Girls, 13 and 15, Charged With Murder After Armed Carjacking Near Nationals Park

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

When a bank robber uses a gun, the sentence is a lot tougher, even if he/she did not "intend" to use it. You brought a weapon to commit a crime. Sh1t happens. Someone dies. So, the penalty is tougher.

Which makes sense for adults who could more reasonably foresee what might occur. Kids shouldn't be held to that standard.

then their parents should be held liable. Where did they get the weapon?

I did not agree with the affluenza kid getting off so easily, and I don't agree that just because these are not rich girls that they should get off easily, either.

Do you really not see the difference between the two situations? Believing that these girls should be treated leniently does not mean one has to credit the affluenza defense.

I’m just curious... how does everyone jump to the conclusion that these are poor kids that the system failed? Where’s the evidence for this. Inquiring minds want to know just how they are the victims.

The killer girls are not victims, and there is zero indication that they were failed by the system. Hungry and stole something to eat? All the sympathy in the world. Steal a car through any means necessary including with violence... because it was cool? Seemed fun? To impress someone? These girls had FAR more privilege and opportunities than most immigrants, most people who had rough childhoods in 3rd world countries, without support, with plenty of trauma, but somehow managed to never do anything remotely like this.

13 & 15 year olds know better, unless you're determined and make a conscious choice to choose to be a criminal. This had nothing to do with survival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

And how do you know that? Do you know them personally? When my kid does something wrong, you know what they say to me? "But I didn't 'intend' to <do the thing that got me in trouble>... I just wanted to <insert something a bit more innocuous>". I don't let that excuse them. Do you let your kids off the hook that easily? No wonder we are producing a generation of troubled brats.

What makes you think they intended to kill the guy?

The way it happened suggested it wasn't intended. They didn't benefit from killing. In fact, they are in much more serious trouble because he died.

If you can provide even a circumstantial rationale to support the notion that they intended to kill him, I'd love to hear it.

Yup it's only intentional if you benefit from killing someone. Nobody ever intends to harm someone enough that it would kill them, I mean whyyyy would they do that? No one wants to get in trouble!!!!11

Well the eye roll emoji is a very cogent argument, especially three times.

Of course people intend to kill people. People can intentionally kill for money, love, jealousy, or any number of reasons. But that's not what happened here.

They intended to steal the car. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they intended to kill him -- both going into the event and even after he didn't give up the car easily.

They intended to steal a car through means of violently harming a person. Nice of you to leave that part out.

Please don't ever become a lawyer. You would be a parody of some moron lawyer character in the Simpsons.

Jokes on you. I am a lawyer. From an elite institution no less. The scariest part (at least from your perspective) is that many of my classmates share my views on the criminal justice system and these views are gaining more power in liberal cities such as DC.

I left that part out because it likely isn't true. There is every reason to believe they didn't want to steal the car through violently harming someone. They wanted to steal the car, most likely preferably without any violence. That this isn't how it played out doesn't change their intent going in.

Was I right to suggest you are at PDS?

No, if I said where I worked, you would lose your mind even more. But I'm not going to get into potentially identifiable details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

And how do you know that? Do you know them personally? When my kid does something wrong, you know what they say to me? "But I didn't 'intend' to <do the thing that got me in trouble>... I just wanted to <insert something a bit more innocuous>". I don't let that excuse them. Do you let your kids off the hook that easily? No wonder we are producing a generation of troubled brats.

What makes you think they intended to kill the guy?

The way it happened suggested it wasn't intended. They didn't benefit from killing. In fact, they are in much more serious trouble because he died.

If you can provide even a circumstantial rationale to support the notion that they intended to kill him, I'd love to hear it.

Yup it's only intentional if you benefit from killing someone. Nobody ever intends to harm someone enough that it would kill them, I mean whyyyy would they do that? No one wants to get in trouble!!!!11

Well the eye roll emoji is a very cogent argument, especially three times.

Of course people intend to kill people. People can intentionally kill for money, love, jealousy, or any number of reasons. But that's not what happened here.

They intended to steal the car. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they intended to kill him -- both going into the event and even after he didn't give up the car easily.

They intended to steal a car through means of violently harming a person. Nice of you to leave that part out.

Please don't ever become a lawyer. You would be a parody of some moron lawyer character in the Simpsons.

Jokes on you. I am a lawyer. From an elite institution no less. The scariest part (at least from your perspective) is that many of my classmates share my views on the criminal justice system and these views are gaining more power in liberal cities such as DC.

I left that part out because it likely isn't true. There is every reason to believe they didn't want to steal the car through violently harming someone. They wanted to steal the car, most likely preferably without any violence. That this isn't how it played out doesn't change their intent going in.

Was I right to suggest you are at PDS?

No, if I said where I worked, you would lose your mind even more. But I'm not going to get into potentially identifiable details.

Do you work for Karl Racine 😬

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this actually sticks and they don't end up back out on the loose in a week or so. Interesting that one is from MD and one from DC, wonder if the charges/punishments will be the same.

Monday afternoon - isn't there "school" - where are the parents/guardians?

The charges/punishments are dictated by the jurisdiction where the crime occurs, not the jurisdiction where the criminal resides.

Yes because if the 15 year old was from Maryland she otherwise would have been charged as an adult.

No, if the crime had occurred in Maryland, the charging decision might have been different. It doesn't matter where they live.

If this had happened in MoCo the 15 year old would absolutely have been charged as an adult with felony murder. Come on, it absolutely matters where the crime is committed. DC kids know not to do crazy shit in VA or MoCo because they would be going to prison as an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please people, just hand over your car and run away.

Exactly wrong. Worthless predators learn this quickly, and are incentivized to commit more crime. It's so easy!

Law abiding people minding their business should be able to use deadly force to defend themselves and their property against criminal predators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please people, just hand over your car and run away.

Poppycock.

“ If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim.”

This really is true, especially in this city and age, where coddling and excusing violent predators is all the rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a girl just stab another girl in the back around L'Enfant Plaza, too? I am increasingly worried about our city's children participating in violence.

Karl Racine and Charles Allen should maybe at some point be asked the tough questions about the rampant juvenile crime in the District.

They should focus on the rampant inequality that exists in the city/country and the rampant lack of opportunities for people in certain communities.

Found the problem /\

"It's society's fault! How can you punish these vulnerable citizens when it's evil capitalists | racists | men | fill-in-the-blank that's the REAL criminal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a girl just stab another girl in the back around L'Enfant Plaza, too? I am increasingly worried about our city's children participating in violence.

Karl Racine and Charles Allen should maybe at some point be asked the tough questions about the rampant juvenile crime in the District.

They should focus on the rampant inequality that exists in the city/country and the rampant lack of opportunities for people in certain communities.

DP. Can't they do both?

These kinds of responses to discussions about increased violent crime are getting really old. Lack of opportunity and inequality are issues that should be addressed, certainly, but they are not excuses for criminal behavior. There are plenty of people who face inequality and lack of opportunity but don't kill people while trying to steal their cars.

So basically you are paying lip service to inequality, but when rubber hits the road, you are going to ignore it and throw the book at two young teens who almost certainly haven't gotten a single break in life and will have any chance at a decent future disappear with a jail sentence that will only harden them further.

Fortune dealt them a bad hand, no doubt, not the least by putting them in the "care" of benighted, negligent parent(s). But they chose to start a crime that killed an innocent, hardworking person. Sorry: all my sympathy is for their victim and his loved ones. As far as I'm concerned, they are done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a girl just stab another girl in the back around L'Enfant Plaza, too? I am increasingly worried about our city's children participating in violence.

Karl Racine and Charles Allen should maybe at some point be asked the tough questions about the rampant juvenile crime in the District.

They should focus on the rampant inequality that exists in the city/country and the rampant lack of opportunities for people in certain communities.

DP. Can't they do both?

These kinds of responses to discussions about increased violent crime are getting really old. Lack of opportunity and inequality are issues that should be addressed, certainly, but they are not excuses for criminal behavior. There are plenty of people who face inequality and lack of opportunity but don't kill people while trying to steal their cars.

So basically you are paying lip service to inequality, but when rubber hits the road, you are going to ignore it and throw the book at two young teens who almost certainly haven't gotten a single break in life and will have any chance at a decent future disappear with a jail sentence that will only harden them further.

What is the age at which a person who grew up with crappy parents, failing schools, and systemic racism is responsible for their own actions? 15? 20? Never? If a person who has had no opportunities has children at 15 who then grow up with no opportunities and have children at 15 who have no opportunities, at what point in the chain does anyone have any real agency over their lives?

I understand the problem and I understand these kids have been failed by society, but what is the solution? Other than somehow removing toddlers from their parents to break the cycle (not happening, obviously) how do we actually change things? I would bet my 401K that neither of these girls are performing at grade level in school.

We could start but stop telling people they have no opportunity and will never get ahead because of "systemic racism" when opportunities are all around them, if only they'd take them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

When a bank robber uses a gun, the sentence is a lot tougher, even if he/she did not "intend" to use it. You brought a weapon to commit a crime. Sh1t happens. Someone dies. So, the penalty is tougher.

Which makes sense for adults who could more reasonably foresee what might occur. Kids shouldn't be held to that standard.

then their parents should be held liable. Where did they get the weapon?

I did not agree with the affluenza kid getting off so easily, and I don't agree that just because these are not rich girls that they should get off easily, either.

Do you really not see the difference between the two situations? Believing that these girls should be treated leniently does not mean one has to credit the affluenza defense.

I’m just curious... how does everyone jump to the conclusion that these are poor kids that the system failed? Where’s the evidence for this. Inquiring minds want to know just how they are the victims.

The killer girls are not victims, and there is zero indication that they were failed by the system. Hungry and stole something to eat? All the sympathy in the world. Steal a car through any means necessary including with violence... because it was cool? Seemed fun? To impress someone? These girls had FAR more privilege and opportunities than most immigrants, most people who had rough childhoods in 3rd world countries, without support, with plenty of trauma, but somehow managed to never do anything remotely like this.

13 & 15 year olds know better, unless you're determined and make a conscious choice to choose to be a criminal. This had nothing to do with survival.

It’s like calling the mass shooters mentally ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

And how do you know that? Do you know them personally? When my kid does something wrong, you know what they say to me? "But I didn't 'intend' to <do the thing that got me in trouble>... I just wanted to <insert something a bit more innocuous>". I don't let that excuse them. Do you let your kids off the hook that easily? No wonder we are producing a generation of troubled brats.

What makes you think they intended to kill the guy?

The way it happened suggested it wasn't intended. They didn't benefit from killing. In fact, they are in much more serious trouble because he died.

If you can provide even a circumstantial rationale to support the notion that they intended to kill him, I'd love to hear it.

Yup it's only intentional if you benefit from killing someone. Nobody ever intends to harm someone enough that it would kill them, I mean whyyyy would they do that? No one wants to get in trouble!!!!11

Well the eye roll emoji is a very cogent argument, especially three times.

Of course people intend to kill people. People can intentionally kill for money, love, jealousy, or any number of reasons. But that's not what happened here.

They intended to steal the car. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they intended to kill him -- both going into the event and even after he didn't give up the car easily.

They intended to steal a car through means of violently harming a person. Nice of you to leave that part out.

Please don't ever become a lawyer. You would be a parody of some moron lawyer character in the Simpsons.

Jokes on you. I am a lawyer. From an elite institution no less. The scariest part (at least from your perspective) is that many of my classmates share my views on the criminal justice system and these views are gaining more power in liberal cities such as DC.

I left that part out because it likely isn't true. There is every reason to believe they didn't want to steal the car through violently harming someone. They wanted to steal the car, most likely preferably without any violence. That this isn't how it played out doesn't change their intent going in.

Was I right to suggest you are at PDS?

No, if I said where I worked, you would lose your mind even more. But I'm not going to get into potentially identifiable details.

Do you work for Karl Racine 😬

Drunk drivers are not charged with murder they are charged with man slaughter due to intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't a girl just stab another girl in the back around L'Enfant Plaza, too? I am increasingly worried about our city's children participating in violence.

Karl Racine and Charles Allen should maybe at some point be asked the tough questions about the rampant juvenile crime in the District.

They should focus on the rampant inequality that exists in the city/country and the rampant lack of opportunities for people in certain communities.

DP. Can't they do both?

These kinds of responses to discussions about increased violent crime are getting really old. Lack of opportunity and inequality are issues that should be addressed, certainly, but they are not excuses for criminal behavior. There are plenty of people who face inequality and lack of opportunity but don't kill people while trying to steal their cars.

So basically you are paying lip service to inequality, but when rubber hits the road, you are going to ignore it and throw the book at two young teens who almost certainly haven't gotten a single break in life and will have any chance at a decent future disappear with a jail sentence that will only harden them further.

Unbelievable. And his family is supposed to just supposed to shrug their shoulders? I'm sick of non-violent law abiding citizens having to pay for someone else's upbringing with their lives. That goes for every race, religion and creed. I'm sick of it!! And to lose your live to a little peer-pressured pishika 13 year old FFS! You know what? Too bad. Her mistake should cost her her life . In jail. Or maybe her mom's life for raising a monster.,

Well, thankfully the DC Youth Act makes sure that bloodthirsty tendencies of people like you will not be enacted and we won't just toss away two young lives for a mistake that went far beyond what they intended.

Wait, so the people who killed an innocent man aren't "bloodthirsty" or didn't have "blood thirsty tendencies" but the people calling for justice have "bloodthirsty tendencies" according to you?

You are effed up. Completely effed up backwards.

Guess what, I had a sh!tty childhood without support. I was alone, with one parent dead and the other parent with mental illness. Guess how many people I killed? Also guess how many times I so much as stole anything from anyone as a teenager?

No, they weren't bloodthirsty. I've seen no evidence that they had any intent to hurt the driver. In contrast, someone saying a 13-year old's "mistake should cost her her life" absolutely is blood thirsty.

where is your concern for the victim's family? Remember them? How about his life and future and plans?

And will throwing the book at these poor girls in any way help the victim or his family?

Maybe not, but letting these "poor girls" -- smh -- off will certainly insult and offend his grieving family. Plus, locking away deadly criminals -- which is what at least one of these "poor girls" is by definition -- prevents them from stealing/killing again....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

“The lives of two young teens.”

You’ve gotta be kidding.

They should do life at the very least.

Jan and Marsha accidentally backing over Tiger in the driveway would be two young teens making a mistake. This is not that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

And how do you know that? Do you know them personally? When my kid does something wrong, you know what they say to me? "But I didn't 'intend' to <do the thing that got me in trouble>... I just wanted to <insert something a bit more innocuous>". I don't let that excuse them. Do you let your kids off the hook that easily? No wonder we are producing a generation of troubled brats.

What makes you think they intended to kill the guy?

The way it happened suggested it wasn't intended. They didn't benefit from killing. In fact, they are in much more serious trouble because he died.

If you can provide even a circumstantial rationale to support the notion that they intended to kill him, I'd love to hear it.

Yup it's only intentional if you benefit from killing someone. Nobody ever intends to harm someone enough that it would kill them, I mean whyyyy would they do that? No one wants to get in trouble!!!!11

Well the eye roll emoji is a very cogent argument, especially three times.

Of course people intend to kill people. People can intentionally kill for money, love, jealousy, or any number of reasons. But that's not what happened here.

They intended to steal the car. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they intended to kill him -- both going into the event and even after he didn't give up the car easily.

They intended to steal a car through means of violently harming a person. Nice of you to leave that part out.

Please don't ever become a lawyer. You would be a parody of some moron lawyer character in the Simpsons.

Jokes on you. I am a lawyer. From an elite institution no less. The scariest part (at least from your perspective) is that many of my classmates share my views on the criminal justice system and these views are gaining more power in liberal cities such as DC.

I left that part out because it likely isn't true. There is every reason to believe they didn't want to steal the car through violently harming someone. They wanted to steal the car, most likely preferably without any violence. That this isn't how it played out doesn't change their intent going in.

No, the joke's not on us. The really sad, cruel "joke" is that people like you give kids permission to think that they have an excuse for bad behavior, instead of aiming high, doing their best in school, and trying to stay out of trouble. The cruelest "joke" is that their lives get ruined by their criminal behavior. Furthermore, your way of thinking is insulting to the many people who grow up in extreme poverty but don't commit serious, violent crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!!

That would be very unlikely to occur and that wasn't remotely their intent. When we decide whether to toss away the lives of two young teens, we should look at what they intended to do much more than the end result.

Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?

The intent was to commit a carjacking. They had no intent to kill someone. They likely hoped to not even use the taser and the goal was to scare him into compliance.

And how do you know that? Do you know them personally? When my kid does something wrong, you know what they say to me? "But I didn't 'intend' to <do the thing that got me in trouble>... I just wanted to <insert something a bit more innocuous>". I don't let that excuse them. Do you let your kids off the hook that easily? No wonder we are producing a generation of troubled brats.

What makes you think they intended to kill the guy?

The way it happened suggested it wasn't intended. They didn't benefit from killing. In fact, they are in much more serious trouble because he died.

If you can provide even a circumstantial rationale to support the notion that they intended to kill him, I'd love to hear it.

Yup it's only intentional if you benefit from killing someone. Nobody ever intends to harm someone enough that it would kill them, I mean whyyyy would they do that? No one wants to get in trouble!!!!11

Well the eye roll emoji is a very cogent argument, especially three times.

Of course people intend to kill people. People can intentionally kill for money, love, jealousy, or any number of reasons. But that's not what happened here.

They intended to steal the car. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they intended to kill him -- both going into the event and even after he didn't give up the car easily.

They intended to steal a car through means of violently harming a person. Nice of you to leave that part out.

Please don't ever become a lawyer. You would be a parody of some moron lawyer character in the Simpsons.

Jokes on you. I am a lawyer. From an elite institution no less. The scariest part (at least from your perspective) is that many of my classmates share my views on the criminal justice system and these views are gaining more power in liberal cities such as DC.

I left that part out because it likely isn't true. There is every reason to believe they didn't want to steal the car through violently harming someone. They wanted to steal the car, most likely preferably without any violence. That this isn't how it played out doesn't change their intent going in.

omg. let me guess- you went to Yale and have no idea how the law actually works. you don’t seem to have a basic understanding of what mens rea actually is.