What should he get?

Benedict said:

Oh I can see the point in that, indeed we have something similar in the UK, it was the suggestion of taking everything off the record at the age of 18 that seemed insane. We've got various rehabilitation of offenders things that mean that records are for most careers no longer an issue after a certain time, but actually wiping the records completely seems like quite a jump from that.

Click to expand...

I've probably got the details wrong, or oversimplified, but I'm pretty sure there are means to get juvenile crimes completely expunged eventually. Similar to what you're saying about the UK, I think even adult felons can get their voting rights back after so many years of a clean record. Also, juvenile records are completely sealed and confidential afaik so no one would know about them anyway afa the details of what the person had done--but perhaps someone out there is a bit more informed.

My point mainly was that this was a case where the system was being worked, and that the perps being kids might not send a signal of reassurance to the shooter, but rather the opposite. Still, that reasoning is a bit faulty, since a teenager who shot and killed someone in the course of a robbery would indeed most likely face trail as an adult.

magerette said:

My point mainly was that this was a case where the system was being worked, and that the perps being kids might not send a signal of reassurance to the shooter, but rather the opposite. Still, that reasoning is a bit faulty, since a teenager who shot and killed someone in the course of a robbery would indeed most likely face trail as an adult.

Click to expand...

Whatever the legal system I'd find armed children very worrying, if I had to choose I'd much prefer to be robbed by an adult (non junkie) career criminal, kids are far more likely to be either catastrophically nervous or completely, stupidly macho about it.

Benedict said:

...
it's just something that from a purely utilitarian standpoint hasn't involved the death of someone with an expected net positive value to society.

Click to expand...

That's pretty cold. I like it. There's hope for you yet, Benedict.

dteowner said:

That's pretty cold. I like it. There's hope for you yet, Benedict.

Click to expand...

I'm an actuary, you're all just numbers to me.

dteowner said:

The problem is that the juvie system was set up under the assumption that juvenile crimes would be minor and that juveniles could easily be rehabilitated.

Click to expand...

They can. Especially compared to what will happen if you don't rehabilitate them. Of course, it takes more than saying "we ought to rehabilitate that juvenile criminal" to acually rehabilitate them. Rehabilitating a human can be compared to repairing a car. It takes more than having it stand in a car repair shop to acually repair it. Sure, humans are more complicated than cars and there is the chance that it might repair itself. Not common enough to acually build a system around it though...

Übereil

He should get a medal then sue the manufacturer of the first gun for not doing the job.

Thoth said:

He should get a medal then sue the manufacturer of the first gun for not doing the job.

Click to expand...

LOL. If all is said to be true of the incident, the force used was excessive. However, I will fail to have any kind of sympathy for these thugs that robbed the store. This is the exact kind of message that we need to send to those thinking about being a part of such activities. If you commit such crimes, there is a good chance that you could end up dead or lose the rest of your life in jail.

So should the pharmicist get punished? Absolutely. But there is no remorse, from me, for the kid that ended up dead. And although, wrong is wrong, this does have a positive influence on the over all thug problem in our society.

I agree with Oxlar. I could care less that the punk is dead. His stupid fault for being a feckless thug. Guy should still go to prison for excess force, though.

Personally, if we want to be blaming individuals, I'd be blaming the 32 year old convicted armed robber who recruited these kids to do his dirty work, and sat outside safe in the car, rather than the bad judgment and foolishness of a testosterone-filled teenager. (I'd also say it's quite likely drugs were a big part of these kids' world, but that's just an educated guess from the neighborhood.)

Kids are bulletproof in their own minds, many are thrill seekers as well, and the needs and rights of others are usually able to be subordinated and forgotten. They have to be taught not to be this way.

Combine that with the level of education and the environment this kid grew up in, and I think it's hard to say he absolutely deserved to die for 'making the choice' to be a thug-- I'm sure it wasn't much of a conscious choice, like picking out a college or something--but no doubt that's just my liberal heart bleeding all over the place, as usual. Maybe his life was destined to be a burden to him and society as a whole. Seems a waste, though, because I guarantee there's a million more just like him out there.

So the question is, do we excuse the kid for failing due to his circumstances, or do we expect him to "rise above" knowing that might not be a realistic expectation? I'm not big on excuses, but setting unrealistic expectations isn't terribly smart either.

Wow, that was surprisingly enlightened, dte. We'll turn you into a liberal yet!

Those kids are old enough to know right from wrong. This is the kind of social based rulings that I fear from someone like sotomayor being confirmed. Do the crime, do the time. There is no question that the robbery was a crime. I don't want rulings based off of them being black or living in a poor neighborhood or that they didn't have a father at home. Thats all garbage. Equal justice means equal justice regardless of race, social status, or money.

Prime Junta said:

Wow, that was surprisingly enlightened, dte. We'll turn you into a liberal yet!

Click to expand...

Don't get too excited...I'd still set the "personal responsibility" bar and accept the "casualties", but I suppose I get a tiny bit of lefty cred for at least acknowledging it's not a 100% clean solution, eh.

Thanks for avoiding the temptation to dredge out the familiar talking points, dte. I agree there's no substitute for personal responsibility. People have to learn it from an early age, or else learn it in the famous School o' Hard Knocks our grandpas attended (summa cum laude) The problem is, once someone is dead, the learning process is pretty much over.

Is it a deterrent to other thugs to know they could be shot because they do stuff like this? I doubt it. (See above: bulletproof, testosterone) Do we blame the kid--yes, it was the result of a very bad choice. But it isn't that simple, because what went into that choice is so messed up. Don't ask me--I don't have the answers, but I'd much rather have seen the kid shot in the leg, or hit over the head, or hey! maybe captured by the police and sent through the judicial system, and thus alive to maybe learn something and change. Many people do change when things get real for them. After all,the only guns fired in the incident belonged to the druggist.

@Oxlar--listen to Rush much? It shows. I disagree so strongly with everything I hear out of you that I am no longer able to avoid responding--but this is the only time. The ignore button is there for a good reason and you are now on ghost mode afa I'm concerned.

Oxlar said:

Those kids are old enough to know right from wrong. This is the kind of social based rulings that I fear from someone like sotomayor being confirmed. Do the crime, do the time. There is no question that the robbery was a crime. I don't want rulings based off of them being black or living in a poor neighborhood or that they didn't have a father at home. Thats all garbage. Equal justice means equal justice regardless of race, social status, or money.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what Sotomayor has to do with any of this - or the kids race or social status. What they were talking about is what responsibility do we have as a society to correct the root causes of these incidents as opposed to just punishing those responsible - an attitude I do agree with.

magerette said:

Personally, if we want to be blaming individuals, I'd be blaming the 32 year old convicted armed robber who recruited these kids to do his dirty work, and sat outside safe in the car, rather than the bad judgment and foolishness of a testosterone-filled teenager. (I'd also say it's quite likely drugs were a big part of these kids' world, but that's just an educated guess from the neighborhood.)

Click to expand...

I agree - that 32 year old should be charged with murder, too. Does Oklahoma have that 'cruel heart' clause? You know, where if you do something that gets someone killed indirectly and/or you don't do anything to stop someone's death?

magerette said:

Kids are bulletproof in their own minds, many are thrill seekers as well, and the needs and rights of others are usually able to be subordinated and forgotten. They have to be taught not to be this way.

Click to expand...

Agreed - but I have no idea how this can be done. Bill Cosby has been trying for years. It also makes me shudder when you have people like Al Sharpton referring to other blacks (specifically Condoleeza Rice and Powell) as "house negroes".

magerette said:

Combine that with the level of education and the environment this kid grew up in, and I think it's hard to say he absolutely deserved to die for 'making the choice' to be a thug-- I'm sure it wasn't much of a conscious choice, like picking out a college or something--but no doubt that's just my liberal heart bleeding all over the place, as usual. Maybe his life was destined to be a burden to him and society as a whole. Seems a waste, though, because I guarantee there's a million more just like him out there.

Click to expand...

I don't think the kid 'deserved' to die - but I'm not shaken up by it, either. I'm a pretty unsympathetic person, though. I'd prefer it if the kid was still alive, but ... well, I'm not all that upset. Maybe he could have turned around, maybe not.

Rithrandil said:

I agree - that 32 year old should be charged with murder, too. Does Oklahoma have that 'cruel heart' clause? You know, where if you do something that gets someone killed indirectly and/or you don't do anything to stop someone's death?

Click to expand...

I don't know if it's called that, but yes and yes--I think everybody there is being charged except the two women bystanders.

Agreed - but I have no idea how this can be done. Bill Cosby has been trying for years. It also makes me shudder when you have people like Al Sharpton referring to other blacks (specifically Condoleeza Rice and Powell) as "house negroes"

Click to expand...

Yeah, me neither. I have no clue, beyond time. Time is an amazing thing, and I can only say things are much better now in terms of how race differences are perceived and handled (by most people) than when I was a child--[example: the town that this state's biggest university is in (OU) had "N***, don't let the sun set on you here" signs up at the city limits as late as the 1960's. And they meant it. ]There's so much baggage to wade through on this subject that I honestly don't think anything besides a good legal system and another hundred years is going to do much.

I probably should point out that though these kids are black, we have plenty and plenty of poor white kids doing the same thing every day, so it isn't all about race. It's about the way people are marginalized at the bottom of the pyramid. It breeds crime and criminals and I'm sure it has since Homo sapiens started walking upright.

I don't think the kid 'deserved' to die - but I'm not shaken up by it, either. I'm a pretty unsympathetic person, though. I'd prefer it if the kid was still alive, but ... well, I'm not all that upset. Maybe he could have turned around, maybe not.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And we'll never know now. But I'm not trying to cry a liberal, emotional, empathetic-female-unable-to-judge-reality river over it either. If he hadn't gone out with a gun in his hand to rob a pharmacy, he wouldn't be dead.

I think dte's point of who to blame is one of the hardest things to call here; it's like a steel cable gordian knot and I don't have the laser to cut it. But I find dancing on the kid's grave screaming he deserved to be shot in the head and shot in the gut five times--because vigilante justice is so superior to going through the legal system to pay for his crime--just a little...deranged.

And thanks for once again proving that a conservative and a liberal can have a sane discussion.

magerette said:

I think dte's point of who to blame is one of the hardest things to call here; it's like a steel cable gordian knot and I don't have the laser to cut it. But I find dancing on the kid's grave screaming he deserved to be shot in the head and shot in the gut five times--because vigilante justice is so superior to going through the legal system to pay for his crime--just a little...deranged.

Click to expand...

Ah, but let's dig a little deeper. The kid took a shot to the head. What's the likelihood he would have made it thru surgery, or even as far as the hospital? If we take away the overkill, but the kid dies anyway, are we even having the debate? Kid's still every bit as dead and situation is little different, but I'll admit I'd at least be polishing the dancing shoes. So why is our stance different just because this kid is "deader"?

magerette said:

And thanks for once again proving that a conservative and a liberal can have a sane discussion.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure we have that many "party liners" on either side of the aisle in this forum. Rith and I are liberal on most social issues, and occasionally you pinkos do a cranial-rectalectomy and show some fiscal sense. Oxlar and BKruegar might be the closest we've got. Well, mudsling's a pretty orthodox libertarian, too. Not many folks by percentage, so there's a little more tendency for give-n-take in the debate.

magerette said:

I don't know if it's called that, but yes and yes--I think everybody there is being charged except the two women bystanders.

Click to expand...

Good.

Yeah, me neither. I have no clue, beyond time. Time is an amazing thing, and I can only say things are much better now in terms of how race differences are perceived and handled (by most people) than when I was a child--[example: the town that this state's biggest university is in (OU) had "N***, don't let the sun set on you here" signs up at the city limits as late as the 1960's. And they meant it. ]There's so much baggage to wade through on this subject that I honestly don't think anything besides a good legal system and another hundred years is going to do much.[/quote]
See - I totally don't understand that at all! My generation, and the one coming up behind me, typically don't "get" these issues of race (or anti-homosexuality). I understand it's a problem that existed or still exists today, but I can't even begin to comprehend it. It makes as much sense to me as those 'console warrior kiddies' who are like "buttsexbox 360 lawlz" or "GAYSTATION 3 hahahaha!" and attack each other constantly - but with far more horrific and sad consequences.

And it's not like I'm some exceptionally friendly, nice, kind person - I hate or dislike plenty of people or groups in society! I just attack people over something more important than their skin pigmentation.

magerette said:

I probably should point out that though these kids are black, we have plenty and plenty of poor white kids doing the same thing every day, so it isn't all about race. It's about the way people are marginalized at the bottom of the pyramid. It breeds crime and criminals and I'm sure it has since Homo sapiens started walking upright.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Young white males are the most likely people to be murderers, anyways

magerette said:

Exactly. And we'll never know now. But I'm not trying to cry a liberal, emotional, empathetic-female-unable-to-judge-reality river over it either. If he hadn't gone out with a gun in his hand to rob a pharmacy, he wouldn't be dead.

Click to expand...

Yup. My thoughts exactly.

magerette said:

I think dte's point of who to blame is one of the hardest things to call here; it's like a steel cable gordian knot and I don't have the laser to cut it. But I find dancing on the kid's grave screaming he deserved to be shot in the head and shot in the gut five times--because vigilante justice is so superior to going through the legal system to pay for his crime--just a little...deranged.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

magerette said:

And thanks for once again proving that a conservative and a liberal can have a sane discussion.

Click to expand...

Any time!:lol:

magerette said:

@Oxlar--listen to Rush much? It shows. I disagree so strongly with everything I hear out of you that I am no longer able to avoid responding--but this is the only time. The ignore button is there for a good reason and you are now on ghost mode afa I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

WTH? Let me break down what I said and try to find out what it is that upsets you so much that you feel the need to put me on the ignore list and try and besmirch my opinion by equating me to a fan of Rush.

There is no question that the robbery was a crime.

You don't think the robbery was a crime? Maybe its just a couple of kids playing cops and robbers?

Those kids are old enough to know right from wrong.

You some how find it offensive that someone would think a 15 year old kid would know right from wrong?

Do the crime, do the time.

You must then believe that some people should be allowed to do 'the crime' without being held accountable? This statement is offensive to you?


Equal justice means equal justice regardless of race, social status, or money. I don't want rulings based off of them being black or living in a poor neighborhood or that they didn't have a father at home. Thats all garbage.

So you don't believe in the oath taken by supreme court justices? This is what the lady of scales represents in our justice system. She is blind and should apply the law with no regard to such factors.

This is the kind of social based rulings that I fear from someone like sotomayor being confirmed.

This happens to be a very relevant topic right now. You started espousing reprocations based off of social, educational, economic, and racial status. This is the ideology that Judge sotomayor has implied exists via her own words or actions.

And somehow, I am equated to someone who you feel has negative social connotations. Well I don't like rush, never have. But just because I have an opinion that differs from you does not mean that you hold a trump card on my relevance. Should I assume that your a student of William Ayers because of your views? No. That would be preposterous.

I'm stunned that you would take offense to those things I said. The only thing I can think of is that your a HUGE obama fan and feel you must attack anyone who doesn't fall in line with his agenda. Thus when I say I disagree with the sotomayor appointment, you went all ape nutz on me. Well happy ignore then and congratz on joining the ranks of the rest of the media who has every opposition on their ignore lists too. Mmmmmm hive mind, gotta love it.