this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
610 points (84.6% liked)
US Authoritarianism
831 readers
1 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
For lesser crimes, I can agree, but felony stuff. I think it should be more rigid.
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.
I don't understand why that is being equated with murder though. If I would have forced my accomplice into the life threatening situation that got them killed, sure, I would be guilty of their death; but if we assume that they went along willingly how can I get blamed that they got themselves in the situation where (someone else!) killed them?
You shared the intent to do the crime, including all its foreseeable consequences.
Criminal liability criminalizes the forming bad intentions (conspiracy and attempt, inchoate crimes) and the bad action of advancing those intention (completed crimes, choate crimes; robbery, murder).
Felony murder liability says: don't do that (don't conspire to do a felony that may likely kill someone and which then did kill someone).
The death arose from the shared bad intent, so the consequences are fairly shared. That's the theory. I know some people who find this rule controversial. I find it controversial as applied, sometimes, but not in theory. It's the economics of the rule. Can't have people hatching dangerous conspiracies to do felonies.
If you commit a felony and during which someone dies, it’s felony murder. Even if you did nothing wrong except whatever felony
Yeah, we're asking if that's moral? We already have laws about being party to a murder or conspiracy to murder. Why do we need to automatically extend liability?
That's the law, but is is actually just?
Oh look someone with a Pro-Genocide tag shows up to defend charging people for the violence committed against them.
Such surprise.
Ridiculous. Go touch grass, honestly. "Pro genocide." You're so gullible and reactionary. Such a surprise your media literacy is such utter dogshite.
Your name is rather distinctive. But just to make sure I didn't forget about your shilling for Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes I added a tag. So yeah I'm not surprised you're in favor of charging people with murder for the police shooting their friends.
Thats churlish. You can't handle disagreeing with someone?
Why not just say: "I haven't figured out how to handle my emotions yet"?
No I can disagree with people just fine. But I don't tolerate the presence of people who use propaganda to defend the most blatant and horrendous war crimes. It's the same as tolerating the presence of a neo Nazi. For the record Israel hit another IDP camp this week, the EU and Human Rights Watch have said Israel is using starvation as a weapon against the Palestinian people, and now 7 of our allies are restricting or refusing arms sales to Israel.
Furthermore I mean what I said above literally. I am not surprised to find a defender of all of that coming here to defend the felony murder rule being used when the police did the killing.
Or, and this just struck me, are you saying my shit memory for people means I'm churlish?
The two have nothing to do with each other. You seem unhinged. It was also you that brought up Israel. Its a strawman and you just committed to it again in this reply.
Okay let me break this down Barney style.
Support for Authoritarian A makes support for Authoritarian B unsurprising.
Get it now?
I never said I didn't understand, I said I disagree with the logic of bringing it up. You can do whatever you want, I won't stop you. I do still think you maybe need some emotional regulation help but if you can't handle disagreeing with complete strangers on the internet, I won't force you into it.
Ah yes. Clear logic means I can't regulate my emotions. That makes complete sense.
Well you sound better now at least.
You only reveal your failure to understand my position. Again, sorry I can't dumb it down for you any further, the subject inherently complex.
Your position isn't complex. It's just reprehensible.
Why are you always mean when people disagree with you? I noticed this a lot. You always claim that you can't dumb it down further to someone else. Strange mechanism to defend your opinion.
To be fair, they replied to a question in good faith and then the other person replied by calling them pro-genocide.
If you read most things JustZ, you would probably take that back... JustZ is a genocide denier in every sense of the word and they always say the other person is dumb when they are challenged.
One opinion has nothing to do with the other. Seems like they earnestly hold their positions, whether I disagree with them or not. Y'all are just trying to take shortcuts to judging someone's character. You know next to nothing about them.
I invite you to read the rest of the shit he writes. You won't need shortcuts.
Kind of funny. The same folks saying Smith’s prior involvement in uncharged murders shouldn’t be considered in his sentencing are also making summary judgments against commenters based on comment history.
Some folks just really embrace contrarianism as a personality trait I suppose.
They should use that in sentencing. If its not convicted it won't matter as much. It was not used to determine guilt. They determined the defendant was likely aware that his actions along with his friends would lead to violence, and he went along anyways. He also did the only possible thing at the time in running and hiding. We don't know what he would have done had he had the gun that night. At best that should not go either way towards guilt or innocence.