• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How is this Legal in America?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/alabama-accomplice-law-lakeith-smith

Lakieth Smith was convicted and sentenced for a killing of his accomplice (A'Donte Washington) done by police officers. Lakieth was unarmed during the crime. Nobody disputes the fact that police shot dead the victim. But using a twisted application of the felony-murder accomplice laws in Alabama this youth, who was 16 years old at the time, was sentenced to decades of prison for the acts of police officers over whom he had no control or influence and whose actions neither he nor any other reasonable person could have foreseen. The police officer who shot the accomplice was not charged with the killing as it was ruled a justified homicide and thus no crime was committed in the death of the youth. Yet despite no crime having been committed and no principal felony having lead to the death, Lakieth Smith was convicted as an accomplice to a crime which never happened. It is mind boggling!

I am forced to wonder if prosecutors had tried to pin felony-murder accomplice charges on police dispatchers and other police officials if an on-duty police officer had been found guilty of murder, in the course of discharging his duties would the legal community and the media be so sanguine about what is clearly a glaring miscarriage of justice. Nail the teen for the burglary crimes he committed but don't prosecute him for the actions taken by police at the scene of a felony. This is Kafkaesque legal abuse, as clear as day. What is wrong with the American legal system that people can't see this.

Befuddled.
Evilroddy.

Perhaps the problem is that you base your analysis on the assumption that prosecutors and cops are honorable men and women. While a few are, that is a poor assumption.

Constitutional governance and the rule of law are dead in this country, and that sad fact is demonstrated daily.

Likely Britain is now following our lead.
 
Perhaps the problem is that you base your analysis on the assumption that prosecutors and cops are honorable men and women. While a few are, that is a poor assumption.

Constitutional governance and the rule of law are dead in this country, and that sad fact is demonstrated daily.

In only one place is such garbage taught and accepted. Prison.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/alabama-accomplice-law-lakeith-smith

Lakieth Smith was convicted and sentenced for a killing of his accomplice (A'Donte Washington) done by police officers. Lakieth was unarmed during the crime. Nobody disputes the fact that police shot dead the victim. But using a twisted application of the felony-murder accomplice laws in Alabama this youth, who was 16 years old at the time, was sentenced to decades of prison for the acts of police officers over whom he had no control or influence and whose actions neither he nor any other reasonable person could have foreseen. The police officer who shot the accomplice was not charged with the killing as it was ruled a justified homicide and thus no crime was committed in the death of the youth. Yet despite no crime having been committed and no principal felony having lead to the death, Lakieth Smith was convicted as an accomplice to a crime which never happened. It is mind boggling!

I am forced to wonder if prosecutors had tried to pin felony-murder accomplice charges on police dispatchers and other police officials if an on-duty police officer had been found guilty of murder, in the course of discharging his duties would the legal community and the media be so sanguine about what is clearly a glaring miscarriage of justice. Nail the teen for the burglary crimes he committed but don't prosecute him for the actions taken by police at the scene of a felony. This is Kafkaesque legal abuse, as clear as day. What is wrong with the American legal system that people can't see this.

Befuddled.
Evilroddy.

I think your original post destroys you own point,, this youth was sentenced to decades of prison for the acts of police officers over whom he had no control or influence and whose actions neither he nor any other reasonable person could have foreseen.

He had complete control and influence over the situation, he did NOT have to be there. He knew his partner had a gun, and intended to use it. How could he NOT foresee the actions that may take place in a burglary ? It was a crime! His partner had a gun! I am betting this was not the first "crime" he has participated in.

Most reasonable people don't go around breaking into places they don't belong because the do foresee the possible results.

Was the punishment a little to harsh. Yea maybe.. I wonder what the remaining defendants will do.

djl
 
It has nothing to do with race, this is the law.

Years ago a group of white siblings (the Tisons) in Arizona broke their dad out of prison, after they did this their father committed a murder, actually a series of them, the brothers were convicted and sentenced to death for their fathers murders and the Supreme Court upheld that sentence

An individual and extremely obvious example of this law applying to white people does nothing to change the reality that in situations where the laws is a bit more grey it applies to minorities more often.

That's how bias works. If you're going 100 in a 55 you're going to get a speeding ticket regardless of whether you're a man, woman, black, white, gay, christian or atheist. But if you're going 65 in a 55, the black guy gets pulled over the white guy doesn't. The young male gets a ticket the older woman doesn't.
 
Most reasonable people don't go around breaking into places they don't belong because the do foresee the possible results.

So let's pretend you and a buddy go to happy hour for a few drinks, and then your buddy tells you he's okay to drive because he only had a few. He then runs a red light and gets t-bones by a semi on the driver side. He dies, you're fine. The Semi-driver is fine. Do you think you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter because your buddy was technically over the limit?

What is he's just pulled over for a regular old DUI, and happens to be just over the limit? Should you get a DUI too because you let him drive? What if he's just speeding, and you didn't tell him to slow down?
 
So let's pretend you and a buddy go to happy hour for a few drinks, and then your buddy tells you he's okay to drive because he only had a few. He then runs a red light and gets t-bones by a semi on the driver side. He dies, you're fine. The Semi-driver is fine. Do you think you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter because your buddy was technically over the limit?

What is he's just pulled over for a regular old DUI, and happens to be just over the limit? Should you get a DUI too because you let him drive? What if he's just speeding, and you didn't tell him to slow down?

Sorry pal,, I don't go have a few drinks ( or allow my buddy to) and the drive.. Remember.. I am a reasonable person and know the consequences of my actions.

djl
 
So let's pretend you and a buddy go to happy hour for a few drinks, and then your buddy tells you he's okay to drive because he only had a few. He then runs a red light and gets t-bones by a semi on the driver side. He dies, you're fine. The Semi-driver is fine. Do you think you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter because your buddy was technically over the limit?

What is he's just pulled over for a regular old DUI, and happens to be just over the limit? Should you get a DUI too because you let him drive? What if he's just speeding, and you didn't tell him to slow down?

in a motor vehicle, only the DRIVER is responsible....he turned the key on, and drove the car

in a crime (ie bank robbery, burglary, etc) the entire gang is charged as one entity

they all collaborated on the crime...and participated

whether one never did anything but drive, he still is a part of the overall crime
 
So let's pretend you and a buddy go to happy hour for a few drinks, and then your buddy tells you he's okay to drive because he only had a few. He then runs a red light and gets t-bones by a semi on the driver side. He dies, you're fine. The Semi-driver is fine. Do you think you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter because your buddy was technically over the limit?

What is he's just pulled over for a regular old DUI, and happens to be just over the limit? Should you get a DUI too because you let him drive? What if he's just speeding, and you didn't tell him to slow down?


If the legislature passed a law to that effect then sure
 
Il n’y a point de plus cruelle tyrannie que celle que l’on exerce à l’ombre des lois et avec les couleurs de la justice: lorsqu’on va, pour ainsi dire, noyer des malheureux sur la planche même sur laquelle ils s’étoient sauvés.

Et comme il n’est jamais arrivé qu’un tyran ait manqué d’instruments de sa tyrannie. Tibère trouva toujours des juges prêts à condamner autant de gens qu’il en put soupçonner. Du temps de la république, le sénat, qui ne jugeoit point en corps les affairs des particuliers, connoissoit, par une délégation du peuple, des crimes qu’on imputoit aux alliés. Tibère lui renvoya de même le jugement de tout ce qui s’appeloit crime de lèse-majesté contre lui. Ce corps tomba dans un état de bassesse qui ne peut s’exprimer; les sénateurs alloient au-devant de la servitude; sous le faveur de Séjan, les plus illustres d’entre eux faisoient le métier de délateurs.

–Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, ch. xiv (1734) contained in Œuvres complètes, vol. ii, p. 144 (R. Caillois ed. 1951)(S.H. transl.)

Translation from the French included with the passage above but relocated for easier reading and consideration:

"No tyranny is more cruel than that which is practiced in the shadow of the law and with the trappings of justice: that is, one would drown the unfortunate by the very plank by which he would hope to be saved.

Moreover, no tyrant ever lacks the instruments necessary to his tyranny. Tiberius always found the judge who was prepared to sentence any person of whom he had the slightest suspicion. In the time of the republic the senate, which did not as a body pass judgment on specific transactions, nevertheless, through a delegation of the people, took cognizance of crimes that were imputed to allies. In a like manner, Tiberius referred to this body the adjudication of all crimes which he considered an act of offense against his person. The senate then fell into a state of utter degradation such as can scarce be described; the senators themselves led the processional into their own enslavement. Under the patronage of Sejanus, the best known among them competed to be informers for the emperor."

The Roman Imperium is alive and well in the law books and courtrooms of Alabama and America more generally, when laws such as these are misapplied or even suffered to exist in opposition to reason and justice. Who among you will be the American Sejanus (Patrick Stewart notwithstanding)? Sometimes the law is indeed an ass as British play-writes used to jibe.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
In only one place is such garbage taught and accepted. Prison.

That's not true. If a person pays attention to obscure news stories, or even MSM coverage like 60 Minutes and others, if one takes the time if available to attend trials, one can learn the truth. Prison is not necessary for that.

For example, the murder by Sacramento PD a few weeks ago, and many other similar incidents show such behavior.

An excellent example is the series published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in November and December of 1998 entitled "Win At All Costs", sub-titled "Government misconduct in the name of expedient justice", shows that. It's not rocket science, just human behavior like that shown in the Stanford Prison Experiment (speaking of prison).

As James Madison noted centuries ago, the truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/alabama-accomplice-law-lakeith-smith

Lakieth Smith was convicted and sentenced for a killing of his accomplice (A'Donte Washington) done by police officers. Lakieth was unarmed during the crime. Nobody disputes the fact that police shot dead the victim. But using a twisted application of the felony-murder accomplice laws in Alabama this youth, who was 16 years old at the time, was sentenced to decades of prison for the acts of police officers over whom he had no control or influence and whose actions neither he nor any other reasonable person could have foreseen. The police officer who shot the accomplice was not charged with the killing as it was ruled a justified homicide and thus no crime was committed in the death of the youth. Yet despite no crime having been committed and no principal felony having lead to the death, Lakieth Smith was convicted as an accomplice to a crime which never happened. It is mind boggling!

I am forced to wonder if prosecutors had tried to pin felony-murder accomplice charges on police dispatchers and other police officials if an on-duty police officer had been found guilty of murder, in the course of discharging his duties would the legal community and the media be so sanguine about what is clearly a glaring miscarriage of justice. Nail the teen for the burglary crimes he committed but don't prosecute him for the actions taken by police at the scene of a felony. This is Kafkaesque legal abuse, as clear as day. What is wrong with the American legal system that people can't see this.

Befuddled.
Evilroddy.

No doubt the legislation is quite twisted and quite simply immoral. The weight to such conviction was due to the burglary, denying a plea deal and the notion of guilt by association. However the legislation is there and in essence, but inevitably impractical, everyone should know the legislation they come under.
 
So let's pretend you and a buddy go to happy hour for a few drinks, and then your buddy tells you he's okay to drive because he only had a few. He then runs a red light and gets t-bones by a semi on the driver side. He dies, you're fine. The Semi-driver is fine. Do you think you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter because your buddy was technically over the limit?

What is he's just pulled over for a regular old DUI, and happens to be just over the limit? Should you get a DUI too because you let him drive? What if he's just speeding, and you didn't tell him to slow down?

This based on no legislation but rather just assumption. Obviously the state laws differ, thus it would depend what state you were in. On that notion generally no I don't think manslaughter would be considered, unless causation can be linked between the provocation or actual providing of the alcohol. A lesser charge may be. Vehicular crime falls under a different category to violent crime and thus in most cases would be treated differently.

I understand the questions you pose but rather it is comparing the allowance of drinking and driving, willingly or unwillingly, and the involvement in a violent crime (the burglary). The seriousness is an obvious point of differentiation
 
So let's pretend you and a buddy go to happy hour for a few drinks, and then your buddy tells you he's okay to drive because he only had a few. He then runs a red light and gets t-bones by a semi on the driver side. He dies, you're fine. The Semi-driver is fine. Do you think you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter because your buddy was technically over the limit?

What is he's just pulled over for a regular old DUI, and happens to be just over the limit? Should you get a DUI too because you let him drive? What if he's just speeding, and you didn't tell him to slow down?

you analogy is misplaced.
The law requires a felony charge.
slippery slope fallacy is what is it.
 
This based on no legislation but rather just assumption. Obviously the state laws differ,

This isn't a legal argument, it's a logical one. The OP is asking how something is legal when it clearly shouldn't be.
 
This is just my opinion, but imagine if no police were involved.
The guys committed a felony crime, and were in a fatal car accident fleeing the crime.
The death in the car accident, would be linked to the crime.
I do think the accomplice laws are a bit of an abomination of our laws, but they are the law.

If I were on a jury I would not enforce such law.
 
he was part of the group that did the original crime...burglary

one of his compadres decides to shoot it out with the cops and gets killed

he was offered a plea like all the others...but he turned it down and decided to put his faith in the jury

bad move....

you commit a felony, and a gun is involved, and someone gets killed....you can be charged with murder....even if you never held the gun, or even knew about it

as a 16 yr old, he should have been smarter...and hung out with a better crowd

and his lawyer gave him some really bad advice

If I had been on the jury it would have been good advice.
 
If I were on a jury I would not enforce such law.
And that is why Jury Nullification is still on the books.
Jury's are not only there to see if the law was broken, but also the judge if the law applies in that case.
 
Yep. :shrug:

so in your eyes, a getaway driver from a bank robbery gone wrong, where say a dozen people get killed is only responsible for what?

sitting in the car?

what exactly should he/she be charged with as their fellow compatriots decimate bank customers?
 
so in your eyes, a getaway driver from a bank robbery gone wrong, where say a dozen people get killed is only responsible for what?

sitting in the car?

what exactly should he/she be charged with as their fellow compatriots decimate bank customers?

Whatever laws he himself breaks and aiding and abetting. People should be charged with what actions they themselves do. Charging someone for crimes they themselves do not commit is stupid and an abuse of the system.

Let's turn this back, say said driver realizes what happened in the bank and decides to pull the keys from the car and turn himself into the police, leaving the murders high and dry. Should he then be charged with the murder of the people in the bank? I say absolutely not. What say you?
 
so you would have ignored the law, and the judge?

Law is made by man and therefore it is fallible and wise men must use discretion in its application, so as to promote as best possible justice.
 
Whatever laws he himself breaks and aiding and abetting. People should be charged with what actions they themselves do. Charging someone for crimes they themselves do not commit is stupid and an abuse of the system.

Let's turn this back, say said driver realizes what happened in the bank and decides to pull the keys from the car and turn himself into the police, leaving the murders high and dry. Should he then be charged with the murder of the people in the bank? I say absolutely not. What say you?

Before or after the killings happened?
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/alabama-accomplice-law-lakeith-smith

Lakieth Smith was convicted and sentenced for a killing of his accomplice (A'Donte Washington) done by police officers. Lakieth was unarmed during the crime. Nobody disputes the fact that police shot dead the victim. But using a twisted application of the felony-murder accomplice laws in Alabama this youth, who was 16 years old at the time, was sentenced to decades of prison for the acts of police officers over whom he had no control or influence and whose actions neither he nor any other reasonable person could have foreseen. The police officer who shot the accomplice was not charged with the killing as it was ruled a justified homicide and thus no crime was committed in the death of the youth. Yet despite no crime having been committed and no principal felony having lead to the death, Lakieth Smith was convicted as an accomplice to a crime which never happened. It is mind boggling!

I am forced to wonder if prosecutors had tried to pin felony-murder accomplice charges on police dispatchers and other police officials if an on-duty police officer had been found guilty of murder, in the course of discharging his duties would the legal community and the media be so sanguine about what is clearly a glaring miscarriage of justice. Nail the teen for the burglary crimes he committed but don't prosecute him for the actions taken by police at the scene of a felony. This is Kafkaesque legal abuse, as clear as day. What is wrong with the American legal system that people can't see this.

Befuddled.
Evilroddy.

The felony murder rule is extremely broad. It's designed to deter participation in violent crimes. "Tough on crime" yadda yadda.



Three people, A-C, rob a liquor store. A goes to a back room to search for a cash safe. B is in a standoff with the cashier, each pointing a gun at the other. C grabs a bottle of booze and starts chugging it, but he farts loudly. Startled, a clerk hiding between aisles spins, slips on the floor he was cleaning, falls, and breaks his neck. A-C are charge with felony murder, usually a 1st degree charge.

It's probably one of the loosest theories of criminal liability in the states. Participate in a crime (usually defined as one that logically creates an X risk of danger), and you're on the hook no matter who dies and no matter how they do it.

In the above hypothetical, A & C would still get felony murder if the fart startled B into shooting himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom