Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: There are so many kids growing up in poverty and harsh circumstances who are struggling and are deserving of help and who are not committing crimes.

Exactly! Not every child can be saved. Something SJW doesn't seem to understand is the tradeoff. Putting these two back on the streets impoverishes and harms all the struggling young poor black children and families who aren't violent criminals.

what the absurd Stanford poster doesn’t realize is that the black community does not support his/her position. Do you think the general reaction in Ward 7 or 8’s first thought is “go easy on those girls! they didn’t plan to kill anyone. it’s not their fault.” hardly! that poster is spouting a line he/she read on Twitter that is embraced by a small minority of black activists and the privileged white people who will are desperate to gain the title “ally.”

Anonymous wrote: There are so many kids growing up in poverty and harsh circumstances who are struggling and are deserving of help and who are not committing crimes.

Exactly! Not every child can be saved. Something SJW doesn't seem to understand is the tradeoff. Putting these two back on the streets impoverishes and harms all the struggling young poor black children and families who aren't violent criminals.

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.

+1

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.

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.

If you were at all familiar with DC law you would know that since they are charged as juveniles they aren’t going to be locked away forever.

That was my point. That's the fail-safe. So, even though they are at least charged with murder, under DC law they aren't subject to the draconian punishment of being locked away forever in their early teen years. In many other places that absurdly charge kids like these as adults, that protection wouldn't exist.

Your rationale is exactly what many older criminals are counting on as they use teens to burglarize, deal drugs, break into homes and businesses, mug and rob innocent people on the street or in parking lots/garages, and participate in other crimes. Tragically, innocent victims like Mr. Anwar pay the ultimate price, while you turn a blind eye and focus on those who committed the violent crimes. I'll add that I absolutely think our country should pour more money and resources from birth through kindergarten on children who have been determined to be at risk. Nonetheless, allowing teens to engage in criminal behavior with little to no regard for human life is irresponsible. There are so many kids growing up in poverty and harsh circumstances who are struggling and are deserving of help and who are not committing crimes.

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.

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.

If you were at all familiar with DC law you would know that since they are charged as juveniles they aren’t going to be locked away forever.

That was my point. That's the fail-safe. So, even though they are at least charged with murder, under DC law they aren't subject to the draconian punishment of being locked away forever in their early teen years. In many other places that absurdly charge kids like these as adults, that protection wouldn't exist.

This a disturbing mix of opinions. I hope you all realize that this poor man could have easily kicked those "little girl's" butts to the curb right? Did he? No. Because imagine what was going through his mind in that split second. Utter confusion and he didn't dare lay a hand on them or this would be a different circumstance.

They assaulted him with a weapon. Carjacking. Vehicle as a deadly weapon because he is DEAD.

I was a little white girl living in the projects, walking to and from school in a Catholic school uniform.. I was the minority. I'm sitting pretty now, but life wasn't easy. I'm sure it's not for these girls, but they must be held accountable and scared straight in whatever capacity the law dictates.

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.

The killed a man uring the commission of a robbery. What do you suggest as an appropriate punishment?

Anonymous wrote:https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-anwars-find-peace

Although it doesn't ease the pain, I'm glad his family can see how many people are touched by Mr. Anwar's tragic death and trying to help with their donations.

Another asian hate crime

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.

And what about the victim’s future, SJW dum dum?

As viewed by this atty and others with similar views, just SOL. He/She doesn't appear to care.

There have been at least 19 carjackings in DC this year involving at least one juvenile. In some cases, multiple juveniles have been involved so the number 19 is deceiving.

Maybe it's time to impose harsher penalties. If these kids think they will get away with a slap on the wrist, there is very little to deter these juveniles.

Why is the 15 yo who killed her 19 yo sister tried as an adult but these girls aren’t?

Anonymous wrote: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.

We’d take you more seriously if you spelled your alma mater correctly.

Anonymous wrote:So are we considering this an Anti Asian hate crime?

It certainly is that.