Uber Driver killed by 13 and 15 yr old in DC

Brah, it doesn't matter if they meant to kill him or not. The man is dead as a result of their actions. That's the only thing that should matter. If they had no regard for human life now ain't no amount of rehabilitation is gonna change that. Let em both rot in jail.

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Man you can't seriously believe this.
Ain’t nothing to “believe”, it’s observable. Environment is a huge hill to overcome. Am I saying they’re doomed? No, but their lives are situated, again usually, at that point. It’s the sad truth man but the stuff we see in movies aren’t the norm. Best way to understand this is that episode on Different World when Dwane went to visit the kid and his pops jacked him up. That’s actually pretty realistic. Anyway, you can do what you can when that kid is AWAY from their environment but they will return to their environment. This is part of the “pipeline” to prison. Look it up, it’s good information. It’s also why ghettos and such were created by those in power. Essentially keeps poor people poor, dumbs people dumb, etc.


Also, I think you need to read my initial post more carefully.
 
Last edited:
Some of y'all are bugging with saying they should do serious time.

They didn't mean to kill him. They were trying to get him off the car. They didn't run up to dude and shoot him and take his car.
Ok, the amount of credit y’all want to give someone who just killed someone for no reason is incredible :lol:
1st post in this thread is an interesting one...

Comes off as more concerned/bothered that folks saying the 2 girls should face serious time rather than the fact they killed a man.

They didnt mean it. :lol: :{
 
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]

.
 
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.
tenor.gif


Yall gotta chill with all these excuses! They were 2 teenagers who knew right from wrong. End of story. I don't wanna hear nothing about emotional intelligence. Miss me with that technical babble. I bet some yall would be singing a different tune if it were one of yall's family members that were killed instead of Anwar. They both deserve the full ride. No exceptions. Society is better off not having these 2 murderers roaming free.
 
Ain’t nothing to “believe”, it’s observable. Environment is a huge hill to overcome. Am I saying they’re doomed? No, but their lives are situated, again usually, at that point. It’s the sad truth man but the stuff we see in movies aren’t the norm. Best way to understand this is that episode on Different World when Dwane went to visit the kid and his pops jacked him up. That’s actually pretty realistic. Anyway, you can do what you can when that kid is AWAY from their environment but they will return to their environment. This is part of the “pipeline” to prison. Look it up, it’s good information. It’s also why ghettos and such were created by those in power. Essentially keeps poor people poor, dumbs people dumb, etc.

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.
 
“Child does not”

Think we’ve had this “magic number” debate before. So I guess at 17 and 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds an American isn’t smart enough to do anything but once that next second passes it all makes sense....
 
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]

.


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)
 
Quoted the wrong person smh:

Message for COMPARISONFORD

The law in this country is heavily influenced by emotions, we aren't robots. That's why lawyers and even judges bring up "if this were your family" in closing statements and arguments to sway the jury. This idea of putting emotions aside sounds good on paper but that isn't reality.


A lot of our laws are based on the idea that you wouldn't want certain crimes happening to you or your kin. Can't separate the two.
 
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.

idk cuz for me that kinda hurts your argument. I would expect even a child of like 8 to be concerned about...her friend? her situation?

nope, her phone.

you TAZERED A PERSON. you STOLE A CAR and EVERYONE SAW. CRASHED IT. FLIPPED IT.

even if they don't somehow see those as grave circumstances, that reality alone needs specific attention and reflection. years of it.
 
Last edited:
“Child does not”

Think we’ve had this “magic number” debate before. So I guess at 17 and 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds an American isn’t smart enough to do anything but once that next second passes it all makes sense....

Well that depends all on the offenders skin color. As you can see in this thread any violent crime committed by a person of color that is under 18 they should be thrown underneath the jail to rot with the longest sentence possible.
 
“Child does not”

Think we’ve had this “magic number” debate before. So I guess at 17 and 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds an American isn’t smart enough to do anything but once that next second passes it all makes sense....

This magic number debate has always been one of the most ridiculous to me. We allow people to legally operate 4000 pound vehicles at 16 that could kill people, but we don’t trust them to get a hotel until 18 at which point they also have the mental maturity to join the armed forces, but apparently are still too young to buy a beer :lol

None of it makes any sense.
 
Quoted the wrong person smh:

Message for COMPARISONFORD

The law in this country is heavily influenced by emotions, we aren't robots. That's why lawyers and even judges bring up "if this were your family" in closing statements and arguments to sway the jury. This idea of putting emotions aside sounds good on paper but that isn't reality.


A lot of our laws are based on the idea that you wouldn't want certain crimes happening to you or your kin. Can't separate the two.
This is, again, not what I implied at all.
 
Or, she was worried about getting caught and her leaving her phone behind would have her identified/tracked easily.
Or, these are all just assumptions with not a whole lot to support any possible hypothesis.

My initial response to hearing her cry out for her phone was anger though. No matter what her motivation was, it didn't look good from an outside perspective.
 
I didn't see anyone else very concerned either.

People are in shock and it is a 13 or 15 year old. She probably wanted to call her mom or dad.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom