WTF? Teen charged with murder...

#101
#101
crusse10 said:
Link to where I said that?

And do I think he should be charged with it? Yeah, it's the law. Do I think they should let him plead down, yeah.

I don't think he should let this go all the way to getting convicted of Murder 1. He is an accessory to the series of events that lead to his friend dying. As the DA's office I would trade Murder 1 for him corroborating the officer's story that the other kid turned around with a loaded gun, thus forcing her to shoot him.
Click to expand...

You're talking in circles. Charge but don't convict? What a shout of praise to the God of Stupid.
Buy only if he corroborates the cop's story? Truthful or not? Why can't the DA just use some of those innocent bystanders that were in danger as witnesses?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#102
#102
bamacheats said:
You're talking in circles. Charge but don't convict? What a shout of praise to the God of Stupid.
Buy only if he corroborates the cop's story? Truthful or not? Why can't the DA just use some of those innocent bystanders that were in danger as witnesses?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not talking in circles. The charged him up front with what the law says he can get. He is then not taken to court by pleading to a lesser charge, thereby verifying the story so conspiracy theorists like you can gladly shut the hell up.
 
#103
#103
crusse10 said:
Not talking in circles. The charged him up front with what the law says he can get. He is then not taken to court by pleading to a lesser charge, thereby verifying the story so conspiracy theorists like you can gladly shut the hell up.
Click to expand...

Your theory is just as valid as mine at the moment.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#106
#106
bamacheats said:
The theory that the cop shot him in the back as self defense.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

See, that's where you're wrong.
I have the police's account that states the kid turned around with a loaded gun.

You have hatred for police.

It's pretty obvious who has a more valid theory
 
#107
#107
therealUT said:
...after LEO's shoot his friend:



This an outrageous law and an even more egregious application of such law.
Click to expand...

kids could have stopped running and surrendered..instead they pointed a gun at a police officer..

you go out with a buddy and a gun, rob someone, and confront the police, something bad is going to happen
 
#108
#108
crusse10 said:
See, that's where you're wrong.
I have the police's account that states the kid turned around with a loaded gun.

You have hatred for police.

It's pretty obvious who has a more valid theory
Click to expand...

Really? You have the shooter's statement? Really? You're rolling with that? Because surely the cop would have admitted the fact that no shots were fired back if that's the way it happened. Right? No way a cop can describe a series of events in an unbiased manner. Right? Because once the accomplice is offered a lesser charge, as long as he agrees with the cop's version of events, it proves the validity of the bullet-in-the-back-was-self-defense story.

utgibbs defense of Fulmer is more logical than anything you've posted.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#109
#109
vol_in_il said:
kids could have stopped running and surrendered..instead they pointed a gun at a police officer..

you go out with a buddy and a gun, rob someone, and confront the police, something bad is going to happen
Click to expand...

No kidding Captain Obvious. You quoted realUT saying the LAW was absurd, not the ACTION, then proceed to argue something that no one is arguing. The kid put himself in a bad situation, everyone gets that. We are debating the law charging his friend for murder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#110
#110
bamacheats said:
No kidding Captain Obvious. You quoted realUT saying the LAW was absurd, not the ACTION, then proceed to argue something that no one is arguing. The kid put himself in a bad situation, everyone gets that. We are debating the law charging his friend for murder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, you're not debating that. You're basically debating whether or not the cop committed murder. How can you not see that?
 
#111
#111
bamacheats said:
No kidding Captain Obvious. You quoted realUT saying the LAW was absurd, not the ACTION, then proceed to argue something that no one is arguing. The kid put himself in a bad situation, everyone gets that. We are debating the law charging his friend for murder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

go find another leg to pee on

the kids went out looking for trouble, one's dead the other's getting charged with murder
 
Last edited:
#112
#112
bamacheats said:
I just stated that the cop SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED! and that it happened from a poor decision ON THE KIDS PART!

That doesn't mean the cop could not have handled things better. But its the heat of the moment therefore THE COP SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED!

The possible tragedy is not the kid who died, its the fact that his friend COULD BE CONVICTED OF MURDER FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is what I'm arguing. You started the tangent defending the cop.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#114
#114
crusse10 said:
See, that's where you're wrong.
I have the police's account that states the kid turned around with a loaded gun.

You have hatred for police.

It's pretty obvious who has a more valid theory
Click to expand...

Read the story again. Here's the link:
Teen Brandon Ross Charged with Murder of Tatioun Williams in Police-Involved Shooting, Armed Robbery Case

I am referring to this part in my "argument":

Williams, of 1311 E. 69th St., was pronounced dead at 8:40 p.m. at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, according to the medical examiner’s office. An autopsy Thursday found he died from a gunshot wound to the back and ruled the death a homicide.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-read that Official Police Account.
 
#115
#115
bamacheats said:
This is what I'm arguing. You started the tangent defending the cop.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So, let's say you hire a hitman to kill someone, and he kills the intended target. Should you be charged with murder even though you didn't actually shoot the person?
 
#116
#116
LawVol13 said:
So, let's say you hire a hitman to kill someone, and he kills the intended target. Should you be charged with murder even though you didn't actually shoot the person?
Click to expand...

I don't really think that analogy applies very well in this context since there is absolutely a clear line of intent linking you directly to the person's death in the example you cite. In the Ross case you don't have much more than "he was there" as a third party to a murder but will apparently be charged as a first party.
 
#117
#117
hndog609 said:
I don't really think that analogy applies very well in this context since there is absolutely a clear line of intent linking you directly to the person's death in the example you cite. In the Ross case you don't have much more than "he was there" as a third party to a murder but will apparently be charged as a first party.
Click to expand...

I think this case stretches it; I'll concede that. The law should be applied to third parties being killed as a result of a certain felony not a coconspirator, in my opinion. However, imagine if a customer had been killed in this armed robbery; I absolutely think the perpetrators should be charged with 1st degree murder via the felony murder rule.
 
#118
#118
LawVol13 said:
I think this case stretches it; I'll concede that. The law should be applied to third parties being killed as a result of a certain felony not a coconspirator, in my opinion. However, imagine if a customer had been killed in this armed robbery; I absolutely think the perpetrators should be charged with 1st degree murder via the felony murder rule.
Click to expand...

If the "victim" had wound up dead I don't think this discussion would have even come up.
 
#119
#119
hndog609 said:
If the "victim" had wound up dead I don't think this discussion would have even come up.
Click to expand...

Even if the victim was accidentally shot by police, I still think the perpetrators should be charged with 1st degree murder.
 
#120
#120
LawVol13 said:
So, let's say you hire a hitman to kill someone, and he kills the intended target. Should you be charged with murder even though you didn't actually shoot the person?
Click to expand...

Of course you should be charged. However, the actual shooter is also charged.

This analogy doesn't work.
 
#122
#122
PandamoniumReigns said:
Read the story again. Here's the link:
Teen Brandon Ross Charged with Murder of Tatioun Williams in Police-Involved Shooting, Armed Robbery Case

I am referring to this part in my "argument":



Maybe you should re-read that Official Police Account.
Click to expand...

If you turn the upper half of your body 45° you can shoot backwards. It still leaves the back of your body completely accessible for being shot.

One of the suspects, with a weapon in his hand, turned in the sergeant’s direction. The sergeant shot the suspect, identified by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office as 15-year-old Tatioun Williams.
Click to expand...
 
#124
#124
PandamoniumReigns said:
Of course you should be charged. However, the actual shooter is also charged.

This analogy doesn't work.
Click to expand...

It absolutely works. If the person is caught in crossfire between the police and the perpetrators and is actually shot by the police, the perpetrators would still be charged with 1st degree murder.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top