• 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?

Evilroddy

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,419
Reaction score
8,027
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
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 done by police officers. Nobody disputes the fact that police shot dead the victim. But using a twisted application of the accomplice laws in Alabama 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. The police officer who shot the accomplice was not charged with the killing and thus no crime was committed in the death of the youth. Yet despite no crime having been committed in 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 murder accomplice charges on police dispatchers and other police officials if an on-duty police officer had been found guilty of murder, would the legal community and the media be so sanguine about what is clearly a glaring miscarriage of justice. Nail the teen for the 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I think that's a common law, if people are hurt or killed during the commission of a crime and you are an accomplice, even if you don't fire the weapon, you could be charged with his death.

I think its ridiculous to charge him for murder for police shooting his accomplice. And I also can't stand people being charged for things they didn't actually do.
 
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
 
Evilroddy said:
What is wrong with the American legal system that people can't see this.
Click to expand...

It is controlled almost exclusively by white people who have different standards of innocent until proof of guilt for African Americans as compared to white people.
 
Evilroddy said:
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.
Click to expand...


Murder is an illegal killing of a human being by another human being. A police officer shooting a dangerous suspect is not murder.So I fail to see how this individual was charged with murder.
Now if one of the burglars killed a homeowner or some other innocent person or even each other I could see there being a felony murder charge.
 
gdgyva said:
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
Click to expand...

gdgyva:

In order to be an accomplice to a crime that crime must have been committed by someone. The police officer who shot A'Donte Washington to death was not charged nor convicted of a crime as the killing was ruled a justifiable homicide. There was not principal felony so there can be no accomplices to felony which does not exist.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
gdgyva:

In order to be an accomplice to a crime that crime must have been committed by someone. The police officer who shot A'Donte Washington to death was not charged nor convicted of a crime as the killing was ruled a justifiable homicide. There was not principal felony so there can be no accomplices to felony which does not exist.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

the felony was the burglary i believe...and in commission of THAT felony is when the death occurred

that is why all parties were charged

no burglary, no shootout...no shootout, no death....

one things leads to the next which is the statute...

Smith is not even accused of having possessed a weapon. Under the state’s accomplice law, co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are in the midst of committing a felony. from your article
 
MrWonka said:
It is controlled almost exclusively by white people who have different standards of innocent until proof of guilt for African Americans as compared to white people.
Click to expand...

because it has nothing to do with the fact that a person was killed in the commission of a crime that he was a part of.
It is all about his skin color.

YOu guys need to get a new meme. You have worn that one out.
he now gets 65 years in prison for both crimes instead of 25 if he would have
taken the plea deal.

Unless he ignored his lawyers advice to take the deal. either way he either had a bad lawyer
or he was an idiot.

it has nothing to do with his skin color.

It is alabama law.

Lakeith Smith was sentenced last week to 30 years for A’Donte’s murder, even though no one disputes it was an officer’s bullet that killed him. Smith is not even accused of having possessed a weapon. Under the state’s accomplice law, co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are in the midst of committing a felony.

Smith, now 18, was also sentenced to another 35 years for crimes related to the the burglary, for a total of 65 years.
 
Last edited:
I have trouble seeing a federal judge upholding the application of the law to this set of facts.
 
ludin said:
because it has nothing to do with the fact that a person was killed in the commission of a crime that he was a part of.
It is all about his skin color.

YOu guys need to get a new meme. You have worn that one out.
he now gets 65 years in prison for both crimes instead of 25 if he would have
taken the plea deal.

Unless he ignored his lawyers advice to take the deal. either way he either had a bad lawyer
or he was an idiot.

it has nothing to do with his skin color.

It is alabama law.

Lakeith Smith was sentenced last week to 30 years for A’Donte’s murder, even though no one disputes it was an officer’s bullet that killed him. Smith is not even accused of having possessed a weapon. Under the state’s accomplice law, co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are in the midst of committing a felony.

Smith, now 18, was also sentenced to another 35 years for crimes related to the the burglary, for a total of 65 years.
Click to expand...

Ludin:

I understand what the Alabamba Law says. My point is that in this case the law has been misapplied. If three teenagers rob a liquor store in Montgomery and while en route to the scene of the crime a police cruiser strikes and kills a pedestrian due driving at excessive speed then according to this reasoning the robbers would be guilty of a murder they did not even know about or could have prevented. A police officer killed A'Donte Washington and no charges were laid against the officer so no murder occurred. Yet despite no murder having occurred Lakeith Smith is convicted of felony-murder as an accomplice to a murder which never happened.

This application of the deeply flawed felony-murder law in Alabama has stripped away the need to prove causal action, means, intent and even the actual existence of the crime of murder from being found guilty for murder. That, to my mind, and I hope to most rational minds in America, is egregious prosecutorial malpractice and is a very dangerous precedent if it is allowed to stand in Alabamba case law. Mere synchronisity of a death to another crime should not be the basis for such a conviction. I hope the ACLU tears Alabama prosecutors and the presiding judge new lower abdominal apertures and succeeds in having this inane conviction set aside and the prosecution disciplined for pulling this stunt.

Let the boy do the 35 years for burglary but he should not serve 30 additional years for something the police did but were exonerated for. The Rule of Law requires that the law be applied universally and equally in all cases. If the police officer was held guiltless for the killing of A'Donte Washington, then so should Lakeith Smith, as you can't be an accomplice to a murder which never happened, no matter how stupid you or your attorney are.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ludin:

I understand what the Alabamba Law says. My point is that in this case the law has been misapplied. If three teenagers rob a liquor store in Montgomery and while en route to the scene of the crime a police cruiser strikes and kills a pedestrian due driving at excessive speed then according to this reasoning the robbers would be guilty of a murder they did not even know about or could have prevented. A police officer killed A'Donte Washington and no charges were laid against the officer so no murder occurred. Yet despite no murder having occurred Lakeith Smith is convicted of felony-murder as an accomplice to a murder which never happened.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be murder according to the law. All it requires is a death occurring.

Here is the actual law.

He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, aggravated child abuse under Section 26-15-3.1, or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person.

This application of the deeply flawed felony-murder law in Alabama has stripped away the need to prove causal action, means, intent and even the actual existence of the crime of murder from being found guilty for murder. That, to my mind, and I hope to most rational minds in America, is egregious prosecutorial malpractice and is a very dangerous precedent if it is allowed to stand in Alabamba case law. Mere synchronisity of a death to another crime should not be the basis for such a conviction. I hope the ACLU tears Alabama prosecutors and the presiding judge new lower abdominal apertures and succeeds in having this inane conviction set aside and the prosecution disciplined for pulling this stunt.
Click to expand...
It doesn't require murder that is where you are wrong. all it requires is the death of someone by any active participant.

Let the boy do the 35 years for burglary but he should not serve 30 additional years for something the police did but were exonerated for. The Rule of Law requires that the law be applied universally and equally in all cases. If the police officer was held guiltless for the killing of A'Donte Washington, then so should Lakeith Smith, as you can't be an accomplice to a murder which never happened, no matter how stupid you or your attorney are.
Click to expand...

Had he taken the plea deal he would have done 25 for both. He or his lawyer chose to go to court. Either he or his lawyer was a moron.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You need to read the law and educate yourself on what it says.
 
jamesrage said:
Murder is an illegal killing of a human being by another human being. A police officer shooting a dangerous suspect is not murder.So I fail to see how this individual was charged with murder.
Now if one of the burglars killed a homeowner or some other innocent person or even each other I could see there being a felony murder charge.
Click to expand...
Under the laws of most states, including Alabama, you are also guilty of murder if any death occurs while you are committing certain felonies. You rob a store, the clerk tries to run, trips, falls, and dies, that is murder because it is a death directly resulting from a felony.

It’s not necessarily a fair law: holding the getaway driver responsible for his accomplices murdering someone when he had no way to prevent it and might not even know about, but then it is meant as a deterrent.
 
MrWonka said:
It is controlled almost exclusively by white people who have different standards of innocent until proof of guilt for African Americans as compared to white people.
Click to expand...

Martha Stewart would beg to differ.
 
ludin said:
It doesn't have to be murder according to the law. All it requires is a death occurring.

Here is the actual law.

He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, aggravated child abuse under Section 26-15-3.1, or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person.

It doesn't require murder that is where you are wrong. all it requires is the death of someone by any active participant.

Had he taken the plea deal he would have done 25 for both. He or his lawyer chose to go to court. Either he or his lawyer was a moron.

You need to read the law and educate yourself on what it says.
Click to expand...

Ludin:
I did indeed look up and carefully read the title 13A Alabama Felony-Murder law.

I will post it in full below and then due to its length follow that up with specific comments.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Alabama's Felony-Murder law:

(a) A person commits the crime of murder if he or she does any of the following:

(1) With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person.

(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself or herself, and thereby causes the death of another person.

(3) He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, aggravated child abuse under Section 26-15-3.1 , or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person.

(4) He or she commits the crime of arson and a qualified governmental or volunteer firefighter or other public safety officer dies while performing his or her duty resulting from the arson.

(b) A person does not commit murder under subdivisions (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section if he or she was moved to act by a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before there had been a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself.  The burden of injecting the issue of killing under legal provocation is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof.  This subsection does not apply to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter or other crime.

(c) Murder is a Class A felony;  provided, that the punishment for murder or any offense committed under aggravated circumstances by a person 18 years of age or older, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title, is death or life imprisonment without parole, which punishment shall be determined and fixed as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title or any amendments thereto.  The punishment for murder or any offense committed under aggravated circumstances by a person under the age of 18 years, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5, is either life imprisonment without parole, or life, which punishment shall be determined and fixed as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title or any amendments thereto and the applicable Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.

If the defendant is sentenced to life on a capital offense, the defendant must serve a minimum of 30 years, day for day, prior to first consideration of parole.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have a First Amendment.

Don't do the crime, if you don't want to do the time.

It is about, not running from police in residential areas, unless you are prepared to be held more accountable for this social problem:

 
Ladin et al.:

LaKeith Smith did not cause nor did he contribute to the death of A'Donte Washington. He did not have intent either. So no actus reus and no mens rea is present. Therefore clause one does not hold in this case.

LaKeith Smith did act recklessly in participating in the robbery but he did not engage in any conduct which caused the death of his partner in crime and apparently had no means nor intent to do so. LaKeith did not cause the death. Thus clause two does not apply in this case.

LaKeith Smith was a participant in the crime of burglary but the homicide was done by a police officer who was not a participant in that crime. Because the death of A'Donte Washington was not caused by a "participant" in the burglary felony, and since the killing was deemed to be justifiable homicide LaKeith was not a participant in that death either, so clause three does not apply. The police officer did not kill in furtherance of the felony burglary, was not a participant in the felony burglary and nor did LaKeith kill or participate in the killing in the course and furtherance of the felony burglary for which he was rightly convicted.

I am not a lawyer licensed to practice in Alabama and I am not practicing law here. I am only stating a layman's opinion based on a close reading of the law as it is written.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I have issues with those kind of laws. Strikes me as unjust.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ladin et al.:

LaKeith Smith did not cause nor did he contribute to the death of A'Donte Washington. He did not have intent either. So no actus reus and no mens rea is present. Therefore clause one does not hold in this case.
Click to expand...
Yet it does because his friend was killed in the action of a felony.

LaKeith Smith did act recklessly in participating in the robbery but he did not engage in any conduct which caused the death of his partner in crime and apparently had no means nor intent to do so. LaKeith did not cause the death. Thus clause two does not apply in this case.
Click to expand...

Your ignoringnthe law I quoted and at this point I have to say you are doing it on purpose.
Being obtuse doesn't help your argument. He was fleeing from what is a burgerly of the second degree of which he was convicted of.

LaKeith Smith was a participant in the crime of burglary but the homicide was done by a police officer who was not a participant in that crime. Because the death of A'Donte Washington was not caused by a "participant" in the burglary felony, and since the killing was deemed to be justifiable homicide LaKeith was not a participant in that death either, so clause three does not apply. The police officer did not kill in furtherance of the felony burglary, was not a participant in the felony burglary and nor did LaKeith kill or participate in the killing in the course and furtherance of the felony burglary for which he was rightly convicted.
Click to expand...

Again he doesn't have to kill anyone that isn't what the law says.
You are ignoring the law in purpose.

I am not a lawyer licensed to practice in Alabama and I am not practicing law here. I am only stating a layman's opinion based on a close reading of the law as it is written.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

No your not your making up stuff. The law is very clear, and nothing you posted was correct.
 
Evilroddy said:
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.
Click to expand...
One word: Alabama
 
MrWonka said:
It is controlled almost exclusively by white people who have different standards of innocent until proof of guilt for African Americans as compared to white people.
Click to expand...

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
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I have issues with those kind of laws. Strikes me as unjust.
Click to expand...

Perfectly just. If this person didn’t have the murder charge he’d be released ten years tops and then proceed to commit another burglary. I don’t care how young he is, 16 is old enough to know breaking into people’s hpuses to take their stuff while armed with a gun is wrong. And if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be free either

Also this isn’t new, I’ve seen multiple stories before where robbery suspects were charged like this, I know of one in California where a pair of robbers robbed a gas station, the clerk shot one and killed him, the prosecutor said that the killing was justified, then charged the surviving robber under felony murder doctrine. Massages Ayoob in a lecture in 1990 references this taking place as a hypothetical application of the rule, so clearly this is a well established doctrine
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom