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

Not even reading this. Your credibility with me is too low.

 

many issue though with this case, the 15 year old did not kill anyone, the cop did

so I would of charged the 15 year old with the crimes he did do, not the killing he did not do

 

no they are not, in this case the cop did the killing and the state charged the 15 year old with the cops killing

 

he was 15, your not old enough to make legal decisions for yourself at age 15, can't gamble, can't drink, can't get a drivers license, can't vote, ect....

 

No doubt this prosecutor wanted to send a message. He was not forced to charge these thugs (and yes, they are thugs) with murder. Armed robbery and attempted murder of the police officers would have been sufficient and in keeping with the facts of the case.

I would say he did it for the same reason a dog licks his balls ... because he can. Ditto for the judge that upped the sentence to 65 years.

This case seems ripe for appeal. Who knows, though. The SCOTUS has let some real BS fly.
The 8th amendment comes to my mind, though.

 

they should of charged him with the two breakin's and attempted murder, that would of got the 15 year old 25 years, he would of still done some major time, not sure why they would go to this extreme

 

We are talking about a state law, the law that exists in this particular state. How can the US be a fascist country if it allows its states to have their own criminal laws and sentencing guidelines? I don’t know how many states in the US has similar laws, but I lived in Minnesota and Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never heard of such laws in any of these states.
As for plea bargaining, I’ll tell you if my own incident I was involved in, which was on a much smaller scale then the case you presented in the OP: I bought a used car and got into an accident 2 days later. I believe I got the car on a Friday and wasn’t aware that I must change my insurance switched to new car right away (I was very young at the time). No one got hurt in the accident and I paid for repairs for another car. I was charged with getting into an accident and having no insurance. So, in court the prosecutor asked if I paid for repairs, which I said I did and he offered me a plea bargain: I plead guilty to failure to yield and he drops the no insurance charge. I took th deal and got away with a simple tragic ticket. How is that fascist? It saved and the state time and money. You just need to be smart about your options.

 

when you can charge a citizen for the killing a officer of the state commits, that's pretty bad

"I took th deal and got away with a simple tragic ticket. How is that fascist?"

when I was young insurance and seat belts were not required, only recommended - why should the state force you to get either?

 

The defense lawyers here tell their clients that if they just get weary in court, drop their head in their hands and close their eyes while the prosecuting attorney is making a statement against them, most juries will interpret this as an admission of guilt and convict them no matter what else happens in the trial.

You got to listen. If you're dumb and don't listen you almost always have to pay.

 

I posted earlier that the police confronted them in the house they broke into and they shot at the cops. It wasn't just a break-in. I could see an attempted murder charge for shooting at the cops. They weren't charged for that, though.

 

I am pretty sure it said he was laughing during sentence. That suggested to me it was the sentence he was laughing at and I doubt very much he was laughing because he found it amusing.

 

I am not sure that was this guy though as his lawyer states he was just in terror suggesting he had no idea this sort of thing was going to happen. It is always impossible to judge the case if you are not there and do not have full details. However the punishment for what he was charged with, in comparison to what he would have got had he pleaded guilty is another thing.

 

yep, had they charged him for the shooting back vs the murder of his friend the cop killed, that would of been more appropriate

 

Well, that's indeed a blessing in disguise....not hearing you 'discuss the ins and outs of the case'. I suppose we can all just accept your learned spin on the matter...afterall, the convicted perp was "apparently not involved and just terrified" ... .."shivering in terror" as you say, while he innocently road with the real killers....if one can believe that tale!

 

If true yes.

 

It doesn’t matter why. It’s a state law. I had my reservations about being forced to buy insurance, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter - citizens of the state elect lawmakers and they came up with the law. Which gets back to the OP: my options were $150 fine vs potential $1000 + 1 year in jail. If you are in situation like this you should think about how realistic it is to get a better deal from the judge or just go with prosecutors offer. I was around the age of that kid, I did my math, took the $150 fine, went home and never had to deal with that case ever again.

 

slavery was legal once too, and it was a crime to help free a slave ... the law is not always right....

your choice was a little easier then facing 25 years or risk facing 65 years for a killing of your friend you did not do, at 15, that is a huge decision for a child

at 15, he probably thought he would never get sentenced with killing his friend as he knew he did not kill his friend, sometimes ironically teens think more logically then the courts

 

Nah, the kid was offered a fair sentence and turned it down.

 

If the DA went by the law as it is written in the codes, and the judge went by the codes, then the thing is entirely proper and good.

If the DA didn't go by the law as it is written in the codes, and the judge went along with that, then the young gentleman will be out or get the sentence reduced when it hits the appeals.

 

Here is the problem. Either this death was justifiable homicide or it is murder. The same set of facts exonerate the cop from this death, cannot be twisted into a murder at the convenience of the DA's office. If a murder was committed for which this boy is an accomplice with his presence than a murder happened not justifiable homicide. There are two murderers because a murder was committed, or there are no murderers because murder did not happen. That crime was not committed at all because someone defended themself. I think there is more than one avenue for appeal.

 

That some people don't like this or that law is besides the point...the law is there and it was enforced. The complainers would have better luck changing the color of the paint in their apartments rather than constantly whine about the inherent unfairness of laws that are on the books!

 

It is what the law as written says it is.

 

regardless if true or not, it would be more appropriate then charging him with the murder of his friend when it was the cop that shot and killed his friend

 

My argument is not about this particular case and the law which is apparently unique to Alabama. It is about the United States only having 3% of its criminal cases tried in court, that 10% of the people who accept plea bargaining are innocent and the possibility that this man's increase in sentence is a lesson to everyone else that they will be punished if they try to argue the charges against them in court. This means that you basically have imprisonment without trial and in your criminal dealings, are already operating more like a country under dictatorship, than a democracy.

(your issue was a driving offence. It is not what we are talking about. Insurers do not even count them as crimes.)

 

yep, slavery was legal and helping free a slave was illegal, same arguments were used then... but do you think this or that was right? I think this was wrong...

just saying the law says the kid is guilty of the cops killing cause the law says so... is not telling us if you agree with it or not?