Multiple Life Sentences for Minor in Police Shooting He did not Participate in.

LINK TO THE PETITION

https://www.change.org/p/district-attorney-cj-robinson-free-lakeith-smith

Source: https://www.tumblr.com/iguanodonwildman/661968148678017024/please-sign-the-petition-so-i-checked-up-on~~___~~

294 comments

One: 65 years, while long, is not "multiple life sentences." Two: The 65 years was shortly thereafter reduced to 55 years, though I am not finding any details on why. That 55 years was 30 for felony murder and 25 for burglary and theft (???), consecutively. Three: Body cam shows A'Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon, so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. Four: A later court changed those to run concurrently, making it an effective 30 years. In this hearing, the victim's own father made a statement that Smith did not deserve to be charged with his son's death. Five: This screenshot is dated less than a week after the original sentencing.
Other notes: There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal. The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder. I have to think it was a difficult argument for the defense to make, that Smith "did not intend to hurt anyone." The prosecution surely had an easier time framing this in terms of "Smith was at least present when someone was murdered the day before [it may have been a short time, hours, since the earlier murder was "around midnight" and I don't see what time of day the later burglary occurred]. He had to know that continuing to commit crimes with the same group of people could end with death, and still pressed on."
Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
- Thank you for this
- Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
  is it possible to fit this level of nuance in a headline?
  
  perhaps reading past the headline is recommended
  
  It’s possible in a post on Lemmy but OP wasn’t about to do that.
  Just included links to help the POS.
- Thanks for the context but a court shouldn't be considering things they haven't been convicted for unless it's part of the matter before the court.
  Also it doesn't matter if the police shooting was justified. Charging this guy with the police shooting is, and always has been, fucked up.
  65 years is 3 life sentences in the normal world. That's not a normal sentence for burglary outside authoritarian countries.
  
  a court shouldn't be considering things they haven't been convicted for unless it's part of the matter before the court.
  They didn't consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It's up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It's the convict's entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren't convicted have having a family or deep community ties?
  A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.
  This sentence seems long for the kid's age, but that's Alabama. Vote.
  
  It's the felony murder rule. You intend the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Police shooting your accomplice in an armed robbery is certainly a foreseeable consequences of armed robbery. It's one of the reasons doing armed robberies is illegal.
- Pretty much guaranteed that when you see a 'shocking' headline, that there's context that makes it make a lot more sense that's either being obscured or obfuscated.
  I hate sensationalism so much.
- Here's another one:
  1 you shouldn't be charged with a murder you didn't commit.
  I feel like that one is super important here.
  
  A lot of people here are discovering felony murder for the first time.
- Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon,
  Unsurprisingly there's no footage of this other person in that link. Not that that would justify putting an innocent person in a cage.
  There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal.
  Why would anyone take a plea deal for a murder that they didn't commit? The real problem here is this scam of forcing people into plea deals by threatening them with insane punishments in a fundamentally unjust system. It's gross when people act like refusing a "deal" is some kind of guilt. It's mostly likely the opposite.
  The day before this burglary...
  That's irrelevant to the cop murdering this kid.
  ... Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man.
  Even if this were relevant, did this even happen? Your article is from 2016 says nothing about Lekeith being convicted.
  More generally it's amazing how "normal" people are brainwashed enough to post this kind of copaganda word salad.
  There's no "opinion" here. Teenagers shouldn't be convicted for murders committed by cops. It's that simple.
  
  It's really important to know the details because it's the details that allow us to parse and challenge injustice effectively.
  Knowing the context of Felony Murder and how it applies to this sentencing is not saying 'this is fine then, no worries'. Rather, it means we can actually talk about the systematic issues in the legal system that enable things like this.
  The comment you replied to was in no way 'word salad' or 'copaganda', it was context.
  
  Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.
  
  Body cam shows A’Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon,
  ... so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. That is the context here, which I made sure to include in the sentence you selectively edited.
  
  So let's be clear here, he was charged with felony murder of his accomplice in a dangerous felony. Felony murder is the crime of killing of a person in the commission of a dangerous crime.
  It's pretty debatable if it makes sense to charge someone for felony murder if they were an accomplice, but that's a different discussion than the framing of "charged for a murder committed by cops". The cops didn't murder this guy, it seems pretty clear that the cops acted in self defense here. So it's not like they transferred the "blame" as it were from murderous cops to an innocent kid.
  The reason felony murder exists is that even if there was no actual intent to kill, the risk of death during a dangerous crime is so high it becomes reckless. There's a similar crime of depraved heart murder where the act that causes the death of someone is so dangerous that one could only do it if they had no concern of killing someone. You go into a felony knowing someone could get hurt or killed and do it anyway, so you are responsible for the consequences whether you "pulled the trigger" or not. A more common example would be if you and a buddy are robbing a bank and your buddy kills a teller or a cop, you get charged with felony murder.
  
  The parent comment doesn't appear to be copaganda, or even have a stance one way or the other. The comment is context, which is important for discussing the issue at hand. Because of the context, we should not be discussing police brutality or excessive use of force in this case, we should be discussing the immorality of a justice system which allows someone to be charged with felony murder in the case of an accomplice.
  To clarify, if this group of teens broke into a home and shot the homeowner, that would be a justified charge of felony murder for all the accomplices. However, their friend chose to essentially commit suicide by cops, and the convicted was running away at the time. Again, the parent comment did not make any qualifiers on the actions of the cops or anyone else present, they posted context with which other commenters can frame their discussion. Nowhere in their other comments could I discern a pro-cop stance, reading with an objective eye. Reactionary pointing of fingers just discourages future posters from providing context.
  Before you accuse me of copaganda as well, ACAB, systemic racism is a huge problem in the US, and our justice system is rigged against the most vulnerable.
  
  More generally it’s amazing how “normal” people are brainwashed enough to post this kind of copaganda word salad.
  Waiting to hear about the drugs they found in his system.
- We need more people like you.
  
  I appreciate this more than you know. Thank you.
- The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder.
  Gee, it's almost as if there were real crimes he could have been charged with, instead of the bullshit crime of his friend getting killed by the cops.
  
  His friend getting killed by the cops as a result of a crime sprea is grounds for Felony Murder charges. You can say it's a dumb law but you cannot say the charges are bullshit.
- Appreciate you being informative but 65 years is, in most cases due to multiple life sentences. It's more to do with how many years before you're eligible for parole, not the expectation of 100 years or something.
  I didn't read into the situation and don't have an opinion, but your first point is already misleading.
  
  I didn't read into the situation ...
  I did. The sentences were 30 years for felony murder and 25 years for burglary and theft.
  Which I stated were initially set to be consecutive, and later changed to concurrent. So you didn't even read the comment you replied to.
  
  I didn't read into the situation and don't have an opinion
  You literally gave your opinion directly before this statement.
- What even is multiple life sentences, never understood it
  
  Each conviction carries a sentence. It is not unheard of for a particular conviction of many to be overturned on appeal, or for a sentence for one charge to be modified. In such a case, the remainder of the convictions or sentences remain in place.
  There is a certain person who was recently convicted on 34 counts of fraud in New York State, and because of the "specialness?" of this defendant, the Supreme Court decided after the jury returned all those convictions that this defendant is immune from prosecution for certain kinds of crimes. This gives the defendant a ripe avenue to appeal those convictions. Some of those convictions may be overturned on the basis of that immunity ... but not all of them.
  The same concepts apply to any convictions and any sentences, including the death penalty. Not only is it just to render consequences for each crime committed, it is also a safeguard to ensure that someone who is convicted of multiple felonies does not escape all consequence in the case that only some of the sentences change in the future.
  This very case of Lekeith Smith is a perfect example. 30 years for felony murder, 25 years for burglary and theft, served concurrently. There is a fair argument for overturning that felony murder conviction; there is no such argument for overturning the burglary and theft conviction.
- I think the biggest issue is not that he doesn't deserve jail, he does. But if this exact crime had involved white teens, he would have gotten a few years tops
  
  class, not race

This is probably "felony murder". The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of felony, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder for that person. This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.
Classic example: you and a friend decide to hold up a bank. It goes sideways and a bank security guard shoots and kills your friend. You are guilty of murder because your friend died because you both decided to commit a felony.
- Now do the j6 insurrectionists.
  
  The white ones with white skin and Confederate flags? Oh see, that's...that's different.... because they're wh- ....patriots?
  
  Hmm, never thought about it like that. I guess that whole mob could be on the hook for killing Ashley Babbitt. I guess it's a good thing for them there's no federal felony murder rule.
  
  Exactly cops died and yet they all got light sentences. The system is fucked and should be torn down. He is a kid and should be getting help not prison.
  
  J6 was a crime against the federal government on government property in the District of Columbia.
  The feds do have this felony murder law, but it seems to be narrower in scope than many state laws. For instance, the case where law enforcement shoots a perp did happen at the capitol, but it seems like it can't be charged as felony murder under the federal version of the law.
  Also, the federal law lists specific crimes only that can be used as underlying felonies, and I suspect that "obstructing an official proceeding" and even "insurrection" are not specifically on that list. Possibly, the feds would have had to charge and convict on simple burglary to apply felony murder.
  I don't think any felony murders were actually charged. And a great many J6 defendants were charged with no felonies at all, so they would not be eligible.
- It is a stupid law being applied in the most ridiculous way, by being punished for the police's actions.
  
  But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015,
  They fired at the police and one died as a result. They were all charged with murder.
  Seems the law is being applied correctly.
  As for the law itself I'm pretty torn on this. If someone dragged my kid along to a crime and they died as a result I'd have no problem with them getting charged for their murder.
- Let's be clear though: being legal doesn't make it right.
- Which, to be clear, is a fantastic way to charge people for the police hurting them. And not okay under most moral systems.
- committing some kind of feeling
  
  When I hear that old song they used to play
  \ I begin dreaming
  \ 'Til I see Marianne walk away
  \ I see my Marianne walkin' away
  
  Yeah. I eventually noticed that.
- So basically police just have an open ticket to murder really.
  
  It's not murder to shoot someone who is charging at you with a deadly weapon.
  And there is no question about this being what went down. There's body cam footage.
- That doesn't sound like the law of a civilized country to me ....
  
  It's not
- The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of feeling, and ~~someone dies as a result~~ a cop murders somebody, then you are guilty of the cop's murder.
  FTFY
  This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter... in order for police to pin their murders on minorities despite all reason and case history.
  FTFY.
  
  Your argument only holds up if the cop isn't also tried for that murder. I'm not even an American citizen so I don't know if that's the case.
  Doesn't matter if the cop would be tried though, as cops are already immune to the law in america. They don't need to convict other people for that. I don't think at all that the purpose of that law is to protect cops.
  
  Cop murdered no one. Shooting someone who's charging at you with a drawn weapon isn't murder.

Why the fuck are we going to have different courts for children if we're going to try 15 year olds as adults?
- To feed the racist slavery machine we call the US prison system.
  
  Trying kids as adults in juvenile court is the perfect mixture of draconian sentences and judges that are more likely to take bribes to err on the side of incarceration.
  It's basically the kind of all you can enslave buffet that the prison industrial complex and the politicians they own used to only know in their fucked up dreams.
  
  Just another for-profit orphan crushing machine in the proto-fascist plutocracy that is the USA.
- Those are for white children.
- I'm not forgiving murderers, teens aren't children.
  
  teens aren’t children
  The Race Factor in Trying Juveniles as Adults
  In our own work, we find that race can have a sweeping effect even when people consider the same crime. Prompting people to think of a single black (rather than white) juvenile offender leads them to express greater support for sentencing all juveniles to life without parole when they have committed serious violent crimes. Thinking about a black juvenile offender also makes people imagine that juveniles are closer to adults in their blameworthiness. Remarkably, this was true for both people who were low in prejudice and those who were high in prejudice and for both liberals and conservatives.

This is basic felony murder shit. Any attorney worth their salt should have been telling him to take the plea deal, because felony murder is a Big Fucking Deal. To be more exact, 46 of 50 states have some version of a felony murder statute, and in 24 of them--just under half--felony murder is a capital crime, and can potentially receive the death penalty.
A good attorney would be communicating this clearly to their client, and make sure that the client understood that going to trial would likely mean decades in prison, and possibly a death penalty; the odds of beating the charge, if you participated in the underlying crime, are very, very poor.
Here's the basic deal: when a deal occurs during the course of committing certain felonies, any major participant in the commission of that crime are guilty of causing that death. If you're the getaway driver in a bank robbery, and all of the robbers get killed by security guards, you get charged with murder for their deaths, even though it was legal for the security guards to use lethal force against them. Smith was one of the participants in the burglary, and it was during the commission of the burglary that Washington attacked a police officer and was killed. Because Smith was an active participant in that burglary, he's guilty of that death, even though Washington was justifiably killed by a cop.
And, BTW, this isn't bootlicking bullshit. It didn't need to be a cop that killed Washington for a felony murder charge to apply to Smith. If Washington had attacked the homeowner, and the homeowner had killled Washington, it would have been the same felony murder charge for Smith.
- Garbage in garbage out.
  If you accept US disgusting legal system as fair or 'normal' you can justify this outcome. Its obviously not.
  Charging a person with felony murder when no murder was commited is not justice no more than Saudi Arabia executing people for being gay.
  I 'll also give you some personal advice, no non-bootlicker preemptively disclaims being a bootlicker.
  
  I 'll also give you some personal advice, no non-bootlicker preemptively disclaims being a bootlicker.
  People here seem to think that anything that could even remotely be taking as being favorable towards cops is bootlicking. It's not bootlicking bullshit because the person that kills the burglar is not relevant to the charges. Moreover, it's not relevant whom Washington attacked; if it had been the homeowner that had been attacked by, and shot and killed Washington, the charges would have been identical.
  I'm not in favor of the way most cops conduct themselves, but I'm even less in favor of being attacked by someone that takes umbrage with not being allowed to burglarize my residence.
  
  Exactly. I'm not even particularly opposed if you take part in a violent felony that resulted in death so long as it's a victims death. Participants dying by accident or by external deadly force especially police use of force getting charged is fucking dumb.
  
  K
- I mean, that's still mighty fucked up. So you're accomplice couldn't run as fast as you and you get charged with their death someone else caused? How are people ok with that?
  And yes I totally understand that it was a justified shooting but charging someone with murder when they didn't murder someone one is insane as fuck.
  
  The story says they got into a shootout, one of the thieves ducked under cover until it was over.
  I think it would be different if it were an excessive use of force case.
  
  It's pretty simple to understand: you were a participant in the underlying felony that lead to someone's death. Had that underlying event not happened, no death would have happened. Because you participated in the event, you share the legal responsibility.
  It's the same general principle as RICO (racketeer influenced and corrupt organization) laws; when you participate in a criminal undertaking, you're responsible for the results of that activity. If you don't want to be responsible for the results, then you shouldn't participate in the crime.
  ...And if you do participate in the crime, take the goddamn plea deal instead of expecting that the jury is going to nullify the results, because jury nullification is both very rare, and leads to a lot of undesirable results.
- Any attorney worth their salt should have been telling him to take the plea deal
  Apparently, he was the only one of the four charged who didn't take a plea deal.
  At the same time, seems his plea deal was for 25 years, only 5 less than the 30 he got.
  Also, unless I'm mistaken, that sentencing was a year and a half ago, wonder why it's coming up now out of nowhere...
  
  This that kinda shit that makes me come back to Lemmy.
  
  I'd go to court if the difference was just 5 years. Although I'm sure he could have received more.
- This is a bad law for obvious reasons. Not least of which is that literally anyone can be charged with a crime for simply being with a criminal if it works the way you explained it.
  It would make more sense if it had guardrails that required the police show the crimes were planned and coordinated together.
  
  It's a state law, so it varies by state. Most states have a list of qualifying felonies. And you have to be an active participant in the underlying felony, rather than simply present. In this case, Smith actively planned and participated in the felony (a burglary).
  
  You have to participate in the same crime knowingly. Its not just that you have to be near them.
  For example if I drop you off at a bank and leave, and then you rob it, I very likely would not be charged if I didnt know what would happen.

And yet none of Ashlii Babbit's co-conspirators were charged for her murder. Even the ones that brought a gun.
- Gotta be committing felonies. Overthrowing the government isn't a felony until the house, Senate, and president impeach them or something lol.

Context copypaste from tumblr:
[iguanodonwildman]:
“So I checked up on this case, and it turned out his sentence was reduced...
to 55 years
55 years for a unsuccessful burglary, theft, and the murder of a friend that was killed by police, when his only crime was breaking and entering when he was 15 years old.
This is the most up to date article I can find on it: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years-idUSKBN243246. “
- I just finished my comment above with links to contemporaneous reporting, figured you might be interested.
  
  It's so transparent how much of a hard-on you're getting with your justice rage. "I'm just presenting the facts", yes, just like the unjust legal system we are all living under, you have confidently defined the "reasoning" behind the conviction. The debate and conversation around it, is for the citizens to discuss the absurd practices of the justice system, which you are just being a speakerbox for with no personal context. That's already been done by the justice system so why regurgitate and post multiple links to your enlightenment.
  After the first comment I just scrolled by after reading, then you've plastered your masterlink of pleasure confirming the pleasure and how much you want others to view it. What's your personal opinion on a 15 year old being charged in this manner? Does this 15 year old have the full faculty of an adult? Do you believe a 15 year old is an adult or just for this case? How do you feel about the murder charge? Yeah, you can hide behind the law, but I would rather hear what your actual opinion is especially after seeing a post you've done like "The less racist a country is, the harder it is to detect enemy spies. #showerthoughts"

Felony Murder is a bitch, just like whoever wrote that headline.
- Have you considered that maybe felony murder is fascist bullshit and the headline writer is completely correct to call it out?
  
  They chose to commit a crime together, then they got into a shootout with police.
  The responsibility lies with the people who chose to commit the crime in the first place.
  Breaking and entering is stupid dangerous, they knew that. Thats why they had a gun.

Yes, if a crime you are committing results in a police death of a person then you are liable
In the US at least, not Canada
- Love that people doing crimes are held to higher standards than cops
- Well of course he should be charged for burglary and theft. He did commit those crimes, but I don't think he should be charged with murder. He didn't shoot the gun, the cop did. I'm not necessarily saying the cop should be charged with murder though.
- Maybe the pig tamers need to step up their fucking game?

Yes, you're reading it right: "whom was shot".
Whomsoever wrote that should be shot.

Headlines are always abysmal at impartially presenting facts.
This happened in 2015. The now ~25 year old kid's sentence has been reduced to "just" 30 years. https://aldailynews.com/advocates-back-effort-to-amend-alabamas-proximate-cause-murder-law-prosecutors-push-back/
The kids were robbing houses, a neighbor called the cops, the kids bolted when the cops showed up. The cops shot them in the back despite there being no threat to anyone's life... except those the cops shot at.
How the murder charge isn't just a case against the cop shooting unarmed teenagers who were committing a crime without any risk to life and limb is astounding.
Kid and his buddies were definitely on the hook for the burglary, sure... but that's certainly not decades of prison. It's been ten years now, the kid should have been out of prison at least 9 years ago. Burglary just shouldn't be a long term sentence for 15 year old children.
- In one article posted on this case, one of the teens charged an officer with a drawn gun per body cam footage. If that's correct, then that teens life was forfeit the moment he pulled the weapon. It's stupid to commit a burglary, it's really stupid to do it with a gun, and it's suicide if you pull it against a cop.
  
  Ah, here we go. The omitted devil from the details. Of course that will be left out when they talk about getting the kids off the hook.
  It is quite fucked up to be guilty by proxy for murder but that's the law there. I think it should be changed but I have exactly this much influence in alabama's house and senate:
  
  I think we all agree on that. But the other 4 having the book thrown at them just for robbery is a bit... Fucked.

You really have to wonder who benefits from sharing such bullshit lies like this post.
- So you have a link to factual information pertaining to the actual event, right?
  
  The top comment on this post has links for multiple false statements made in the post. LINK
  And the post's source is Tumblr.

Of course, the prosecution must have used the classic legal argument "why are you hitting yourself?"

According to this: https://www.wkrg.com/alabama-news/lakeith-smith-resentencing-alabama/
The time was for two charges, theft/burglary and felony murder. The resentencing set the prison term to 30 years, effectively setting the sentence for felony murder alone at 5 years.

Fash in alabama have been doing this racist bullshit for centuries. Bootlickers have been justifying it for just as long.

So you're telling me they give the police incentive to shoot people, as a game, to send people to jail for even longer, because they think it's fun and hilarious?
- No, no one is telling you that.

You are not reading it right, because "whom" is misused in the comment.
- I wish they'd be more careful. A child died, here, after all, and another child is going to jail for his murder which seems like a huge perversion of justice. They'd at least take 4 seconds and write the proper goddamned word. Show some respect for the craft of journalism!

all-white jury
Since he admits he was guilty under the terms of the law I don't see how this is possibly relevant. Are we knowing he is guilty supposed to think they were biased for finding him guilty?
LaKeith was non-violent
Breaking into homes with a gun to shoot the home owner if things get dicey isn't non-violent. Invading people's home is inherently violent
offered him a plea deal of “only” 25 years.
Which would have seen him potentially out in 20 a man of 35
LaKeith, being a child with a life ahead of him, declined the plea deal and exercised his constitutional right to a trial.
It is absolutely his right but it was also fucking stupid.
It is likely that if LaKeith had been tried as a juvenile and/or tried appropriately for the burglary, he would be free today.
Are we assuming this is a good thing. He broke into a home with a gunman ready to murder the occupant. What sort of man is he now?
- It is likely that if LaKeith had been tried as a juvenile and/or tried appropriately for the burglary, he would be free today.
  Are we assuming this is a good thing. He broke into a home with a gunman ready to murder the occupant. What sort of man is he now?
  This alone is absolutely insane to me. Where I am from, if you're under 18 there is no option to be tried as an adult, even 20 year olds can be tried as an adolescent here.
- your lack of awareness of how plea deals and intimidation and dishonesty around them are actively weaponized against accused, with disproportionate impacts on minorities, is apparent. In addition, the all-white jury is always worth mentioning, and hand-waiving of its particular importance to the outcome is screening for white supremacy. It is off the bat not a jury of his peers, and that it turned up like that regardless of the outcome is criminal. It almost never is a proportionally-representative jury of one's peers when it is a black person charged with a crime. And there is a long, and deliberately-racist legacy and history why that is.
  "ready to murder" is grotesque and malicious falsehood from the information provided. I didn't see anything implying the people whose houses were broken into were caused any bodily harm nor that being the intent from the robbers least of all the 15 year old kid they threw the book at for his friend dying in a shootout. Most people who have weapons to rob are not intending to kill anyone, only intimidate for compliance, or be prepared if they are met with lethal force so they don't end up dying themselves (while explicitly hoping that does not happen, because robbers/muggers are there to get money or jewels or electronics or whatever, not kill or die). If they intended to kill the people they robbed, which was a few houses broken into, those people robbed would be dead. Instead, the cops themselves got into a firefight with a friend of the 15 year old kid who they threw the book at, who himself didn't shoot anyone and was cowering in a bush. There is a reason there are different crimes regarding armed robbery vs breaking and entering vs different homicide types and degrees, etc. Not that you seem to care much.
  "What sort of man is he now?" what kind of chauvinist colonialist celebratory rhetoric is that? Gross. You sound indistinguishable from MAGA people about stuff like this.
  
  have weapons to rob are not intending to kill anyone, only intimidate for compliance,
  The only people who act like this are garbage human beings. Being poor or discriminated against doesn't make you break into your neighbors house with a gun to intimidate him into letting you take his property.
  
  The fact of the jury being all white is irrelevant because the juries only role is to decide guilt and he is manifestly by his own and his own defenders words guilty of the crime the jury found him guilty of. HE SAID HE DID IT.

294 comments