Teen turns down plea deal for 25 years in prison, gets 65 years instead

so which does the law say it is, justifiable homicide , or murder? he is being convicted as an accomplice for a crime that did not happen and was not even attempted.

 

It is a more usual reason to charge and yes if he was indeed doing that which I have seen no reason to believe then that would have been appropriate. However perhaps the reason he was not charged with that was because he was not doing it.

The law of accusing co defendants of the killing of one of their own done by the police appears to be unique to Alabama.

 

At least 11 states have similar codes of law including Massachusetts, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Indiana.

A 16-year-old white criminal recently got 55 years in Indiana under their statutes.

 

I posted this earlier on the first page of the thread. It's from an Alabama newspaper.

Five people broke into two homes in Millbrook on Feb. 23, 2015. Smith was part of that group. Millbrook police officers responded to a call of a burglary in progress. One of the co-defendants began shooting at an officer as he entered the home. Testimony brought out that several of the co-defendants fired at the officer. The suspects left the home and ran into the backyard, still firing at the officer

 

They do not get applied in such a way that the killer did not commit any crime, but the accomplice is guilty of a crime that did not happen. the boy was not murdered. the accused is guilty of being near a shooting in self defense, and that is not a crime.

 

Yes, they do get applied that way and were written precisely for that purpose. It is pretty common for say four kids to invade a home, one gets killed by the homeowner, and the other three are charged with murder, but no charges are levied against the homeowner.

A 16-year-old white criminal in Indiana recently got 55 years under their similar statute.

 

The law is not the problem.

 

show me some links . Prove it.

 

white or black, charging someone for a killing the cops or someone else commits is wrong

 

well that is True, always easier to paint your room then change bad laws - doesn't mean people should not speak out against bad laws

if no one speaks out against bad laws, nothing ever changes

 

Opinion matters not at all, and is inadmissible in the court. Only the code of law as it is written by the legislators of the several states matters -- that and convincing the jury.

 

Indeed and as I put in the OP

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...instead/ar-AAvxv94?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

The article says several in the group fired shots but does not suggest that Lakeith was involved in any shooting just that several, not all, were. Your quote says the same. If he had been it would indeed be strange that they did not mention this. His lawyer makes the point he was terrified and never shot anyone.

 

what? we are giving our opinion as to this case.... what are you here for? to defend bad laws no matter what?

 

To say that my opinion is exactly as the law reads. Been on two juries and we went precisely by the law.

These cases were not like those cases in Alabama or Indiana, but what we in the jury wanted were copies of the codes, to go exactly by the codes.

 

I have seen nothing to make me believe it. see post 112. No I think the business of him being blamed for murder for the cop shooting the guy who ran at the cop is a law unique to Alabama. If the cops shoot one of a gang they blame the gang for his murder.

 

yes, and at one time it was illegal to help free a slave from the south... people should speak out against bad laws, not defend them

 

ah,You are here for 'entertainment' inconsistent with reasonable goals of discussion or debate. There is a word for that over cyberspace...

@FreshAir . this colloquy is not going to be productive.

 

see post 117.

 

California Penal Code 31 PC:

"Supreme Court of California recognized, in some situations, an aider and abettor may be guilty of a greater homicide-related offense than the actual perpetrator, since defenses or extenuating circumstances may exist that are personal to the actual perpetrator and do not apply to the aider and abettor.26

Example: Two defendants fire shots in a drive-by shooting. Only one defendant fires the shot that actually kills the victim. He is labeled the perpetrator, and the other defendant ...who was riding in the passenger seat...is labeled the "aider and abettor".

If, for example, the perpetrator proves that he only fired that shot in
self-defense, his charge would be reduced to
voluntary manslaughter or possibly even dismissed. However, the second defendant (the aider and abettor)...who still shot at and intended to kill the victim in the drive-by shooting...could still be convicted of murder.27
3.2. Natural and probable consequences
Aiders and abettors under PC 31 are not only equally responsible for the perpetrator's intended criminal activity. They are also equally responsible for any crimes that are the natural and probable consequences of that original crime.28

"Natural and probable consequences" are foreseeable consequences given all the surrounding circumstances.29 Whether a further crime is a "natural and probable consequence" of the original planned crime is a question that the jury must answer.30

Example: The defendant was in charge of driving the "get-away" car after the perpetrator robbed a jewelry store. The perpetrator entered the store wearing a ski parka with a hood and sunglasses and carrying a brown paper bag that held a pillow.

While in the store, the perpetrator shot an employee in the face, and then shot and killed the store owner. The defendant argued that he should not suffer accomplice liability for murder and attempted murder because he did not share in the perpetrator's intent to kill either victim.

The court disagreed. It reasoned that "to 'share' the perpetrator's intent does not mean that the aider and abettor is prepared to commit the offense by his own act. All that is needed is a knowing intent to assist the perpetrator's commission of the crime. Once that intent is formed, the liability of an aider and abettor 'extends also to the natural and reasonable consequences of the acts he knowingly and intentionally aids and encourages'".

When the perpetrator entered the store with a gun and a pillow to muffle the sound of possible gunfire, the shootings were indeed a natural and probable consequence of the robbery itself.31"

In the court it doesn't matter what the public thinks in the gallery or in the streets. The court will administer the law as written.

 

Charging someone who did not do the killing with murder, just does not seem like justice to me. It looks like what one would see from an enemy of the state in places like the old USSR. I don't understand why alabama would be this injust, but then again, if you get caught with a single pot seed in that state, it is a felony. It takes only one person to pull the trigger on a gun. And that is the person who should be charged with murder.

 

this is funny. In every circumstance above, it presupposes an underlying crime took place of some sort against the victim but none was committed against this young man at all. there was no manslaughter, no murder, no negligent homicide. There was a justifiable use of lethal force. If the accused foresaw that justifiable use of self defense was likely, he is as much a hero as the cop.

 

Nonetheless the getaway driver was charged with murder under the code of law in California and this was upheld by the California Supreme Court.

"All that is needed is a knowing intent to assist the perpetrator's commission of the crime [robbery]." Driving the getaway car = murder in this case.

If the during the robbery deaths occur, in California the driver of the getaway car (and others who assist in the robbery but don't fire a shot) can easily be charged with murder.

 

Yep works if the accused was being an accomplice to theft or attempted murder of the cop. That is all criminal conduct he facilitated. he did not facilitate the cop shooting the victim. He did not help the cop, aid the cop or assist the cop to draw his weapon at all. he did not even facilitate the cops presence. he did not call them. he did not drive them there, plan what streets the police should use or put the bullets in the cops gun..

 

Your argument is with the legislators of California who wrote the law, the court which administered the law, and the California Supreme Court which upheld the law.

In Willie Brown's old bailiwick no less.

 

No my argument is with you applying the California statute ( not even the Alabama statute) to a totally dissimilar set of hypothetical facts. There was no crime committed against the young man who died. He was not a victim at all.