- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Just so we're clear, are your answers to these questions any different than Oscar's?
Was I the one saying that they can't be rehabilitated?
Just so we're clear, are your answers to these questions any different than Oscar's?
Michael Jones, 17, was reportedly charged with using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact of murder in the first degree. He reportedly said in court “I pulled the trigger” but the judge told him to remain silent. The boy cried and his bond was set at $1 million.
The three teens will be tried as adults, the Herald Sun reports.
Father of suspect James Edwards told KSWO-TV his son must be innocent because his son told him, “I didn’t have nothing to do with it.”
Obviously at least one of these boys had absolutely no parental supervision at all. He had guns and stacks of money in his home apparently. I would think most vigilant parents would be aware of this.
I'm also curious as to how some justify sentencing the other two "non-shooters" as adults. Anybody?
I also found it odd, considering that the claim is the three confessed to the crime, that in the article, it states this:
how do you justify charging the guy in a gang rape who only held the victim down with rape?
in this case, all three were there, all three knew the plan, the two who did not pull the trigger are just as responsible for this murder as the guy who did.
"I believe this man is a threat to the community and should not be let out," Hicks said as he requested no bond for Edwards. "He thinks it's all a joke." The 17-year-old wept in court after he tried to speak and was cut off by the judge.
I'm not asking about charging them. Of course they should be charged. I'm wondering why they should be charged as adults in this particular crime.
I also found it interesting that the prosecutor says the one kid is taking it as a "joke" but in the very next sentence it says he was "crying" in court.
because they are just as responsible. they knew and agreed to the plan to murder someone. they should be charged the same as the trigger man. the only way I could see differently is if they had no reasonable expectation that the trigger man was going to shoot someone and just happened to be in the car with him when he did.
nothing odd about it. funny how things stop being funny when reality hits you in the face. being an MP, I have seen many grown men cry like babies when they are caught committing a crime.
They didn't kill him. How can justify trying them as adults?
I'm sure, but the prosecution claims he's taking it as a "joke" yet he was crying.
the same way you can justify charging a person who pays someone to kill for them with murder. they were active participants in the murder, before, during and after.
I've seen plenty of guilty, unremorseful criminals cry in an attempt to garner sympathy.
Crocodile tears (or superficial sympathy) are a false or insincere display of emotion such as a hypocrite crying fake tears of grief.
Crocodile tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There have been PLENTY of juvenile murderers or accessories to murders that were much more heinous than this, and they were charged as juveniles.
I know what crocodile tears are. :roll: I doubt they are "crocodile tears." The kid has to be ****ting himself right now.
such as?
not if he is a sociopath. I find it odd that you are going to such great lengths to bend over backwards to give these three murderers the benefit of the doubt. I taught at an inner city school for over a decade and saw hundreds, if not thousands, of teenagers like these three.
Another question I have. Why wouldn't we then charge juveniles as adults for ALL crimes?
I agree that some crimes deserve harsher punishment than others even when it comes to juveniles, and sometimes perhaps adult punishment is applicable, but really no one can say in this particular case because all we've heard from really is the prosecution. THEY want to win the case, and they have a horse in this race, so you really can't take what they say about this case or these kids as gospel either.
Craig Price for one. Do you really think this shooting is the worst crime committed by juveniles? LOL! That's naive. That's another reason why I'm really kind of surprised by how this case is being presented in the media. It's FAR from the most heinous.
.
The case led to changes in state law to allow juveniles to be tried as adults for serious crimes, but these could not be applied retroactively to Price.[3]
because not all juveniles are the same or develop at the same rate and not all crimes, or the manner in which they are committed, are the same. that is why the decision to charge a juvenile as an adult is made on a case by case basis.
the prosecution has no vested interest in not charging these guys as juveniles. a win is a win whether they are charged as adults or not. I find it odd that you go out of your way to give the criminals in this case the benefit of the doubt, but immediately jump to the conclusion that the prosecution has an ulterior motive. I wonder why?
you really should read your own links
at the time...the state did not have the option to charge him as an adult. care to try again?
Meanwhile, more than 60 other teens charged with murder since 1996 have escaped the maximum sentence, court records show, often pleading guilty to a lesser crime such as second degree murder, making them eligible for parole. Yet, many of these youths committed shocking, grisly crimes; one was convicted of beating a two-year-old to death. A review of these cases found no obvious pattern to explain why some killers got life without parole and others won lesser sentences. What is clear, however, is that the law has not been applied consistently to the most grievous of juvenile murder cases. Juveniles whose crimes approach the cruelty of O’Brien’s have escaped the harsh sentence, while spontaneous acts of violence by teenagers with little prior record are punished with life behind bars.
Because I see no evidence to indicate these kids are anything other than your typical juvenile murderers.
Is it bad to give the kids the benefit of the doubt?
Does that make me evil to you? LOL!
I've read up on prosecutors. Maybe you should too.
Okay, I missed that part. But do honestly believe that all juvenile murderers are charged as adults? Here's more.
The Cutting Edge News
and I guess that's where our difference of opinion comes in. I believe all "murderers" should be charged as adults.
it is when all you have to go on is your opinion
strawman much? I never said or implied that you were evil....only mistaken and probably misguided.
I've been in law enforcement for the past 11 years. I can guarantee that I know more about prosecutors than you.
Hmm, I just reviewed some of the recent news articles about the case and I find something strange in the application of charges.
The three teens are Jones, a 17 yo white kid who was driving the car; Luna, a 16 yo black kid who was sitting in the backseat and who shot the victim; Edwards, a 15 yo black kid who was riding in the passenger seat.
Only Luna and Edwards were charged with First Degree Murder.
Jones was charged with driving a vehicle used in discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact.
Why wasn't Jones charged with First Degree Murder? He did more than the 15 yo Edwards, who was apparently a passenger egging the issue on.
From what little we know all three were culpable of conspiracy to commit murder, all three were in the car together when Luna shot the victim, so why is the oldest (who also happens to be white) not being charged with First Degree Murder? Did I miss something?
Hmm, I just reviewed some of the recent news articles about the case and I find something strange in the application of charges.
The three teens are Jones, a 17 yo white kid who was driving the car; Luna, a 16 yo black kid who was sitting in the backseat and who shot the victim; Edwards, a 15 yo black kid who was riding in the passenger seat.
Only Luna and Edwards were charged with First Degree Murder.
Jones was charged with driving a vehicle used in discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact.
Why wasn't Jones charged with First Degree Murder? He did more than the 15 yo Edwards, who was apparently a passenger egging the issue on.
From what little we know all three were culpable of conspiracy to commit murder, all three were in the car together when Luna shot the victim, so why is the oldest (who also happens to be white) not being charged with First Degree Murder? Did I miss something?
Hmm, I just reviewed some of the recent news articles about the case and I find something strange in the application of charges.
The three teens are Jones, a 17 yo white kid who was driving the car; Luna, a 16 yo black kid who was sitting in the backseat and who shot the victim; Edwards, a 15 yo black kid who was riding in the passenger seat.
Only Luna and Edwards were charged with First Degree Murder.
Jones was charged with driving a vehicle used in discharge of a weapon and accessory after the fact.
Why wasn't Jones charged with First Degree Murder? He did more than the 15 yo Edwards, who was apparently a passenger egging the issue on.
From what little we know all three were culpable of conspiracy to commit murder, all three were in the car together when Luna shot the victim, so why is the oldest (who also happens to be white) not being charged with First Degree Murder? Did I miss something?
You can't believe the cameras. With all the holographic equipment and the fake WTC airplanes...