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.

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.

Standford, not Yale. And I know full well what mes rea is and have never argued that they can't be charged with murder, as this clearly fits the definition of felony murder.

I've argued that they shouldn't be and the law, especially as applied to youth, is wrong. Thankfully, even though they (at least) are initially charged with murder, DC law should prevent them from facing the sort of draconian penalties normally associated with murder. It would be better not to charge them this way in the first instance and hopefully it will be plead down, but having the fail-safe in place in case the murder charge sticks provides some comfort that they will at least have some chance to redeem themselves and won't be locked away forever for actions taken as kids.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I guess the murder of an immigrant husband, father and grandfather in his ward doesn't rise to the level of even a halfhearted "thoughts and prayers to his family" from Charles Allen.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Blaming inequity and a lack of opportunity for these girls’ behavior would have more teeth if 13 year old black women were carjacking and murdering strangers to go on joy rides in the much more segregated and unequal Washington DC of the 50s or 60s. They weren’t.

No one wants to point to the moral rot and decay that has happened to foster an environment where tragedies like this claim three lives, the victim’s and the girls’. Politicians don’t actually care about the moral, intellectual, and spiritual health of these children, they just either ignore them or use them as pawns.

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.

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 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: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 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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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.

How old are you (and the classmates) that stated the bolded? Kids for the past 20-25 years have not been allowed small failures which help teach them how to handle (or preferably avoid) large failures. I'm just curious if the idea is catching on because accountability is so foreign to your generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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.