Right, sorry. He contributed to a situation that resulted in someone being killed. Felony murder requires more participation than just being a bystander. He clearly knew what was going to go down, or at least what could go down. May as well ask about the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for actual murder. I'm not saying they're morally equivalent, but at the same time I don't see him as particularly innocent from a legal standpoint. I question the underlying assumptions about it being a thing that "few people understand." At the very least, I think "helping someone threaten someone else with a knife" is obvious enough as no-no from a moral standpoint that you don't have to know the ins and outs of criminal law to realize it's a bad idea. I mean, if his friend had ended up stabbing the dealer to death, your brother-in-law's nephew could easily have been charged as an accessory, which with murder can often carry the same sentence (depending on state law). I know this is someone you know, and it can feel kind of personal. I also know, as I said, that the criminal system doesn't necessarily treat black people the same or fairly. But in general terms, I don't think this is a situation where the law is unreasonable.Brother in law's nephew.
Depends on the circumstances. But that's also not what happened. It's a shitty situation from a personal/family perspective, I get that. That doesn't make the law wrong, though. Is your family handling it okay (for appropriate values of "okay")?Had they been standing on a street corner he wouldn't have been charged with anything.
What the fuck do you care? The questions put forth to you are as follows: These questions are put forth to you because you said this: There is no self-defense being discussed here. The kid in question didn't have a weapon. The man doing the shooting is a convicted drug dealer. The felonious act committed by the kid was being in the presence of someone with intent to intimidate. Yet for you, this is an abstract case of ignoring the question at hand because somehow, in your head, this is about self-defense and deterrence. I get that the purpose of lawyers is to exercise and carry out the law. But the purpose of law is to enforce the social contract between citizens and government. Felony murder is a bad law. Full stop. And pretending you give the first fuck about those convicted under it is disingenuous and insulting.What's the deterrent power in a law that few people understand? What's the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for being present for the execution of somebody else? What's the community effect when a white guy can shoot a black kid and have his black friend do the time?
Self-defense is a big legal issue, and has he says it's complicated. It's also handled at the state level rather than the federal. Some states have a duty to retreat, for example, meaning that you have to try to get away from an attacker before you use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend yourself. Others don't. Some states also grant you a presumption of self-defense if you use deadly force on someone who broke into your house.
I was willing to put up with some anger on your part over the situation (to say nothing of conflating some things in my argument that I didn't link), but this was over the line. So my own full stop for you: go fuck yourself.And pretending you give the first fuck about those convicted under it is disingenuous and insulting.