Boy arrested for murder after police shoot and kill his friend.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by purplemer

 

I think that it is a shame that something like this is allowed in the justice system but it's Chicago. The most corrupt city outside of DC. I avoid that town at all costs, and I do a lot of traveling. The South side is a freaking war zone.

Most states and localities have a similar guilt by participation law when someone dies in the commission of a crime; it is nothing out of the ordinary if you've been around the block a few times.

Let's see: one punk dead, and other down for 10 to 15 years, no cops and no civilians hurt.

Sounds good to me.

EDIT: The second punk is darned lucky the cops didn't shoot his ass as well. If it had been me I'd have been tempted to go all "Bernie Goetz" on his ass.

reply to post by purplemer


I disagree with you...robbery serves no purpose in our society regardless of age...the less there is, the more safe we are.

reply to post by purplemer


That is the law.. if someone dies while you are committing a felony, you are at fault.. and should be.

2 is always better than one when your dealing with these types. They were not new to the game and they both made choices and have now paid. 2 off the street makes it just a little bit safer for normal people. Locally they sent 3 17 year olds to prison for life for killing a guy for 12$ then bragging about it.

Originally posted by MJZoo
reply to post by pccat

 

Why are you comparing apples and oranges? They committed ARMED robbery and when the police confronted them a FIREARM was pointed at the cops. What the hell does that have to do with drunk driving? Get over it. If you don't want to get in trouble, then don't commit crimes.

alrighty then, bad example..
and duh.. I know the kid deserves punishment..
BUT.. he did not murder his partner..
nor should he face murder charges..
perhaps he could be charged in some type of wrongful death scenario..
but not murder, that is a mis applied interpretation..
I would bet that the murder charge will be dropped..

reply to post by Greensage


That is an amazingly weak argument.. He was committing a felony and should be treated as such.

reply to post by MJZoo

I would too and I never said anything about waiting...the point I was making was that the other "boy" shouldn't be to blame for his friends stupidity. Come on you and your friends ever do some dumb sh** when you where a kid then you should be able to put yourself in that kids shoes...his life is basically over before he really even understood the implications. It's wrong what point of view I look at it from.

reply to post by purplemer


ok this is just retarded....

cop kills kid who is holding a gun in addition to just robbing someoone... probably justified, maybe, even though the story doesn't say the kid pointed the gun at the cop...

but then charging his friend, and accomplice, with the murder when the cop is the one who killed him...
how the eff does that make sense?

wtf is wrong with this country these days? where is the common sense?

so now in some states cops can double tap people and charge their accomplices with the crime...

effin awesome... "USA, USA, USA"....up:

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


oh yes and the fascist cops are any less of punks... give me a break... not saying all cops are bad, but some of them are no better than the "criminals" ...

This is called a hard lesson learned.. armed robbery at 16? No, he is not on the road to being an asset to society. And before someone starts on the whole rehabilitation spiel-save it.

We are slowly sinking and losing ground on our communities and children that DONT have such fatal flaws at the age of 16. There is no time to turn around and pick these future hard criminals up and give them a piece of candy and a pat on the head asking them not to do it again.

Net-net: He played the game, he lost.. thanks for coming out

Originally posted by mikellmikell
2 is always better than one when your dealing with these types. They were not new to the game and they both made choices and have now paid. 2 off the street makes it just a little bit safer for normal people. Locally they sent 3 17 year olds to prison for life for killing a guy for 12$ then bragging about it.

If you do the crime, you must be willing to pay the time.. The problem here is he has been arrested for a crime he did not really commit..

kx

Originally posted by mikellmikell
2 is always better than one when your dealing with these types. They were not new to the game and they both made choices and have now paid. 2 off the street makes it just a little bit safer for normal people. Locally they sent 3 17 year olds to prison for life for killing a guy for 12$ then bragging about it.

If you do the crime, you must be willing to pay the time.. The problem here is he has been arrested for a crime he did not really commit..

kx

Isn't this Capitol Murder? I mean, he committed a crime that lead to the death of another. Its murder, yes in direct, but murder. If they had never committed the robbery then no cops would be involved and no need for his buddy to pull a gun on them.

Quite frankly, better to nip it in the bud now than have someone or others killed by this young thug later. If it quacks like duck..........

The laws have become so complex. No, I don't think the young thug should be charged for murder. However, some good ole time at the Juvi center is all he really needs. Hopefully.

S & F OP.

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman


Dude, if the gun wasn't in visible sight initially, and then came out after the officers attempted apprehend them, then it becomes pretty evident that he intended to use the gun. of course, they shot him. i would have done the same thing in their shoes, and I would think most would.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by purplemer

 

It is a travesty of justice but in their minds the young man would be alive were it not for their combined actions and so their decision to commit the crime was what got the one guy shot and so the survivor is responsible for the murder or death. It is an unwarranted and preposterous stretch of the circumstances and a convenient way to absolve oneself of guilt for shooting a child. By this reasoning anyone shot by police during a robbery could also be charged with shooting themselves.

This is the only worthwhile post that I managed to read on this thread. It deserves it's spot as the first response.

I don't care if the "law" dates back to the stone age and Jesus Christ rose from the grave to back it up. It is still an absurd law, it is doublethink and ridiculous. He was an accessory to armed robbery, and while he did play a part in his friend's death, he certainly did not shoot and kill him.

You "justice junkies" are really starting to completely lose it. You can't see the forest through the trees.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

Technically no, he may not have had a gun but whats your point? He was still part of a plan to rob someone with a firearm. That's like saying someone pouring gas on a building really didn't start the fire because the other guy lit the match.

+


Yes he planned to rob someone with a firearm, but he did not have intent to murder someone. The murder only took place when the police officer killed his friend in self defense. That is out of his hands, those choices lied with his friend that pulled the gun on the police officer and the police officer that shot him in self defense.
Using your logic other people can choose wether you commit a crime or not and that does not seem right to me.. Especialy in this case...


kx

reply to post by Chickensalad


didn't say that's what happened in the story... like I said probably justified, maybe... if indeed he did turn on the cop with gun ready to be pointed... the story just said that the kid who had when robbing the guy turned towards the cop when approached... never even said the kid had the gun in his hand when he turned... a gun can be held in a lot of places like a pocket..

What happens if 2 officers are on patrol duty, and 1 officer is a stand-up guy, never did wrong, while his partner has a substance-abuse problem and is a bit 'on edge'?

Long story short, the bad partner shoots and kills an unarmed civilian. I assume the good cop will be charged with murder, since this is the right thing to do, as he was 'rolling with him', and did not prevent the murder from happening at the exact moment, or prior to it when he knew the guy had a serious problem.

No, no.. Let me guess.. "apples and oranges".

Originally posted by pplrnuts
Dont be a criminal and stuff like this wouldnt happen.

Yes?

Yeah I'm 100% positive you have broken many laws in your life....anyhow I think it's overboard to charge the kid that wasn't armed with murder...the cop killed the 15 year old boy and on top of that she could of shoot him in the leg or something.