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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m sorry. They tazed him. He could have died of a heart attack! This was freaking weapon!![/quote]

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.[/quote]
Intent? What was the intent of carrying a taser around while intending to carjack?[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

What makes you think they intended to kill the guy?

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

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

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

:roll:  :roll:  :roll: [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics