Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

I don’t have a problem with that. I understand the felony murder statute and accomplice liability and this conviction bothers me not at all. If you are committing an armed robbery with your buddy and you are the lookout, you should be convicted of armed robbery too because you were acting in furtherance of that crime even if you didn’t actually put the gun to the victim or take his things. See how that works?

Felony murder isn't the same as accomplice liability. If I help you commit robbery, I'm guilty of robbery. If I help you commit robbery, but don't carry a gun or shoot anyone, how am I guilty of a murder that you -- or the police -- commit? People genuinely do not understand the felony murder rule, or how it's been abused and misused.

+1 conspiracy charges and accomplice charges are still available. Felony murder is plain unjust.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a person who considers myself to be a Democrat, I'm speechless. I feel like my party has lost all common sense and any notion of integrity, accountability and morality. What is wrong with these people?

I had the same epiphany about 16 years ago. I did not like GWB at all but noticed during those 8 years the Democrat alternatives were worse.

"I believe that she referred to a 'Democrat solution.' I heard another member talk about a 'Democrat member.' I just wanted to educate our distinguished colleagues that 'Democrat' is the noun. When you use it as an adjective you say the 'Democratic member.' Or the 'Democratic solution.' As if every time we mentioned the other party, it just came out with a kind of political speech impediment, like 'Oh, the Banana Republican Party' … 'the Banana Republican member' … 'the Banana Republican plan' … 'the Banana Republican conference.'"

When they can’t win an argument, they go grammar-nazi.

Anonymous wrote:Imagine the scene:

22 year old: I killed my parents. Please have mercy on me, I'm an orphan

As an orphan, the felon isn't going to have a support system while in jail. Therefore jail isn't the appropriate place for him or her. Releasing them into society is the only alternative. It's just simple logic. You don't want to create a hardened felon.

Imagine the scene:

22 year old: I killed my parents. Please have mercy on me, I'm an orphan

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a person who considers myself to be a Democrat, I'm speechless. I feel like my party has lost all common sense and any notion of integrity, accountability and morality. What is wrong with these people?

I had the same epiphany about 16 years ago. I did not like GWB at all but noticed during those 8 years the Democrat alternatives were worse.

"I believe that she referred to a 'Democrat solution.' I heard another member talk about a 'Democrat member.' I just wanted to educate our distinguished colleagues that 'Democrat' is the noun. When you use it as an adjective you say the 'Democratic member.' Or the 'Democratic solution.' As if every time we mentioned the other party, it just came out with a kind of political speech impediment, like 'Oh, the Banana Republican Party' … 'the Banana Republican member' … 'the Banana Republican plan' … 'the Banana Republican conference.'"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

I don’t have a problem with that. I understand the felony murder statute and accomplice liability and this conviction bothers me not at all. If you are committing an armed robbery with your buddy and you are the lookout, you should be convicted of armed robbery too because you were acting in furtherance of that crime even if you didn’t actually put the gun to the victim or take his things. See how that works?

Felony murder isn't the same as accomplice liability. If I help you commit robbery, I'm guilty of robbery. If I help you commit robbery, but don't carry a gun or shoot anyone, how am I guilty of a murder that you -- or the police -- commit? People genuinely do not understand the felony murder rule, or how it's been abused and misused.

I’m a former prosecutor, I know that they are 2 different things. Under accomplice liability theories you also can be convicted for a murder when you didn’t pull the trigger, which you seem to have an issue with. I do not have a problem with holding other participants in an offense culpable for what results. If you are knowingly participating in an armed robbery/carjacking/burglary and someone gets shot and killed in the course of that event, I have no problem with someone being convicted of felony murder. You know a shooting is a possibility when you are committing an offense while armed and you chose to participate anyway, so you should have to deal with the consequences. Should their sentence be less than the person that was the gunman, I think that argument is appropriate, but they should not be absolved of all responsibility for their participation in the event.

Anonymous wrote:Well this is asinine. I'm a democrat, but I'd favor *lowering* the felony murder charge to 12, to be tried as an adult. If you don't know and understand that murder is wrong by the time you're 12--or hell, even 7, then you cannot be helped. It has nothing to do with when brains fully mature -- even children understand that killing a human being is wrong.

I agree with you, but we may be misunderstanding the terms here. Because it would be outrageous if you get to walk away age 25 and under. Many of the most heinous violent crimes have been committed by those in that age group.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the left so focused on making criminals' lives easier?

Because at 25, these felons will realize the error of their ways and quickly become contributing members of society. You know, working 8 hours a day at a minimum wage job. We aren't going to charge them, but there isn't any rehabilitation either. Democrats always do the easy part first and then ignore the rest. Then are surprised that it didn't work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

I don’t have a problem with that. I understand the felony murder statute and accomplice liability and this conviction bothers me not at all. If you are committing an armed robbery with your buddy and you are the lookout, you should be convicted of armed robbery too because you were acting in furtherance of that crime even if you didn’t actually put the gun to the victim or take his things. See how that works?

Felony murder isn't the same as accomplice liability. If I help you commit robbery, I'm guilty of robbery. If I help you commit robbery, but don't carry a gun or shoot anyone, how am I guilty of a murder that you -- or the police -- commit? People genuinely do not understand the felony murder rule, or how it's been abused and misused.

Anonymous wrote:As a person who considers myself to be a Democrat, I'm speechless. I feel like my party has lost all common sense and any notion of integrity, accountability and morality. What is wrong with these people?

I had the same epiphany about 16 years ago. I did not like GWB at all but noticed during those 8 years the Democrat alternatives were worse.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the left so focused on making criminals' lives easier?

Anyone? DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

But they did “commit” it. It was a foreseeable outcome of a course of conduct they voluntarily chose to engage in. Their actions had a direct causal connection to it.

No, they didn't commit it.

If you loan your car to me, and I crash it and kill someone, did you commit murder? Car crashes are a foreseeable outcome of driving, and your action had a direct causal connection to the death.

Are you just being purposely obtuse, because this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Why is the left so focused on making criminals' lives easier?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

But they did “commit” it. It was a foreseeable outcome of a course of conduct they voluntarily chose to engage in. Their actions had a direct causal connection to it.

No, they didn't commit it.

If you loan your car to me, and I crash it and kill someone, did you commit murder? Car crashes are a foreseeable outcome of driving, and your action had a direct causal connection to the death.

They aren't charging people with felony murder for the scenario you outlined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

But they did “commit” it. It was a foreseeable outcome of a course of conduct they voluntarily chose to engage in. Their actions had a direct causal connection to it.

No, they didn't commit it.

If you loan your car to me, and I crash it and kill someone, did you commit murder? Car crashes are a foreseeable outcome of driving, and your action had a direct causal connection to the death.