable doubt.

...did you attend the trial?... i didnt... do you have access to the transcripts?... i dont... so, we dont know if that possible scenario was given in an attempt to establish doubt during the trial or not... i seriously doubt that it was cuz its flimsy at best - as conman's post so aptly put it (reposted for your convenience)...

Originally posted by Connman
Wearing glasses don`t mean you can`t see without them. I know I wear them myself and I could identify you without them. Can`t read for squat but can still see.

...there ya go...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
I would simply not convict someone based on a victim only id who is making that ID under extreme duress.

...its more common for victims of violent crimes to be under extreme duress than to not be... according to your standards, victims under extreme duress should not be believed and, so, violent jerks get to walk free and commit more violent crimes... thats not a world i want to live in...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
I absolutely would not vote to convict were the kid being tried as a adult with no priors.

...your call and your guilt-trip when he murders his next victim...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Obviously I did not read the transcripts. I don't need to.

I'm not going to convict someone based on the testimony of a 73 year old dude who had his glasses knocked off, was beaten and the ID he is providing was made during the attack and is the only piece of evidence the prosecution has against the suspect, a suspect who has no criminal history.

I'm not going to trust anything that comes out of an interogation of a minor, nor would I at any point consider a kid who is speaking to the police with his attorney present consider that kid to have competent counsel.

I certainly would not feel any guilt were I to vote to not convict and he to commit a more serious crime. That is a far better outcome than simply assuming that LE is playing the game square and 100 guilty folks being set free is better than 1 innocent person going to prison. Everyday a bunch of guilty folks go free due to any number of technicalities. Everyday the police are looking to bend the law, use trickery and intimidation tactics, looking to jam someone up for an act for which they have insufficient evidence.

It is your duty as a citizen to be skeptical of the police. That skepticism is what makes them be thorough, take citizen's rights seriously. There is a reason we are innocent until proven guilty. The government has and should have a much more difficult job than the defense.