United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Teen turns down plea deal for 25 years in prison, gets 65 years instead
Source:
MSN
URL Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime ... r-AAvx1hZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Published: Apr 6, 2018
Author: Marty Roney
Post Date: 2018-04-06 05:15:19 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 19556
Comments: 112
WETUMPKA, Ala. — A teenager tried as an adult under Alabama's accomplice liability law was sentenced to 65 years in prison Thursday after rejecting an earlier plea deal that recommended 25 years. In a two-day trial in March, Lakeith Smith, now 18, of Montgomery was convicted of felony murder, burglary and theft for helping in the 2015 break-ins of two homes in Millbrook, about 10 miles north of Montgomery. He did not kill A'Donte Washington, 16, of Montgomery, who was part of a group of five accused in the thefts. But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015, to a call of a burglary in progress, according to officer body-camera footage. The officer that Washington ran toward pointing a .38 caliber revolver fired his police-issued sidearm four times, killing Washington. Smith was accused of being criminally responsible for the acts that led to Washington's death, the gist of Alabama's accomplice law. An Elmore County grand jury cleared the officer who fired the fatal shots; the officer's name was not released. On Thursday, Judge Sibley Reynolds of Alabama's 19th Judicial Circuit Court handed down three sentences that Smith will serve back to back: 30 years for murder, 15 years for burglary and 10 years each for two theft convictions. Smith smiled and laughed through the sentencing, said C.J. Robinson, chief assistant district attorney. Smith flashed a broad smile March 14 as he was led out of the courtroom shortly after the verdicts were announced. “I don’t think Mr. Smith will be smiling long when he gets to prison,” Robinson said. “We are very pleased with this sentence. Because the sentences are consecutive, it will be a long time before he comes up for even the possibility for parole, at least 20 to 25 years.” Alabama's accomplice law states that a person is legally liable for the behavior of another who commits a criminal offense if that person aids or abets the first person in committing the offense. It wasn't immediately known how many states have similar statutes. "The officer shot A'donte, not Lakeith Smith," Smith's lawyer, Jennifer Holton, said during the trial. "Lakeith was a 15-year-old child, scared to death. He did not participate in the act that caused the death of A'donte. He never shot anybody." Other surviving defendants charged in the case — Montgomery residents Jadarien Hardy, 22; Jadarien Jackson, 23; and La’Anthony Washington, 22 — entered guilty pleas to charges of felony murder, burglary and theft, court records show. They are awaiting sentencing. Poster Comment: Ha, ha, ha! Oh, for the good old days before Lyndon Bird's Great Society where boys had fathers and mothers. Lyndon's rotting in hell over his idiocy. Lakeith, A'Donte, Jadarien , La’Anthony. With names tacked onto them like these it appears they are then marked for the rest of their useless lives.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
#5. To: IbJensen (#3)
(Edited)
Yes, that's the easy scapegoat angle which is exactly what I'm talking about. Politicians want to write it off as simple as that. If that's the sentiment, why not just make the offense of burglary punishable the same as 3rd degree murder? That would at least be honest. Would you say the killing of his pal was a crime? Was his pal incapable of being responsible for his own actions? Did this kid trick or encourage his pal into charging an armed cop with a firearm? No, this statute was enacted by politicians that simply want to throw more jail time at people that they feel don't get punished enough for the laws they actually do break. Cutting lawmakers some slack, they may have intended the law to cover cases where innocent people are killed by a team of criminals. Prosecuting an accomplice for when a thug breaks into a home and kills the occupant. But even in those cases, they typically will only prosecute the killer directly for murder and not his accomplice (correct me if I'm wrong) but if the charges leveled against the getaway driver are contingent upon the trigger pulling accomplice surviving the break in, as it seems is the practice, then there's a legal problem. I'm not saying the kid is innocent of any wrong doing. Clearly as an accomplice to a crime he is guilty. But if someone is punished for things they do not do, it's not justice, and that hurts everyone, not just the accused. Punish criminal for what they do, not for what they don't do.
If the sentiment is that such people can never be redeemed and are permanently morally disfigured after committing a single crime, then fine, pass a law imposing the death penalty for any crime deemed a felony. At least then, the lawmakers will be honest. Did they start it? Germans were unjustly blamed and penalized for the Great War To End All Wars. I don't think it a PC rewritten history to conclude that. A mere 20 years went by since the end of WW1 to WW2, during which the German economy was destroyed by that treaty of V which is hardly enough to erase memories. It's been 16 years since 911, and how many Americans have forgotten that? And that was, proportionally, a drop in the bucket compared to what the German's endured in the 1920's. In that sense, it's not inaccurate to say that WW2 was simply a continuation of WW1. As for your general sentiment of writing off mass killings.... I can understand the sentiment that death, even mass death and mass killing, can sometimes be practically unavoidable in the course of prosecuting a war. But even so, if you cannot fathom enough care to answer the "WHO CARES?" question, then I can only shake my head. As you are a professing Christian, I can only honestly be of the opinion that you have a lot to learn about morality. Maybe I'm wrong, but just as you have expressed a moral judgment upon WW2 Germans, I in the same way hold that moral judgment of you. You say we are men. No, I don't believe that. We are souls. Immortal souls. Our human side is only a minority of what we are, and our morality answers to our greater soulful nature, not our human nature. And your sentiment, in my view, comes from your lessor human side, not the far greater part of you that is immortal. I mean this with complete respect, but as I see it, you have far more to learn about morality than you know. That is what I see in what you write.
At least he didn't get another 5 for the stupid name.
Let me chew on all that since it overlaps past conversation.
I know why he was laughing. 25 or 95 years what is the difference. I would laugh too. At least he did not give them satisfaction of asserting his "guilt". If they gave 1000 years sentence you would laugh also. Look he has wrong name and wrong color of the skin and no money for a good lawyer, so what he has to lose.
At the risk of veering off tangent here... Can it be said that our "human nature" filters our perception of reality through THAT physical lens? And by "lens" I mean not only the visual, but all the physical senses. I am not discounting the soul or spirit as part or most or all of final discernment of who we are (and yes, our physical embodiment *does* comprise who "we" are in this dimension.) What *acts* the body/flesh commits to is not independent of spirit and thus bears responsibility for immorality and possible future "payment"/redemption. The inevitable question that has been discussed is the method and source of and for "cleansing" the soul in the Hereafter. AND by what "Authority" or standard it is cleansed (if at all.) By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
Perhaps. (You give two possible theories.) Not that they are necessarily the case. Unless you are able to get into the head of a deranged, demon-obsessed murderer. Then again -- why would you "laugh too"?? The guy is only 18 years old. If you're an old man your laugh *might* make a lick of sense. Given his original sentence of 25 years in this day of liberal "justice," it likely would have meant a reality of serving perhaps a quarter (5 years) to half (12-13 years) of the actual sentence, still making him a relatively young man when released. Your theoretical notion of his "satisfaction" cost the perp a 95 year sentence. Now he definitely won't be released for parole after a minimum of 20-25 years. If that fails and the sentence is cut in half, that 40-50 years loses the perp the best years of his life. Talk about incredible sense of stupidity. Ignorance. And just maybe he was *proud* of his dirty deed which just means he's evil. If they gave 1000 years sentence you would laugh also. Look he has wrong name and wrong color of the skin and no money for a good lawyer, so what he has to lose. Why do Communists always blame a system of universal laws and justice, and punitive measures and instead dig up excuses for criminal behavior? Why do you (and your ilk) insist that perps' color and lack of Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey defense teams exonerates and immunizes this punk for committing serious crime? Again, your perspective, sense of proportion, and system of justice and morality is warped. (Unless you believe he "took one for the team"?) That you find little difference between a 25 year sentence or 1000 years is anti-logic. And anti-rational. That 25 year sentence was NOT nearly a death sentence by ANY means. But turning it into the 95 year sentence was close to it. Not that you care -- just as long as YOU can still laugh at justice-served from the freedom of your Lazy-Boy (portrait of Stalin behind you). Do you have a portrait of 0bama on the other wall(s)?
He's not a murderer. He was merely an accomplice convicted of the death of his pal that got himself killed. But I had the same thoughts as A Pole. What's the difference between 25 & 95 years? How long a time did you consider 25 years to be when you were 18? When you are that young, 25 years, even 12, is an eternity. And what life would a convicted felon get after being released at 30 years? Whether deserving or not aside, homelessness and unemployment are near certainties. So he doubled down in his legal defense. Not guilty, or failing that early retirement for life. He'll never need to work again for the rest of his life. What this guy has is a life with no hope and he's content with that. And the tax payers will pick up the tab. So why should this guy not laugh? Who are the real fools?
I've pointed this out before and would respond in similar fashion. You appear to be convinced that any valid spiritual model must include some avenue by which a soul is "cleansed". But I submit his is an assumption that may not apply to whatever model is the true model (assuming it's not Christian). Correct, that is understood to be the fundamentalist Christian doctrine, though some Christians don't subscribe to the "all or nothing" version of things, Catholics being one significant example. The closest the Newton model comes to cleansing is via experience, somewhat karmatic, as you described, though not for purposes of punishment, but instead for edification. Under the Newton model, cleansing could be considered a form of full and complete enlightenment.
Yeah, they started both World Wars. Did the Belgians invade Germany? Did the French? No, the Germans invaded both. That's the bottom line. The Germans started the war in the West, they killed a lot of people, and they lost. They didn't like the result and took a second swing at it 20 years later, and lost again. They got what was coming to them. You are free to judge me. I judge you naive.
Sure, but there are nevertheless degrees of dirty. There's a little dirty and a lot dirty. Obviously a speeder is far less of a criminal than a mass murderer.
I know morality as well as anyone. I also know that philosophy triumphs easily over evils past and evils future, but that present evils, staring you in the face, triumph over philosophy every time. Ideals are what we try to hold ourselves to, but faced with the enemy breaking down our door, we do what we must.
You mean he didn't commit Murder One. But he stood convicted of: Felony murder, burglary and theft. And who knows what skeletons are in this thug's past closet? OR future? This was a pack of armed animals preying upon the weak. NO sympathy from me. The kid was part of an ARMED swarm of thugs who respect no law or person. He and the group shot at cops. That's attempted murder. Now in their rash of B&E, would they are have shot at the homeowners as well? YOU BET. I had the same thoughts as A Pole. What's the difference between 25 & 95 years? How long a time did you consider 25 years to be when you were 18? When you are that young, 25 years, even 12, is an eternity. Everyone's entitle to their opinion. But there is a HUGE difference in the sentence. How long a time would *I have considered 25 years when I was 18? Well, considering I wouldn't have been so stupid and criminal-minded as to give a middle-finger to the law REGARDLESS OF RAMIFICATIONS, I *can't* relate. IF I could relate, I'm sure that his attorney would have reminded the punk that a 25 year sentence isn't actually 25 years for a conviction that wasn't Murder One; It might have been closer to 6-10 for good behavior. Now we'll never know. NOT that I give a rip. And what life would a convicted felon get after being released at 30 years? Whether deserving or not aside, homelessness and unemployment are near certainties. So he doubled down in his legal defense. Not guilty, or failing that early retirement for life. He'll never need to work again for the rest of his life. If being an armed thug who was prepared to shoot whomever in the way -- the way these punks roll -- getting prosecuted BY THE LAW is HIS problem. Hey -- this wasn't a Kangaroo Court, was it?? But that's the impression and lens A Pole peers through. What this guy has is a life with no hope and he's content with that. And the tax payers will pick up the tab. So why should this guy not laugh? Who are the real fools? Again, we have laws for good reason. The punk ignored it and thought he was special. Yes, it's a waste of life. But remember -- he was fully prepared to murder a cop(s) or homeowners. Frankly, only a sociopaths laughs at his sentencing. The possible good news? Perhaps the thug's prison experience changes his heart, he becomes wise and asks for penance. Maybe he gets parole after 25-30 years. Look -- everyone dies in the flesh. Not everybody defies the law. We don't always have a chance at redemption and salvation, but he does.
Yup. "Scared to death" of nothing. Still isn't -- his reaction at sentencing proved he was just one more budding sociopath. He like his brethren feel "entitled" NOT to get caught. And besides..."slavery" and "capitalism" and..."WHITE PRIVILEGE". Every Dem liberal-Leftist SJW who's ever uttered and parroted that last phrase to others could be considered an accessory to murder.
That crime has been on the books for a looong time. For good reason. As already explained, perp was part of a wolf-pack of B&E thugs, armed and ready to murder whomever was in the way. Including the same cops who lay it on the line protecting *us* as they have a wife and kids at home.
But in the end, the truth is that society is violent, and the people who are not are angry and sick of it, and they don't really care if they crush out the lives of criminals. Brutal laws are intended to be a deterrent to animal behavior. Yes, society, aka man is violent; but SOME men in SOME societies or tribes respect the law and rights of others. Otherwise there is anarchy and outlaw societies that never evolve. Those who ARE sick of being prey to animals have no other choice than to defend themselves and their family. No one who is fighting for his/her life isn't trying to "nick" someone like in the movies. Brutal judicial punishments are the sign of a society that has run out of patience. It may not be just in a cosmic sense, but it is satisfying revenge for people under a lot of pressure from violent crime. This isn't so much brutal as "just" punishment. If he were being executed in this case, it might be considered "brutal." Capital Punishment for certain crimes aren't brutal either; They are laws intended to protect society and exact punishment. I really don't like violence done to the innocent either. And my patience is no more limitless than anybody else. When I get angry enough, I will set my morality on the shelf and resort to force, just like anybody else. Yes. Your anger would be justified in certain cases. Many times THE innocent are THE victims whereas the perps garner undeserved sympathy, light sentencing or non-prosecution. In cases of child rape, sexual abuse, and slavery we will STILL find many people sympathetic to the perps. But this is what happens in an upside down society (mostly of non-Judeo-Christian "values" who deems morality as "relative."
EXACTLY. But within an upside-down culture of moral relativism, culture that actually instructs its young to wage war against Judeo-Christian values, and SAME culture that lionizes rebellion and hate AND victimhood OF perps, THIS is what we must deal with from today till The End Days.
Sure, but there are nevertheless degrees of dirty. There's a little dirty and a lot dirty. Obviously a speeder is far less of a criminal than a mass murderer. Yes Vic, your points are understood and valid. My bad. I should have explained my post more thoroughly. My point was intended in the context of Eternal Judgment before The Almighty and NOT in the context of earthy offenses. In your context, I agree -- there are certainly "degrees" of "dirty" and immorality and "sin".
There's some we've obviously got to get into here as well as at Post #6. I won't address our respective position here and now because it deserves more thought and consideration.
Any criminal scumbag, found guilty by a jury of their peers, AFTER a rejected plea deal, should be sentenced at least twice as long as the plea offer. Waste the courts time and tax payers money with trial... then F. U. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Why? Why not ten X or half X?
Waste the courts time and tax payers money with trial... then F. U. I'd much prefer to do away with plea deals entirely. Make the state prove every case. If the state & courts can't keep up, then either give it more funding or cut back on the number of laws society is burdened with. In the case of the USA, preferably the latter, given the US has he highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.
The Felony murder is what I take issue with. In my view, that charge should not have stuck. His pal got himself killed. Unless this guy persuaded his pal to go charging an armed cop with a gun with the idea he'd get blown away, he's not responsible for his death. For burglary & theft, yes, hit him with that. But not felony murder. This is not about sympathy. This is about justice. If the judicial system was about sympathy or lack thereof, then just do away with them and replace them with lynch mobs to spare or not spare those accused.
I know morality as well as anyone. I also know that philosophy triumphs easily over evils past and evils future, but that present evils, staring you in the face, triumph over philosophy every time. Ideals are what we try to hold ourselves to, but faced with the enemy breaking down our door, we do what we must. You missed my point entirely, I think, but it seems we've had such communication issues before. But suffice to say that no, I'm not naive at all. And whatever your sense of morality is, it's clearly not a brand that makes any sense to me at all. If it is indeed representative of Christian morality, then it assures me all the more that Newton's model yields a far superior morality than Christianity does, and that in subscribing to it over Christianity, I've done the correct thing. Best to you V.... And I mean that sincerely.
It’s quite simple, fukeroo. Taking a plea or losing in a costly trial equal the same shit...GUILTY. Waste tax money with your free attorney, the cost of the DA, police, and the time and expense of a jury... AFTER you’re found GUILTY, then hang um. The only thing worse than a scumbag CONVICTED criminal shitbird... is a scumbag CONVICTED criminal shitbird that WASTES MY TAX MONEY. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Then again -- why would you "laugh too"?? The guy is only 18 years old. If you're an old man your laugh *might* make a lick of sense. He was much younger when he committed this mass murder. Of course you conveniently overlooked this minor detail. BTW, while he looks like a pathetic little punk to me, you seem more like being possessed - by the demon of cruelty and pharisaic justice.
Taking a plea means bribing or threatening the accused to help the conviction. Very barbaric, and many innocent people get "punished" that way.
I'll agree with you that the criminal has the wrong name, so on that point the breed sow is guilty. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Lots of words you posted become meaningless when it boils down to this. Mounting a defense of innocence due to disadvantages doesn't work now and never did before. We can blame the Lyndon Bird's Great Society, but it's the stupid ones who are again deemed guilty because morality shouldn't have been shut down due to early retirement on 'entitlements'. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Oh, for the good old days before Lyndon Bird's Great Society where boys had fathers and mothers. No matter what anyone says,it makes a difference. I really don't agree with this sentence or these laws,though. Sentence him for what he did,and give him the max if you need to,but don't sentence him or anyone else for something someone else did,merely because they happened to be with them. I remember at least one case where a get away driver that wasn't even inside the building where the murder too place got the death penalty,while the guy that did the actual shooting was allowed to cop a plea to a lesser offense. No matter who you are,there is no way that can be justified. Not that there would be any actual difference in the lifespan outcome for this goober. He obviously has the IQ of a turnip,and any way you look at it was destined to spend most of his life in prison anyway. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No,they did it,and the excuse for why they did it,is to discourage people from being accessories to violent crimes. Or at least that is the excuse they give. Some may even be stupid enough to believe it,never once considering the FACT that if people really thought they were going to get caught and go to prison they wouldn't be criminals. *I* believe the direct opposite. I believe that it would be easier to get accomplices to confess and testify against murderers if they knew they weren't going to be charged and tried for murder themselves. And let's face it,not all crimes are equal. Two guys getting into a bar fight and one of them dies as a result is NOT the same as murder while committing another felony,murder for hire,rape,child molesting,etc,etc,etc. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well,hell! Why not charge his mother and the usual pool of suspect fathers for giving birth to him,as well as all his relatives and the relatives of the other guys with him for not drowning them at birth? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
"MAY come"??? It is an absolute certainty. Just wait until the left gets their way and runs the New World Government,and see. Not to mention things like mandatory sterilizations for the feeble-minded,petty criminals,troublemakers,and anybody else that pisses off the masters, In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Ok,consider yourself corrected. I can not remember ONE single case where this happened. What USUALLY happens is 1 or more take plea agreements for lesser crimes in exchange for their testimony against the actual murderer/murderers. Even that is unjust because they usually plea to second degree murder or manslaughter (if they are lucky) in order to avoid life in prison or the death penalty,even though they had nothing to do with the actual murder. The cops and courts could have the same results,and probably more of them,if they were to max charge the accomplices with the felonies they actually committed,and then offer to back off a notch or two on the charges filed if they agree to testify against the ones who committed the murders or other violent acts. It has to be hard to plead guilty to first degree murder and accept a life sentence if you didn't murder anyone. Especially if you are stupid enough to believe you won't get convicted merely because you are innocent of those charges. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No,it was wrong in EVERY sense. In FACT,the people that planned and ordered that raid are as guilty of war crimes as any of the Nazi's. IIRC,the only military installation in Dresden were a veterans hospital and a few AA guns implaced to protect the hospital. If they had wanted to send a message,they could have bombed a city with a large military and political presence. But who really gives a shit? I do. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
His mama and the usual male baby daddy suspects should get charged for that. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The American Negroes are truly a ruined species thanks to Uncle Whiskers in the form of Lyndon Bird and his Great Society. All the currently living generations and future generations can do is to continue sweeping up the human debris that litter the streets of America's once-great cities.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Your compassion for your fellow man is astounding.
The law is the law and regardless of what many think is fair this particular lout should have picked better buds. He didn't and his life was ruined from date of conception. As long as we have negro men impregnating many women to whom they're not married we'll have this sort of worthless trash doing the crime and then doing the time at our expense. The result of all this impregnation is very low IQs and lives screwed up to the extent that they, in turn, ruin the lives through murder and rape of other innocents who are trying to lead a good and honorable life. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
I know you are a leftie idiot,but since you are a FOREIGN leftie idiot I will cut you a little slack on that brain fart. It's not your fault because you don't know any better. His skin color had nothing to do with it. In FACT,in a lot of cases it helps get black criminals off because black juries won't convict if they think something smells about the charges. It's called "jury nullification",and is SUPPOSED to be maybe the most important authority an American jury has,but the truth is there is nothing that pisses off judges more than taking their authority away. I wish whites and everybody else would do the same. If a case stinks,it stinks,and anybody that doesn't think the police and the courts are capable of railroading someone just because they don't like them,they are so foolish they shouldn't be allowed to cross the streets by themselves. After all,WHAT could be a more brilliant illustrated truth than a jury coming back from deliberations and telling a judge they find the defendant/defendants not guilty due to overcharging or bias on the part of the police or the courts? That is something a FREE people have the power to do,and that is why judges and lawyers hate it so much. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Comments (45 - 112) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHe was there. He was a party to the crime.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
The day may come when we simply execute all violent criminals on the first offense. I'm not sure that's unjust either. Ungodly? Probably. But the criminals are not godly,
It's sort of like Dresden. Was it RIGHT, in a cosmic sense, to firebomb it? Probably not. But who really gives a shit? The Allies who did it were full of rage. The Germans who received the punch were eminently deserving of it. All of the individuals who died? No, of course not. But ultimately, so what? It's too bad, but the Germans broke the peace and got what's coming to them. They started it by bombing London and burning up a lot of British children, and given that, who REALLY cares that, in the end, the German children were burnt alive by the enranged English and Americans?
Well, the Germans do. But who cares what those fuckers think? They started it. They suffered. Good.
#7. To: IbJensen (#0)
#8. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#6)
You say we are men. No, I don't believe that. We are souls. Immortal souls. Our human side is only a minority of what we are, and our morality answers to our greater soulful nature, not our human nature. And your sentiment, in my view, comes from your lessor human side, not the far greater part of you that is immortal.
#9. To: IbJensen (#0)
(Edited)
Smith smiled and laughed through the sentencing
#10. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#6)
Our human side is only a minority of what we are, and our morality answers to our greater soulful nature, not our human nature.
#11. To: A Pole (#9)
I know why he was laughing. 25 or 95 years what is the difference. I would laugh too. At least he did not give them satisfaction of asserting his "guilt".
#12. To: Liberator, A Pole (#11)
I know why he was laughing. 25 or 95 years what is the difference. I would laugh too. At least he did not give them satisfaction of asserting his "guilt".
Perhaps. (You give two possible theories.) Not that they are necessarily the case. Unless you are able to get into the head of a deranged, demon-obsessed murderer.
#13. To: Liberator (#10)
The inevitable question that has been discussed is the method and source of and for "cleansing" the soul in the Hereafter. AND by what "Authority" or standard it is cleansed (if at all.)
By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
#14. To: Pinguinite (#6)
(Edited)
Did they start it?
#15. To: Liberator (#10)
By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
#16. To: Pinguinite (#6)
I mean this with complete respect, but as I see it, you have far more to learn about morality than you know.
#17. To: Pinguinite, A Pole, Vicomte13, GrandIsland (#12)
He's not a murderer. He was merely an accomplice convicted of the death of his pal that got himself killed.
#18. To: misterwhite (#1)
#19. To: Pinguinite (#2)
I don't think it's right to charge accomplices with murder when their accomplices get killed. That is just too far a stretch. People should be charged with criminal wrongdoing for things they do, not things others do.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
These laws are quite brutal.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
(Edited)
Everybody knows that you don't commit armed robbery. And if you DON'T know that, you probably need to be in a cage, because armed robbery engages us. Is it a waste of a life? Sure. But it's not MY life, and I won't think about this guy again after a few minutes.
#22. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#15)
By "Christian" standards, this is an "ALL OR NOTHING" proposition. A speck of dirt (or past immorality) is STILL "dirt".
#23. To: Pinguinite (#13)
#24. To: IbJensen (#0)
#25. To: GrandIsland (#24)
Any criminal scumbag, found guilty by a jury of their peers, AFTER a rejected plea deal, should be sentenced at least twice as long as the plea offer.
#26. To: GrandIsland (#24)
Any criminal scumbag, found guilty by a jury of their peers, AFTER a rejected plea deal, should be sentenced at least twice as long as the plea offer.
#27. To: Liberator (#17)
You mean he didn't commit Murder One. But he stood convicted of: Felony murder, burglary and theft. And who knows what skeletons are in this thug's past closet? OR future? This was a pack of armed animals preying upon the weak.
NO sympathy from me.
#28. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#16)
#29. To: buckeroo (#25)
#30. To: Liberator (#11)
Unless you are able to get into the head of a deranged, demon-obsessed murderer.
#31. To: GrandIsland (#29)
It’s quite simple, fukeroo. Taking a plea or losing
#32. To: A Pole (#9)
Look he has wrong name and wrong color of the skin and no money for a good lawyer, so what he has to lose.
#33. To: Pinguinite (#5)
I'm not saying the kid is innocent of any wrong doing. Clearly as an accomplice to a crime he is guilty.
#34. To: IbJensen (#0)
(Edited)
Ha, ha, ha!
#35. To: Pinguinite (#2)
As is in these cases, this sounds like the state created this statute just because their prosecutors haven't been able to get people convicted or punished as much as politically desired.
#36. To: IbJensen (#3)
He was there. He was a party to the crime.
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
The day may come when we simply execute all violent criminals on the first offense.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#5)
But even in those cases, they typically will only prosecute the killer directly for murder and not his accomplice (correct me if I'm wrong)
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
It's sort of like Dresden. Was it RIGHT, in a cosmic sense, to firebomb it? Probably not.
#40. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
At least he didn't get another 5 for the stupid name.
#41. To: sneakypete (#36)
#42. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Waste tax money with your free attorney, the cost of the DA, police, and the time and expense of a jury... AFTER you’re found GUILTY, then hang um.
#43. To: sneakypete (#34)
#44. To: A Pole (#9)
Look he has wrong name and wrong color of the skin and no money for a good lawyer, so what he has to lose.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]