this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
610 points (84.6% liked)

US Authoritarianism

832 readers
3 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
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because it is wrong.

Because police need to be held to a higher standard and everyone is responsible for themselves not anytime else. We have negligent homicide laws for almost every reason that would be covered under my statement.

Sure. You know there are people in prison who were not even physically there for about crime that wasn't intended by them to be a violent crime? It's exceedingly broad.

No we have independent laws for that as well.

Morality, is not difficult. If a kid breaks my window playing baseball I don't go and demand payment from everyone playing, I just talk to the parents of the kid who actually broke the window.

[–] Rekorse -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If the people you are committing felonies with shoot at police, you are responsible for what happens next. This is the worst case to use as a bad example of felony murder. Its textbook.

Bringing up other examples that are not similar to this case helps how?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You'll notice the person convicted did not shoot at the police nor was that the plan. It may be textbook but the textbook is fucked, eugenics is technically textbook are we saying it's right because at one time it was accepted?

That's what you just did bud, why complain.

If we plan to steal gum get caught and run and your buddy, not you pulls a gun you did not know about and shoots at the officer and your buddy is shot dead. Are you then your buddies murderer?

[–] Rekorse -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Its textbook as in the logic is solid and settled. Has been for ages. You can't have it both ways, you have to pick a side and this side leads to those who choose to be part of violence being held accountable. Are you opposed to RICO cases as well?

The sentencing should be far less but whether they are guilty or not has no bearing on that.

Edit to answer your question: no but you'd have to convince a jury you had no idea violence would happen. Most would agree stealing a pack of gum is unlikely to lead to violence. It could but it would need more context, and likely additional escalating crimes.

In the case of this post though, thats not what happened. They had been on a string of violence prior and in this case on of the thieves charged an officer with a gun pointed at them. They had murdered someone else the night before. Context matters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bro, you're not going to get anywhere with "it's the law!". We know that, clearly, we're saying it's fucking stupid. Yes rico, though I think most people would agree.

We have a law that's lesser and used in states without felony murder called negligent homicide, that's literally what the article is about.... It's what we're talking about and have been the entire time ...

Yeah that isn't a thing, the jury doesn't care when it comes to felony murder because that isn't an aspect of it, that's the point.

No they had been on a string of robberies, I haven't seen reference to a violent robbery aside from the one the officers interrupted which only turned violent once the police arrived. So yes context matters, agreed.

[–] Rekorse 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay well stealing gun isnt a felony, so no felony murder. Almost like theres limitations to the law. The issue I take with this post is the example used is deceptive. If this was meant to be an honest debate then they wouldnt leave out so many details. I even disagree with applying felony murder in some cases, but this isnt one of them.

When I said it was settled logic I meant the basis of it hasnt changed for a while. I don't really see how people don't understand that people can act as a group.

The person this post is about surely deserves some time in prison for what happened. Even if it was just the home invasion charge he could have gotten 20 years. This person will be in prison for a long time for multiple crimes besides this one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes it is, what are you talking about, depending on the firearm it's a federal crime. They didn't leave it details, you haven't read them. This one case you didn't bother to read about is the one that didn't sit well with ya, good to know.

I don't care, you bullshit excuse is the same shit that enabled shit like Jim Crow and the thirteenth amendment not actually banning slavery.

They deserve a punishment for the crime they knowingly participated in, yes. It wasn't home invasion, neither home was occupied. In fact iirc the house the shooting happened in was abandoned at the time. Sure, so let's pile on a bullshit charge to a 15 yr old, totally sane and logical huh?

[–] Rekorse 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lol thats my bad, we were talking about gum, a package of gum. I know stealing guns is a felony usually.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's your fault, what you're bad at is clearly reading.

[–] Rekorse 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thats exactly what I said! Good on you!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Talking down to me only works if you were right once this whole time and ya ain't been.

Try that before the dipshit attitude.

[–] Rekorse 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay, thanks for the advice internet stranger I'll definitely remember!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Again, the attitude only works if you've been right at all. Being the lippy dumb guy who can't be bothered to read the article but insists on spewing his shitty hypocritical fucking opinion isn't a good look Internet stranger.

[–] Rekorse 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I thought I was doing this right though?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

There's that reading thing again.