You can't read worth a shit. The discussion at hand is "felony murder", the legal idea that anyone committing a felony in which there is loss of life is guilty of murder for that loss of life, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Lets (sic) read the article! So. The title: "felony murder". As outlined with a colon. The discussion which follows: "why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail". NOW: The actual discussion at hand is whether or not felony murder rules are cruel and unusual punishment. You'll be interested to know that the only country in the world with a felony murder rule is the United States. You might also be interested to know that the felony murder rule has been up before the US Supreme Court before, where the Burger court ruled in a 5-4 decision that it is cruel and unusual if a death penalty is handed down as a result of a felony murder rule. BUT there's no death penalty here. But there IS a minor. And, considering the circumstances, exposes the utter and total batshittery of certain American laws. This case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court if the state supreme court rules that Indiana's laws are constitutional. Where things could get really dicey - the Roberts court is contentious and "state's rights"ey. Which means this isn't a kind of problem. This is a fucking everybody could be looking at 55 years in prison kind of problem. Which is why you should pay attention. 'cuz you know what? Only one of us is a minor here, bub.Yet Layman would go on to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 55 years in a maximum-security prison for a shooting that he did not carry out.
The conundrum is not an arcane one. Some 46 states in the union have some form of felony murder rule on their statute books. Of those, 11 states unambiguously allow for individuals who commit a felony that ends in a death to be charged with murder even when they were the victims, rather than the agents, of the killing.
a case of "this isn't going to hold up in court"
I love it when the hypocrites come out and respond to people they have muted. Otherwise, you are entirely correct. I did miss where they had already sentenced this person and such. Eh, At least I made my biases clear by way of my post? The article title, at the least, also still makes the statement as if this is a forgone thing, and this person isn't still going through the court system. I am reasonably confident that it will not hold up in court, and when appealed, will be struck down. 'cuz you know what? Only one of us is a minor here, bub. Are you a minor?Which is why you should pay attention.
Well, my post was kind of justified in getting an angry response. My angry response is because a) responding to anger, gotta be defensive, and b) fuck people who use the mute feature then respond to those who they muted. They essentially are saying "I don't want to hear you speak, but I am perfectly happy to respond to you". Which is the definition of one sided pick-your-moment discourse that makes you feel better about yourself while silencing others.