• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    445
    ·
    3 months ago

    One: 65 years, while long, is not “multiple life sentences.” Two: The 65 years was shortly thereafter reduced to 55 years, though I am not finding any details on why. That 55 years was 30 for felony murder and 25 for burglary and theft (???), consecutively. Three: Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon, so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. Four: A later court changed those to run concurrently, making it an effective 30 years. In this hearing, the victim’s own father made a statement that Smith did not deserve to be charged with his son’s death. Five: This screenshot is dated less than a week after the original sentencing.

    Other notes: There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal. The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder. I have to think it was a difficult argument for the defense to make, that Smith “did not intend to hurt anyone.” The prosecution surely had an easier time framing this in terms of “Smith was at least present when someone was murdered the day before [it may have been a short time, hours, since the earlier murder was “around midnight” and I don’t see what time of day the later burglary occurred]. He had to know that continuing to commit crimes with the same group of people could end with death, and still pressed on.”

    Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon,

      Unsurprisingly there’s no footage of this other person in that link. Not that that would justify putting an innocent person in a cage.

      There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal.

      Why would anyone take a plea deal for a murder that they didn’t commit? The real problem here is this scam of forcing people into plea deals by threatening them with insane punishments in a fundamentally unjust system. It’s gross when people act like refusing a “deal” is some kind of guilt. It’s mostly likely the opposite.

      The day before this burglary…

      That’s irrelevant to the cop murdering this kid.

      … Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man.

      Even if this were relevant, did this even happen? Your article is from 2016 says nothing about Lekeith being convicted.

      More generally it’s amazing how “normal” people are brainwashed enough to post this kind of copaganda word salad.

      There’s no “opinion” here. Teenagers shouldn’t be convicted for murders committed by cops. It’s that simple.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        3 months ago

        Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s my point. You did not present a “complete and accurate representation” at all. You just recycled copaganda, most of it misleading and irrelevant.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            … that article from 2016 says nothing about this Lekeith being prosecuted.

            Edit: Parent commenter has since edited their comment to read “convicted” instead of “prosecuted.”

            https://www.wsfa.com/story/31191858/third-teen-arrested-in-connection-to-2015-murder-of-wetumpka-man/

            MPD investigators say Jaderrian Hardy, 18, of Montgomery, is now charged with one count of capital murder in the death of Brandon Brown, 18, who was gunned down around midnight on Feb. 22, 2015.

            Hardy was served the warrant Tuesday at the Montgomery County Detention Facility where he was already being held on unrelated charges. He joins Jhavarske Jackson, 18, and Lakeith Smith, 16, who were charged with reckless murder in Brown’s death last year.

        • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          This is not a trial.

          And the wall of text dumped above doesn’t make it one, either.

          Police murdering someone and blaming others is the discussion. Save the rest for your L2 seminar discussion.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            3 months ago

            Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

      • Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s really important to know the details because it’s the details that allow us to parse and challenge injustice effectively.

        Knowing the context of Felony Murder and how it applies to this sentencing is not saying ‘this is fine then, no worries’. Rather, it means we can actually talk about the systematic issues in the legal system that enable things like this.

        The comment you replied to was in no way ‘word salad’ or ‘copaganda’, it was context.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon,

        … so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. That is the context here, which I made sure to include in the sentence you selectively edited.

      • hobovision@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        So let’s be clear here, he was charged with felony murder of his accomplice in a dangerous felony. Felony murder is the crime of killing of a person in the commission of a dangerous crime.

        It’s pretty debatable if it makes sense to charge someone for felony murder if they were an accomplice, but that’s a different discussion than the framing of “charged for a murder committed by cops”. The cops didn’t murder this guy, it seems pretty clear that the cops acted in self defense here. So it’s not like they transferred the “blame” as it were from murderous cops to an innocent kid.

        The reason felony murder exists is that even if there was no actual intent to kill, the risk of death during a dangerous crime is so high it becomes reckless. There’s a similar crime of depraved heart murder where the act that causes the death of someone is so dangerous that one could only do it if they had no concern of killing someone. You go into a felony knowing someone could get hurt or killed and do it anyway, so you are responsible for the consequences whether you “pulled the trigger” or not. A more common example would be if you and a buddy are robbing a bank and your buddy kills a teller or a cop, you get charged with felony murder.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        More generally it’s amazing how “normal” people are brainwashed enough to post this kind of copaganda word salad.

        Waiting to hear about the drugs they found in his system.

      • erin (she/her)
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        The parent comment doesn’t appear to be copaganda, or even have a stance one way or the other. The comment is context, which is important for discussing the issue at hand. Because of the context, we should not be discussing police brutality or excessive use of force in this case, we should be discussing the immorality of a justice system which allows someone to be charged with felony murder in the case of an accomplice.

        To clarify, if this group of teens broke into a home and shot the homeowner, that would be a justified charge of felony murder for all the accomplices. However, their friend chose to essentially commit suicide by cops, and the convicted was running away at the time. Again, the parent comment did not make any qualifiers on the actions of the cops or anyone else present, they posted context with which other commenters can frame their discussion. Nowhere in their other comments could I discern a pro-cop stance, reading with an objective eye. Reactionary pointing of fingers just discourages future posters from providing context.

        Before you accuse me of copaganda as well, ACAB, systemic racism is a huge problem in the US, and our justice system is rigged against the most vulnerable.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thanks for the context but a court shouldn’t be considering things they haven’t been convicted for unless it’s part of the matter before the court.

      Also it doesn’t matter if the police shooting was justified. Charging this guy with the police shooting is, and always has been, fucked up.

      65 years is 3 life sentences in the normal world. That’s not a normal sentence for burglary outside authoritarian countries.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

      is it possible to fit this level of nuance in a headline?

    • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Here’s another one:

      1 you shouldn’t be charged with a murder you didn’t commit.

      I feel like that one is super important here.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          Also seems to be a lack of understanding that just cause you didn’t pull the trigger doesn’t mean you didn’t help create the scenario where a trigger got pulled.

          I’m not sure I agree with all instances of felony murder (like when it’s an accomplice who dies), but the general notion is you participated in the events that lead to this person’s death.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think the problem is the sentencing can get out of hand.

            In this case 30 years is still more than most other countries would give, but its not outrageous like america usually is.

            • jacksilver@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Based on what I was reading, I think they may have thrown the book at all of them because this was the third incident (possibly murder?) this group was involved in that week.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yeah and it was appealed down as far as sentencing went. Wild story isnt it. Not what I would choose as an example of a miscarriage of justice.

          • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Lets say I along with a number of others bought drugs from a dude who used that money to buy more drugs to sell and some of those drugs killed someone.

            Is everyone that bought from them responsible?

            • jacksilver@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’ve got a break in events (going to buy more drugs). However, if you buy someone drugs and they die from them you can be found culpable!

    • heavy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Appreciate you being informative but 65 years is, in most cases due to multiple life sentences. It’s more to do with how many years before you’re eligible for parole, not the expectation of 100 years or something.

      I didn’t read into the situation and don’t have an opinion, but your first point is already misleading.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 months ago

        I didn’t read into the situation …

        I did. The sentences were 30 years for felony murder and 25 years for burglary and theft.

        Which I stated were initially set to be consecutive, and later changed to concurrent. So you didn’t even read the comment you replied to.

        • heavy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s still misleading to say “while 65 years is long, it’s not multiple life sentences.” That’s just flat-out not true.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            The sentences were 30 years and 25 years. As of right now, they are running concurrently. A “life sentence” is one where you are sentenced to prison for your natural life. A life sentence may be with or without the possibility of parole.

            Nobody in the history of language has been more wrong than you are.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I know the US is different than Canada, but up here a life sentence is 25y and then you can get parole.

              You might not get it then, but you can. There is no “without parole” legit life sentence.

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Different US states have different sentencing guidelines, but generally speaking, you can be sentenced to “life with the possibility of parole after n years” (where n is determined by the judge at sentencing), or “life without the possibility of parole.”

                Charles Manson, for example, was sentenced in California, and came up for parole about a zillion times. Was never granted parole, of course, but his parole hearings were a bit of a spectacle for a while.

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Charles Manson, you are hereby sentenced to life with parole

                  Sentencing form

                  [ ] person is actually eligible for parole

                  [X] were just fucking with them, never grant parole.

            • heavy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Uh OK. So now I did read into it, and still stand by my statement that you’re being generally misleading. That might not be the case here specifically, but you’re definitely trolling with your first “argument”.

              I didn’t know cops needed you to protect them when they sentence people to death. You a union member?

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                3 months ago

                I don’t know how you figure that sentences of finite numbers of years are life sentences unless you’re being willfully obtuse.

                You should also note that I have not made any arguments. I’ve only provided additional information beyond a screenshot of a very old tweet, which is publicly and easily available, and I have stayed as far from editorializing as possible.

                Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

                • enkers@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Not the person you’re arguing with, but just to be clear, in the US, life sentences are either determinate or indeterminate. The former are for the remainder of natural life. The latter typically have a fixed part (25/30 years, in this case) after which parole is possible for early release, but can extend up to the remainder of natural life.

                  So when we say “multiple life sentences” it doesn’t mean sentencing for the duration of a multiple of their remaining natural life, it means that there are multiple sentences that have the possibility of life imprisonment.

                  Edit: I see what you’re saying. In this case, these were both fixed sentences, not indeterminate life sentences.

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        I didn’t read into the situation and don’t have an opinion

        You literally gave your opinion directly before this statement.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder.

      Gee, it’s almost as if there were real crimes he could have been charged with, instead of the bullshit crime of his friend getting killed by the cops.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        His friend getting killed by the cops as a result of a crime sprea is grounds for Felony Murder charges. You can say it’s a dumb law but you cannot say the charges are bullshit.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, I can say the charges are bullshit because they’re bullshit. Felony murder in general is bullshit. Felony murder for a murder not committed by a member of the group is extra bullshit. Felony murder charges for a member of the group getting killed by the cops is ridiculous bullshit.

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is probably “felony murder”. The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of felony, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder for that person. This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.

    Classic example: you and a friend decide to hold up a bank. It goes sideways and a bank security guard shoots and kills your friend. You are guilty of murder because your friend died because you both decided to commit a felony.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is a stupid law being applied in the most ridiculous way, by being punished for the police’s actions.

      • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        3 months ago

        But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015,

        They fired at the police and one died as a result. They were all charged with murder.

        Seems the law is being applied correctly.

        As for the law itself I’m pretty torn on this. If someone dragged my kid along to a crime and they died as a result I’d have no problem with them getting charged for their murder.

        • Ezergill@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          ·
          3 months ago

          And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?

          • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s exactly why I’m torn. Be pretty hypocritical not to allow it to be applied the other way right?

            And it was 25 years anyway for the crime plus it seems there was a lot more going on in this case including a couple other murders.

            • qarbone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No, it’s not hypocritical because you’re missing (or ignoring) intent. Someone pressures your relative into doing a crime, reluctantly. Now the other criminal gets killed and your reluctant relative is on the hook for a murder they didn’t commit during a crime they didn’t really want to be a part of.

              That is in no way comparable to a mastermind gathering a bunch of stooges for a suicide mission and getting them to commit death by cop.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              No there wasn’t. That was a separate case that we don’t know the disposition of. That commenter brought them in but in any court that kind of argument is banned unless they were convicted or it’s part of the matter before the court.

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              3 months ago

              You are missing the point of the argument. Prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation anyway; except in extreme circumstances. This type of law and sentence only exists to feed the for-profit prison system.

              Most importantly! Why the fuck are common thieves being put in prison for life when the Boeing execs — whose premeditated fraud directly killed of hundreds of people — are chilling with the plutocracy on their 3rd yacht?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      Which, to be clear, is a fantastic way to charge people for the police hurting them. And not okay under most moral systems.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of feeling, and someone dies as a result a cop murders somebody, then you are guilty of the cop’s murder.

      FTFY

      This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter… in order for police to pin their murders on minorities despite all reason and case history.

      FTFY.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Your argument only holds up if the cop isn’t also tried for that murder. I’m not even an American citizen so I don’t know if that’s the case.

        Doesn’t matter if the cop would be tried though, as cops are already immune to the law in america. They don’t need to convict other people for that. I don’t think at all that the purpose of that law is to protect cops.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Your argument only holds up if the cop isn’t also tried for that murder.

          The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of officers accused of excessive force

          The two cases concerned police officers accused of using excessive force when responding to domestic disturbances. In one, officers used beanbag rounds and a knee on the suspect’s back to subdue him; in the second, officers shot and killed the suspect after he approached them while raising a hammer.

          Both decisions the court issued Monday were unsigned. No justices dissented.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        The thing that’s fucked is not the idea of chains of causation. Courts deal with that all the time.

        The fucked up part about felony murder in many states is that it bypasses mens rea or intent elements and jumps straight to murder 1 sentencing.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          No. You can see in this very case. Our guy robbed the place but he wasn’t the one who decided to charge the police with a gun. That was the proximate cause of the officer shooting and one person made that decision. If we’re going to go further back then where do we stop? His parents? His teachers? His community center sports coach? His friends who weren’t present? After all we’re talking about decisions leading to decisions now. What was the deep cause of the cop firing his weapon? Did his dad get fired, requiring the family to find money in other places? Do we charge the dad’s former boss in that case? After all in that theory case our guy wouldn’t have been at the robbery at all without that firing.

          Blaming anything or anyone not involved in the act is the height of rationalization for longer sentences brought by racists and executives in the prison industry.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            He wasn’t the one who charged the police but he took part in the crime that lead to that act, he could have stopped the crime from happening or not taken part in it, he chose to join in and that resulted in the death of his friend, he’s responsible for it by being an informed party, just like anyone who knew they were planning it and that didn’t denounce them before it happened.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Oh yes, so we should also arrest anyone who plausibly knew they would commit this crime and charge them with murder too. /s

              There was one person who made the decision to fire a gun and it wasn’t this guy.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why the fuck are we going to have different courts for children if we’re going to try 15 year olds as adults?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Trying kids as adults in juvenile court is the perfect mixture of draconian sentences and judges that are more likely to take bribes to err on the side of incarceration.

        It’s basically the kind of all you can enslave buffet that the prison industrial complex and the politicians they own used to only know in their fucked up dreams.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        teens aren’t children

        The Race Factor in Trying Juveniles as Adults

        In our own work, we find that race can have a sweeping effect even when people consider the same crime. Prompting people to think of a single black (rather than white) juvenile offender leads them to express greater support for sentencing all juveniles to life without parole when they have committed serious violent crimes. Thinking about a black juvenile offender also makes people imagine that juveniles are closer to adults in their blameworthiness. Remarkably, this was true for both people who were low in prejudice and those who were high in prejudice and for both liberals and conservatives.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          So that’s a separate issue, teens of all colors should be tried the same way, a teen committing a murder, no matter their skin color, should be tried as an adult.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            teens of all colors should be tried the same way

            But they aren’t, for the same reason people with different levels of intellectual and emotional competency aren’t tried in the same way.

            a teen committing a murder, no matter their skin color, should be tried as an adult

            An individual who fails to demonstrate the core competencies of an adult should not be tried as an adult, because this individual is not functioning as an adult.

            But the question we ask after that is… how does race influence the perception of competency? And the answer is that darker skinned people are presumed to be more mature and more intellectually competent than their lighter-skinned peers, without respect to their behaviors or history.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Ok but again that’s two separate issues (people of different color being treated differently during trial vs certain crimes where the perpetrator should be tried as an adult if they’re close enough to being one) and your point about demonstrating adult competencies opens the door to adults being tried as children because they can’t demonstrate adult competencies.

              People of all colors should be treated the same by the justice system, I totally agree, that means that if a black 16 y.o. was to be treated as an adult in a murder case then so should a white or asian or first nation, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be trialled as adults.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                people of different color being treated differently during trial vs certain crimes where the perpetrator should be tried as an adult if they’re close enough to being one

                The issue that unites them is the perception among prosecutors and judges of black people as exceptionally competent and mature.

                People of all colors should be treated the same

                The question that courts use to determine adulthood is not skin color but psychological maturity. The bias to that answer is caused by maturity being tied back to a perception of skin color.

                Simply announcing “All people of the same age should be treated the same” precludes us of the ability to test for psychological maturity. Ignoring senility, mental illness, heavy metal poisoning, and a host of other physiological and sociological factors when determining culpability does little more than to transform a suspect into a scapegoat.

                But then the whole engine of prosecution appears to be a means of displaying a muscular state apparatus rather than actually reducing incidences of harm. The purpose of legally “trying someone as an adult” is simply to remove tools from the defense and grant more power to the prosecution. It is designed to give the DA more leverage in extorting a plea bargain from the defendant.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    3 months ago

    And yet none of Ashlii Babbit’s co-conspirators were charged for her murder. Even the ones that brought a gun.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Gotta be committing felonies. Overthrowing the government isn’t a felony until the house, Senate, and president impeach them or something lol.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Context copypaste from tumblr:

    [iguanodonwildman]:

    “So I checked up on this case, and it turned out his sentence was reduced…

    to 55 years

    55 years for a unsuccessful burglary, theft, and the murder of a friend that was killed by police, when his only crime was breaking and entering when he was 15 years old.

    This is the most up to date article I can find on it: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years-idUSKBN243246. “

      • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s so transparent how much of a hard-on you’re getting with your justice rage. “I’m just presenting the facts”, yes, just like the unjust legal system we are all living under, you have confidently defined the “reasoning” behind the conviction. The debate and conversation around it, is for the citizens to discuss the absurd practices of the justice system, which you are just being a speakerbox for with no personal context. That’s already been done by the justice system so why regurgitate and post multiple links to your enlightenment.

        After the first comment I just scrolled by after reading, then you’ve plastered your masterlink of pleasure confirming the pleasure and how much you want others to view it. What’s your personal opinion on a 15 year old being charged in this manner? Does this 15 year old have the full faculty of an adult? Do you believe a 15 year old is an adult or just for this case? How do you feel about the murder charge? Yeah, you can hide behind the law, but I would rather hear what your actual opinion is especially after seeing a post you’ve done like “The less racist a country is, the harder it is to detect enemy spies. #showerthoughts

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        2 months ago

        They chose to commit a crime together, then they got into a shootout with police.

        The responsibility lies with the people who chose to commit the crime in the first place.

        Breaking and entering is stupid dangerous, they knew that. Thats why they had a gun.

        • Sway@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          2 months ago

          OK, this, much like the specific law involved in this situation, is ridiculously reductive.

          Did they break and enter? Yes. Did the friend, who was shot and killed, engage police with a weapon? Yes. Did the guy charged with murder force his friend into the situation that led to his death? NO! The kid who was killed decided to engage the cops with a weapon, while the kid who was charged ran into the woods.

          The law just seems like a poorly veiled means of piling additional charges on to criminals, no matter how petty the crime. I’d bet there are probably some more wild situations where the justice system managed to butterfly effect their way to linking some petty crime with something not at all associated with the crime itself.

          • jacksilver@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you’ve helped create a scenario where someone ended up murdered. I think it’s ridiculous that one of your accomplices can be that person though.

            The real issue with this case is that he is 15 (16?). Obviously he should have been treated as a juvenile (especially since it sounds like they were all kids).

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you’ve helped create a scenario where someone ended up

              Imagine we used that on white collar crimes.

              A lawyer helped register a company that later went on to commit fraud. Charge her because she helped create a scenario where someone committed fraud. Charge the IT manager because he hooked up the computers that were later used in the fraud.

              It seems pretty basic, but you should charge people for things they actually did. If multiple people planned a crime but only one person was caught executing the crime, you can charge them all with conspiracy. That makes sense. On the other hand, this seems to involve charging someone with a crime that wasn’t part of the plan. If it was a potential foreseeable consequence of the plan, there are crimes for that: reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.

              I just can’t imagine a real scenario where someone did something wrong, but there are no laws on the books that match the wrong thing they did. So, instead, you have to charge them with the crime someone else did instead.

              • jacksilver@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                I think RICO is a white collar equivalent to the concept of felony murder, although maybe not a 1-to-1.

                You get a harsher penalty by basically being involved/contributing in a large operation.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  They’re not really equivalent. With RICO if you’ve committed multiple times of crimes from a certain list, and those crimes are related to an “enterprise” you can be charged with racketeering.

                  You’re not being charged with crimes someone else did. You’re being charged with masterminding a bunch of crimes. RICO charges are used against people at the head of an organization. Felony Murder is used against people who have the bad luck to be part of a group when someone else in the group pulls the trigger.

                  RICO goes after the organization in organized crime. It fills in a gap in the laws that maybe wasn’t there already, because none of the other laws went after the planning and organizing of the crimes. Felony murder seems to just exist to pile additional charges on someone who had already committed crimes that were already on the books, and make that person additionally responsible for the actions of a different person.

            • Sway@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Felony murder would perhaps work if you were directly involved. For example, if the guy had been active in a shootout with the cops with his friend, or e en if he was then only one shooting at the cops and his friend was shot and killed, then yeah sure I get it. But here, the only common thread in the incident is the robbery, the surviving kid ran into the woods to escape while his friend actively engaged the cops. They weren’t acting together at that point. Otherwise, yeah I agree that there also should have been safe guards in place since he was a minor at the time as well.

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                If there’s a 2-man team of a spotter and a sniper, the sniper is pulling the trigger and the spotter is calling the shots, then sure, charge the spotter with murder too.

                In virtually every other case, there are already crimes for what the other person did. Use those existing crimes.

                This also makes me think of SWATting. Yeah, it’s awful to do that. But, 99% of the blame for a successful SWATting should fall on the cops. Someone makes a claim over the phone, and as a result you kick down a door and charge in, guns blazing? SWATting wouldn’t work if cops could go to prison for kicking in the door at a house where nothing was going on. If that were a risk, they’d stop and verify the facts before making a decision that could ruin their lives. The only reason it works is that cops are given immunity for just about everything, so there’s no real downside to shoot first and verify assumptions later.

                Charging the kid for his buddy getting killed by the cops is some kind of black mirror garbage that can only happen in a world where cops can face no responsibilities for their actions. If we lived in a world where cops could face responsibility for their actions, the cop could get charged with murder. Now, he’d easily beat that murder charge because he was acting in self-defense, as the guy he shot was shooting at him. How twisted is it that the person who actually fired the killing shot could claim self-defense, but the person who was running away at the time can’t make that claim because he wasn’t the one who actually fired the shot?

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You live in a fantasy land where distance apparently prevents consequences.

                  You know what, answer one question. What else besides run into the woods could that kid do, considering he had no weapon? Armed home invasion already is a 20 year felony, you don’t think if he had a gun too he wouldnt have engaged the police?

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            You are framing this incorrectly. They didnt make different decisions. They were committing crimes as a group. As a group, they had at least one gun. They were using this is backup in case they ran into a homeowner or police. The person with the gun did exactly what was expected of him by the rest of the group, while those without guns rightfully ran from gun fire and his from danger. If they had guns however its likely they would have been expected to assist.

            When people act as a group and every step of the way they keep moving forward instead of stopping, you have to at some point hold the whole group responsible. If this person had decided to sit this robbery out, then they would only have to deal with the other murder they committed the night before with the same group.

            Theres more to the story and the headline is about as misleading as can be, considering he didnt even end up with that much time.

            • okamiueru@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              If only this “committing crime as a group” could be applied to corporations, so we’d end up with the whole board in jail whenever there is wage theft, price collusion, environmental negligence, money laundering, etc, etc.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                If the board is involved in making illegal decisions or below standard decisions, they can be held accountable.

                It doesnt work out well in america because rich people defend themselves far better than average folk.

          • dubious@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            i don’t care how the law does it. if you break into people’s homes with weapons, i want you removed from society. i’ll advocate for a more humane society in which people don’t have to do that, but my first priority is making sure that armed home invaders aren’t allowed to exist in the same society as me.

            • Sway@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              What are you arguing? I 100% agree he deserves to be punished… for the actual crime he committed, which was robbery.

              • dubious@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                law will always be imperfect. i’m not advocating for anything other than removing violent criminals from society. i don’t care how it gets done, really.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            So you are saying none of them knew he had a gun or would use it, despite being part of violent crimes literally the day prior where someone was shot and killed.

            The group had a gun, not one person. They were a group robbing and hurting people, and part of the reason why they all felt so bold is because “we have a gun”.

            If you act as a group you will be punished as a group, its simple. It doesnt matter the division of labor, you can’t protect yourself legally that way.

            • Sway@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              That is an insane leap in logic. You can have a trial with multiple co-defendants that results in different punishments, or separate trials for each defendant with different outcomes.

              He should be punished for the crime he committed. His friend had a mind of his own, and agency over his own actions. No one forced him to engage the police.

              As I said before, the way this law is written is just an excuse to find ways to pile on more charges.

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                If the plan was “go into this house and kill the occupants” and the group executed that plan even though only one person pulled the trigger, that would be one thing.

                The plan was never “go into this house, wait for the cops to show up, get into a shootout with the cops, and get shot by the cops”. Or, if it was, the kid who was charged sure didn’t follow that plan because he ran away instead or getting into a shootout. There are a variety of possible crimes for someone who was part of a group: conspiracy to X, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.

                At a bare minimum, if someone in a group is charged with X, it should be necessary to prove that the group’s plan was to do X. In addition, it should be necessary to prove that the group did X. That seems like it should be the absolute minimum. In this case, what’s absurd is that the group didn’t even do X.

                In this case, the “murder” was the “murder” of one of the criminals, and the person who did the “murder” was the cop. It’s absolutely ridiculous that if the cop were charged with that murder (and somehow wasn’t just automatically immune) the cop could invoke their right to self-defense, and would almost certainly be acquitted. But, the person who was running away from the crime scene at the moment the murder happened can’t use the self-defense justification because he wasn’t the person who fired the shot.

        • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          Did he though, or his friends? The whole concept of manslaughter, and murder in the first and second degree is based on intent. Robbing a place is not as bad as murder, I’m sorry. That’s ridiculous.

          Guns can be used a deterrent. I mean, the US have nukes. Mutually assured destruction. There isn’t the intent to use it, just to have it to protect yourself. It’s weird they hold kids to a higher standard than their own foreign policy.

          Breaking and entering is stupid. It isn’t a plan to murder someone though.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Armed Home Invasion has very strict penalties for good reason. How could you not think they would expect if they behaved that way it was likely they would kill someone. They literally did it the night before.

            Are we really going to pretend the defendant was unaware of the crimes going on and that the group had a gun? He was just a scared kid right?

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            They were charged with both, although I don’t think thats worth what you think it is.

            Breaking and entering is one of the harshest charges, especially if its occupied at the time. The penalties are in the decades as well.

            Someone was going to get hurt from their actions whether it was the homeowner, police, or the thieves but it doesnt matter which gets hurt because every life is worth the same, criminal or not.

            Are people here arguing criminals should be free to commit crimes on each other because its victimless?

            Noone even knows what conditions led these kids to do these crimes. I can guarantee you it wasnt just for fun.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, if a crime you are committing results in a police death of a person then you are liable

    In the US at least, not Canada

    • Wren@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well of course he should be charged for burglary and theft. He did commit those crimes, but I don’t think he should be charged with murder. He didn’t shoot the gun, the cop did. I’m not necessarily saying the cop should be charged with murder though.

  • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    all-white jury

    Since he admits he was guilty under the terms of the law I don’t see how this is possibly relevant. Are we knowing he is guilty supposed to think they were biased for finding him guilty?

    LaKeith was non-violent

    Breaking into homes with a gun to shoot the home owner if things get dicey isn’t non-violent. Invading people’s home is inherently violent

    offered him a plea deal of “only” 25 years.

    Which would have seen him potentially out in 20 a man of 35

    LaKeith, being a child with a life ahead of him, declined the plea deal and exercised his constitutional right to a trial.

    It is absolutely his right but it was also fucking stupid.

    It is likely that if LaKeith had been tried as a juvenile and/or tried appropriately for the burglary, he would be free today.

    Are we assuming this is a good thing. He broke into a home with a gunman ready to murder the occupant. What sort of man is he now?

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Mugging people and invading their homes is an evil act when anyone does it. Systemic racism didn’t make those young men break into another man’s home with a gun. The young man in question pled innocent to a crime he did in fact commit. He got a jury and they put him away ultimately for about 30 years after it was adjusted to be concurrent instead of consecutive. Considering one fellow young person is dead and either a cop or a family might have been killed I don’t think he got a rough deal. Now that he is in prison he wont be victimizing his community.

        Look at all the other people of the same background living and working in their community who would never invade their neighbors home or fucking shoot them because not even desperate poverty makes them want to kill or rob their fellows.

        Your rant is embarrassing.

          • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m anti Putin, Trump, Nazis, and anti burglar. How hard is that? Just because you identify authority as your enemy doesn’t mean everyone on the other side is your ally. The cop abusing his authority in your community and the burglar breaking into your house may be on opposing sides but neither is on yours.

            The folks that break into your house with a gun aren’t victims. They don’t need sympathy. They don’t need lighter sentences so they can crime better next time when they get out. FUCK THOSE GUYS.

    • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      your lack of awareness of how plea deals and intimidation and dishonesty around them are actively weaponized against accused, with disproportionate impacts on minorities, is apparent. In addition, the all-white jury is always worth mentioning, and hand-waiving of its particular importance to the outcome is screening for white supremacy. It is off the bat not a jury of his peers, and that it turned up like that regardless of the outcome is criminal. It almost never is a proportionally-representative jury of one’s peers when it is a black person charged with a crime. And there is a long, and deliberately-racist legacy and history why that is.

      “ready to murder” is grotesque and malicious falsehood from the information provided. I didn’t see anything implying the people whose houses were broken into were caused any bodily harm nor that being the intent from the robbers least of all the 15 year old kid they threw the book at for his friend dying in a shootout. Most people who have weapons to rob are not intending to kill anyone, only intimidate for compliance, or be prepared if they are met with lethal force so they don’t end up dying themselves (while explicitly hoping that does not happen, because robbers/muggers are there to get money or jewels or electronics or whatever, not kill or die). If they intended to kill the people they robbed, which was a few houses broken into, those people robbed would be dead. Instead, the cops themselves got into a firefight with a friend of the 15 year old kid who they threw the book at, who himself didn’t shoot anyone and was cowering in a bush. There is a reason there are different crimes regarding armed robbery vs breaking and entering vs different homicide types and degrees, etc. Not that you seem to care much.

      “What sort of man is he now?” what kind of chauvinist colonialist celebratory rhetoric is that? Gross. You sound indistinguishable from MAGA people about stuff like this.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The fact of the jury being all white is irrelevant because the juries only role is to decide guilt and he is manifestly by his own and his own defenders words guilty of the crime the jury found him guilty of. HE SAID HE DID IT.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        have weapons to rob are not intending to kill anyone, only intimidate for compliance,

        The only people who act like this are garbage human beings. Being poor or discriminated against doesn’t make you break into your neighbors house with a gun to intimidate him into letting you take his property.

    • FrozenHandle@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is likely that if LaKeith had been tried as a juvenile and/or tried appropriately for the burglary, he would be free today.

      Are we assuming this is a good thing. He broke into a home with a gunman ready to murder the occupant. What sort of man is he now?

      This alone is absolutely insane to me. Where I am from, if you’re under 18 there is no option to be tried as an adult, even 20 year olds can be tried as an adolescent here.

  • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Headlines are always abysmal at impartially presenting facts.

    This happened in 2015. The now ~25 year old kid’s sentence has been reduced to “just” 30 years. https://aldailynews.com/advocates-back-effort-to-amend-alabamas-proximate-cause-murder-law-prosecutors-push-back/

    The kids were robbing houses, a neighbor called the cops, the kids bolted when the cops showed up. The cops shot them in the back despite there being no threat to anyone’s life… except those the cops shot at.

    How the murder charge isn’t just a case against the cop shooting unarmed teenagers who were committing a crime without any risk to life and limb is astounding.

    Kid and his buddies were definitely on the hook for the burglary, sure… but that’s certainly not decades of prison. It’s been ten years now, the kid should have been out of prison at least 9 years ago. Burglary just shouldn’t be a long term sentence for 15 year old children.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      In one article posted on this case, one of the teens charged an officer with a drawn gun per body cam footage. If that’s correct, then that teens life was forfeit the moment he pulled the weapon. It’s stupid to commit a burglary, it’s really stupid to do it with a gun, and it’s suicide if you pull it against a cop.

      • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah, here we go. The omitted devil from the details. Of course that will be left out when they talk about getting the kids off the hook.

        It is quite fucked up to be guilty by proxy for murder but that’s the law there. I think it should be changed but I have exactly this much influence in alabama’s house and senate:

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think we all agree on that. But the other 4 having the book thrown at them just for robbery is a bit… Fucked.

  • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    So you’re telling me they give the police incentive to shoot people, as a game, to send people to jail for even longer, because they think it’s fun and hilarious?

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Fash in alabama have been doing this racist bullshit for centuries. Bootlickers have been justifying it for just as long.