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:

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?

What is your suggestion? Let them go free?

Not immediately. They should serve some period of time in a confined setting, partly for punishment but more importantly for intensive counseling, education, and other efforts to try to give them a fighting chance to salvage something of their lives.

And you realize that since they are being charged as juveniles you have pretty much described the max they can get?

They (especially the 13 year old) could still get longer than I think would make sense, especially if they behaved and took part in programs in good faith while confined.

But even ignoring that, it is only because they are being charged as juveniles that an at least somewhat appropriate punishment will be meted out. In many places around the country, they, especially the 15-yr old, would be charged as adults and subject to much greater punishment, which would be a travesty.

Thankfully DC has the common sense and political will to treat kids as kids and focus on rehabilitation, not punishment.

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.

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.

They brought a weapon. How do you know that their only intent was to scare him? Neither of us know, but here's what we do know: they are being charged with felony murder charges because they brought a weapon, and a man died while they were committing a crime.

You say they didn't understand the ramifications of their actions, but they knew enough that if he died that they'd be in more serious trouble, per you. That tells me that they knew what they were doing.

Oh don't be ludicrous. The 'weapon' that killed him was the car which accelerated and he was thrown through the windshield. Maybe he took off his seatbelt to fight back or escape?

Either way the taser wasn't the murder weapon.

Still its absurd that this happened and I'm sorry this man died. Funny they can easily charge these girls with manslaughter for his death by vehicle on the same day but we're still waiting on murder charges from the riot on federal property 3 months ago.

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.

They do. There are programs galore. Summer programs. Snap benefits. Ebt. There are services. At some point, the soft bigotry of low expectations needs to end. Where is the accountability??? Fking stop killing people.

+10000

These girls had much, much more privilege that so many others. Likely WAY more privilege than the Pakistani delivery driver had growing up, or his family does at home. But I'd bet they never carjacked and killed a person just to get what they wanted for some moronic reason, being the entitled morons they were.

I don't feel sorry for these kids - so many people grow up with far worse, in far worse conditions, and never do an iota of the crime or harm to others.

+ 1 Well said.

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.

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.

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.

They brought a weapon. How do you know that their only intent was to scare him? Neither of us know, but here's what we do know: they are being charged with felony murder charges because they brought a weapon, and a man died while they were committing a crime.

You say they didn't understand the ramifications of their actions, but they knew enough that if he died that they'd be in more serious trouble, per you. That tells me that they knew what they were doing.

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:

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?

What is your suggestion? Let them go free?

Not immediately. They should serve some period of time in a confined setting, partly for punishment but more importantly for intensive counseling, education, and other efforts to try to give them a fighg chance to salvage something of their lives.

And you realize that since they are being charged as juveniles you have pretty much described the max they can get?

DP..they need to serve time and after that, they need to be under police watch and check ins until 25 years old. Mandatory schooling with good behavior and no skipping school.

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.

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.

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.

They do. There are programs galore. Summer programs. Snap benefits. Ebt. There are services. At some point, the soft bigotry of low expectations needs to end. Where is the accountability??? Fking stop killing people.

+10000

These girls had much, much more privilege that so many others. Likely WAY more privilege than the Pakistani delivery driver had growing up, or his family does at home. But I'd bet they never carjacked and killed a person just to get what they wanted for some moronic reason, being the entitled morons they were.

I don't feel sorry for these kids - so many people grow up with far worse, in far worse conditions, and never do an iota of the crime or harm to others.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Damn, what happened to shoplifting lipstick and underwear?

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.

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.