Uber Driver killed by 13 and 15 yr old in DC

I'm a public school teacher in a low income area. I know all about the pipeline to prison and how environment effects children. I see it and deal with it every single day. With that being said

disproportionately writing off every child from poverty as a lost cause is a slippery slope.
I don’t know how you have the patience to debate with these morons
 
Apples to oranges, this is an obvious incidence of manslaughter. What these girls did is not simple manslaughter.

What these girls did is AT LEAST SECOND DEGREE MURDER

n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state. (See: murder, first degree murder, manslaughter)

No need for caps.

The point of the post is to show the age of the youngest person in the United States to be sentenced to life in prison.
 
you're making an assumption about this young girl possibly wanting to call her parents when she asked for her phone, yet you negate others who've made assumptions that these two didn't have regard for human life. both can be possible, but the clear actions of these two leans more toward the latter assumption than yours.

at that age one knows right and wrong, one is conscious that one's actions using that tazer on that man and driving off while he's clinging to it are meant to cause harm

What?

Because you're willing to take a car does not make you a murderer. Some of you seem to have problem differentiating in crime and brush criminals with a broad stroke. Much less thinking children aren't redeemable. If kids aren't redeemable, should adults be in prison for life for everything since they knew right from wrong?

To make that claim they had no regard for human life they would have had a gun and shot him and taken the car. Do you think they planned on him still hanging on the car when they drove off? Anticipated crashing and possibly injuring themselves too? And did one of them or both make that decision to drive off?
 
No need for caps.

The point of the post is to show the age of the youngest person in the United States to be sentenced to life in prison.

hmm yea and im saying unlike him, these girls are more deserving of life in prison.
 
I'm a public school teacher in a low income area. I know all about the pipeline to prison and how environment effects children. I see it and deal with it every single day. With that being said

disproportionately writing off every child from poverty as a lost cause is a slippery slope.
I didn’t write them off. Again, I think you need to read my initial statement again.


but that all said, Good for you my man. Keep doing what you’re doing. Nothing but respect from me
 
I don't think this conversation warrants continued correspondence, honestly.

I love when people say something then pretend like they didn't mean what they said when you address it.

You brought up emotions in how law and justice is perceived, I gave you a response about how the two are never separated in issues of justice because the human factor can't be separated from how law and justice is addressed in this country. But ok, if you are having trouble elaborating on the point YOU made I'll leave it alone.
 
Lionel Alexander Tate

Lionel Alexander Tate (born January 30, 1987) is the youngest American citizen ever sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In January 2001, when Tate was 13, he was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1999 battering death of six-year-old Tiffany Eunick in Broward County, Florida.

On July 28, 1999, Tate was left alone with Eunick, who was being babysat by Tate's mother, Kathleen Grossett-Tate. While the children were downstairs playing, Tate's mother called to them to be quiet. Tate came up 45 minutes later to say that Eunick was not breathing. He said that while they were wrestling, he had her in a headlock and the child's head hit a table. Only Eunick and Grossete-Tate were present when this occurred.

Conviction
Tate was convicted of killing Eunick by stomping on her so forcefully that her liver was lacerated. Her legs, feet, and neck all had serious bruises; an example of the amount of force used on her was similar to bruises from a speeding car.[4] Her other injuries included a fractured skull, fractured rib, and swollen brain. These injuries were characterized by the prosecution as "similar to those she would have sustained by falling from a three-story building."[5] In sentencing Tate to life imprisonment, Judge Joel T. Lazarus of Broward County Circuit Court said that "The acts of Lionel Tate were not the playful acts of a child [...] The acts of Lionel Tate were cold, callous and indescribably cruel."[6]

Felony murder rule
Florida Statutes required the jury to convict Tate of first-degree murder even if the jury did not believe that he intended to kill or injure anyone—all that was required was that Tate knowingly abused another child who died as a result, as any intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury to a child is child abuse per Florida statutes.[7][8][9] The rule for such convictions is known as the felony murder rule. The sufficient conditions of the felony murder rule were listed by the judge Joel T. Lazarus during sentencing.[10] Therefore, Tate was sentenced to life in prison without the prosecution having to prove that he intended to kill or injure, or realized that his acts are likely to kill or injure, or even that a typical child of his age would or should realize this.

Critics, such as the various groups listed in the Amicus Brief attached to Tate's appeal, assert that convicting preteen children of 1st-degree murder without having to prove these children intended any harm, not to mention serious injury or death, is unacceptable.[11][12]

Sentence
The sentence was controversial because Tate was 12 years old at the time of the murder, and his victim was 6. He was the youngest person in modern US history to be sentenced to life imprisonment,[2] bringing broad criticism on the treatment of juvenile offenders in the justice system of the state of Florida.

After the conviction, the prosecution openly joined Tate's plea for leniency in sentencing and even offered to help in his appeal. The trial judge criticized the prosecution for compromising the integrity of the adversarial system, and said that if the prosecution felt that life imprisonment was not warranted, they should not have charged him with murder in the first place.[13]

In January 2004, a state appeals court overturned his conviction on the basis that his mental competency had not been evaluated before trial. This opened the way for Tate to accept the same plea deal he originally turned down, and he was released on one year's house arrest and 10 years' probation.[citation needed][14]

.

Man reading this **** made my stomach hurt what the hell man.

So glad me and all my loved ones was born in our right minds.
 
I love when people say something then pretend like they didn't mean what they said when you address it.

You brought up emotions in how law and justice is perceived, I gave you a response about how the two are never separated in issues of justice because the human factor can't be separated from how law and justice is addressed in this country. But ok, if you are having trouble elaborating on the point YOU made I'll leave it alone.
You win, man.

Stellar performance.
 
One day some of you will have children, and they will do something stupid.
And it will be worth investigating each and every thing you have done as a parent.

There are levels to stupid and what these young women did is at or near peak stupidity even for an adult. To assume that we will raise children that will commit or be a party to homicide is wild.

Ummmm, according to laws and not your opinion it does matter.

That's why we have manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, murder one, murder two, murder three....

How did you come to the conclusion they had no regard for human life? children?
Probably the part when she was more concerned about her phone than dude dying/already dead close by.
You're looking at it as an adult who has the social and emotional intelligence to understand the gravity of the situation.

A child does not, so no her asking for her phone doesn't shock me in the slightest.

Regardless of the intent behind her worry about her phone, you'd be foolish to think that the prosecution won't paint it as her being apathetic and that the defense won't paint it as her being a panicked teen trying to reach out to her parents. It's going to come down to who does a better job of swaying the jury. Either way, it's just not a good look. Beyond that, speeding off after using a taser on him (which is armed robbery) while the man is holding onto the door for his dear life is some form of murder as deusavertat deusavertat pointed out. Second definitely sticks IMO but it depends if prosecution wants to go for the jugular. I'm not sure how they get down in DC.

Re: Phone

Not sure who brought it up but maybe she was worried about her phone so she could call her parents.

I don't think that is far fetched at all.
you're making an assumption about this young girl possibly wanting to call her parents when she asked for her phone, yet you negate others who've made assumptions that these two didn't have regard for human life. both can be possible, but the clear actions of these two leans more toward the latter assumption than yours.

at that age one knows right and wrong, one is conscious that one's actions using that tazer on that man and driving off while he's clinging to it are meant to cause harm

It's funny that we got folks in here saying "It's the parents fault! Lock them up and throwaway the key!". Yet on the other end of the spectrum there are people saying "Maybe she was worried about her phone to call her parents"....which means they probably aren't ****** or absent parents. Just goes to show how little we actually know about the situation and that these are just mostly baseless assumptions.
 
i don't see it as a generational thing, necessarily.
many adults don't understand the impact, gravity and consequences of a lot of their actions either.

Unless you have some developmental issues or antisocial personality disorder, by your teen years you should be able to recognize the most basic concepts of morality (don't kill, don't take property that doesn't belong to you, etc).
 
I didn’t write them off. Again, I think you need to read my initial statement again.


but that all said, Good for you my man. Keep doing what you’re doing. Nothing but respect from me

I interpreted it as unless major intervention occurs by the age of 10 a child from poverty will most likely succumb to the pressures of their environment. If that was not what it meant please correct me. 9 times out of 10 I agree with your takes so this one really threw me for a loop if I'm being honest.
 
Back
Top Bottom