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.

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.

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.

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.

oh, the car just accelerated and threw him out of it alone, and he’s at fault because he took off his seatbelt probably? you have serious problems.

Just pointing out the facts. The taser didn't kill him. It was a factor in losing control as was being thrown from a flipping vehicle with extreme velocity.

oh ffs. you’re totally absurd.

I think some of these folks think that it's not your fault if you kill someone while driving drunk because the intent to kill wasn't there.

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.

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:

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.

oh, the car just accelerated and threw him out of it alone, and he’s at fault because he took off his seatbelt probably? you have serious problems.

Just pointing out the facts. The taser didn't kill him. It was a factor in losing control as was being thrown from a flipping vehicle with extreme velocity.

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.

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.

oh, the car just accelerated and threw him out of it alone, and he’s at fault because he took off his seatbelt probably? you have serious problems.

Just pointing out the facts. The taser didn't kill him. It was a factor in losing control as was being thrown from a flipping vehicle with extreme velocity.

oh ffs. you’re totally absurd.

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.

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.

oh, the car just accelerated and threw him out of it alone, and he’s at fault because he took off his seatbelt probably? you have serious problems.

Just pointing out the facts. The taser didn't kill him. It was a factor in losing control as was being thrown from a flipping vehicle with extreme velocity.

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: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.

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?

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.

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.

oh, the car just accelerated and threw him out of it alone, and he’s at fault because he took off his seatbelt probably? you have serious problems.

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.