612
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by alphanerd4@lemmy.world to c/usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 433 points 1 month ago

One: 65 years, while long, is not "multiple life sentences." Two: The 65 years was shortly thereafter reduced to 55 years, though I am not finding any details on why. That 55 years was 30 for felony murder and 25 for burglary and theft (???), consecutively. Three: Body cam shows A'Donte Washington charging the officer with a drawn weapon, so this does not appear to be a case of abuse of force. Four: A later court changed those to run concurrently, making it an effective 30 years. In this hearing, the victim's own father made a statement that Smith did not deserve to be charged with his son's death. Five: This screenshot is dated less than a week after the original sentencing.

Other notes: There were five teens involved in this burglary, Smith was the only one who did not take a plea deal. The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder. I have to think it was a difficult argument for the defense to make, that Smith "did not intend to hurt anyone." The prosecution surely had an easier time framing this in terms of "Smith was at least present when someone was murdered the day before [it may have been a short time, hours, since the earlier murder was "around midnight" and I don't see what time of day the later burglary occurred]. He had to know that continuing to commit crimes with the same group of people could end with death, and still pressed on."

Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

[-] Spood_Beest@lemm.ee 54 points 1 month ago

Thank you for this

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 month ago

Whatever your opinion about this situation, you will be better served by presenting it alongside a more complete and accurate respresentation of facts than this screenshot of a tweet contains.

is it possible to fit this level of nuance in a headline?

[-] lseif@sopuli.xyz 38 points 1 month ago

perhaps reading past the headline is recommended

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

Thanks for the context but a court shouldn't be considering things they haven't been convicted for unless it's part of the matter before the court.

Also it doesn't matter if the police shooting was justified. Charging this guy with the police shooting is, and always has been, fucked up.

65 years is 3 life sentences in the normal world. That's not a normal sentence for burglary outside authoritarian countries.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

a court shouldn't be considering things they haven't been convicted for unless it's part of the matter before the court.

They didn't consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It's up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It's the convict's entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren't convicted have having a family or deep community ties?

A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.

This sentence seems long for the kid's age, but that's Alabama. Vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[-] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Pretty much guaranteed that when you see a 'shocking' headline, that there's context that makes it make a lot more sense that's either being obscured or obfuscated.

I hate sensationalism so much.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)
[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 140 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is probably "felony murder". The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of felony, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder for that person. This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.

Classic example: you and a friend decide to hold up a bank. It goes sideways and a bank security guard shoots and kills your friend. You are guilty of murder because your friend died because you both decided to commit a felony.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 124 points 1 month ago

Now do the j6 insurrectionists.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago

The white ones with white skin and Confederate flags? Oh see, that's...that's different.... because they're wh- ....patriots?

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 40 points 1 month ago

Hmm, never thought about it like that. I guess that whole mob could be on the hook for killing Ashley Babbitt. I guess it's a good thing for them there's no federal felony murder rule.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Exactly cops died and yet they all got light sentences. The system is fucked and should be torn down. He is a kid and should be getting help not prison.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] snooggums@midwest.social 45 points 1 month ago

It is a stupid law being applied in the most ridiculous way, by being punished for the police's actions.

[-] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 30 points 1 month ago

But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015,

They fired at the police and one died as a result. They were all charged with murder.

Seems the law is being applied correctly.

As for the law itself I'm pretty torn on this. If someone dragged my kid along to a crime and they died as a result I'd have no problem with them getting charged for their murder.

[-] Ezergill@lemm.ee 31 points 1 month ago

And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 25 points 1 month ago

Let's be clear though: being legal doesn't make it right.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Which, to be clear, is a fantastic way to charge people for the police hurting them. And not okay under most moral systems.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

committing some kind of feeling

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

That's so fucked up. You can legally be held accountable for other people's actions.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 96 points 1 month ago

Why the fuck are we going to have different courts for children if we're going to try 15 year olds as adults?

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 68 points 1 month ago

To feed the racist slavery machine we call the US prison system.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Trying kids as adults in juvenile court is the perfect mixture of draconian sentences and judges that are more likely to take bribes to err on the side of incarceration.

It's basically the kind of all you can enslave buffet that the prison industrial complex and the politicians they own used to only know in their fucked up dreams.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 56 points 1 month ago

This is basic felony murder shit. Any attorney worth their salt should have been telling him to take the plea deal, because felony murder is a Big Fucking Deal. To be more exact, 46 of 50 states have some version of a felony murder statute, and in 24 of them--just under half--felony murder is a capital crime, and can potentially receive the death penalty.

A good attorney would be communicating this clearly to their client, and make sure that the client understood that going to trial would likely mean decades in prison, and possibly a death penalty; the odds of beating the charge, if you participated in the underlying crime, are very, very poor.

Here's the basic deal: when a deal occurs during the course of committing certain felonies, any major participant in the commission of that crime are guilty of causing that death. If you're the getaway driver in a bank robbery, and all of the robbers get killed by security guards, you get charged with murder for their deaths, even though it was legal for the security guards to use lethal force against them. Smith was one of the participants in the burglary, and it was during the commission of the burglary that Washington attacked a police officer and was killed. Because Smith was an active participant in that burglary, he's guilty of that death, even though Washington was justifiably killed by a cop.

And, BTW, this isn't bootlicking bullshit. It didn't need to be a cop that killed Washington for a felony murder charge to apply to Smith. If Washington had attacked the homeowner, and the homeowner had killled Washington, it would have been the same felony murder charge for Smith.

[-] freeman@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 month ago

Garbage in garbage out.

If you accept US disgusting legal system as fair or 'normal' you can justify this outcome. Its obviously not.

Charging a person with felony murder when no murder was commited is not justice no more than Saudi Arabia executing people for being gay.

I 'll also give you some personal advice, no non-bootlicker preemptively disclaims being a bootlicker.

load more comments (52 replies)
[-] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 26 points 1 month ago

I mean, that's still mighty fucked up. So you're accomplice couldn't run as fast as you and you get charged with their death someone else caused? How are people ok with that?

And yes I totally understand that it was a justified shooting but charging someone with murder when they didn't murder someone one is insane as fuck.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Any attorney worth their salt should have been telling him to take the plea deal

Apparently, he was the only one of the four charged who didn't take a plea deal.

At the same time, seems his plea deal was for 25 years, only 5 less than the 30 he got.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, that sentencing was a year and a half ago, wonder why it's coming up now out of nowhere...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is a bad law for obvious reasons. Not least of which is that literally anyone can be charged with a crime for simply being with a criminal if it works the way you explained it.

It would make more sense if it had guardrails that required the police show the crimes were planned and coordinated together.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 53 points 1 month ago

And yet none of Ashlii Babbit's co-conspirators were charged for her murder. Even the ones that brought a gun.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Context copypaste from tumblr:

[iguanodonwildman]:

“So I checked up on this case, and it turned out his sentence was reduced...

to 55 years

55 years for a unsuccessful burglary, theft, and the murder of a friend that was killed by police, when his only crime was breaking and entering when he was 15 years old.

This is the most up to date article I can find on it: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years-idUSKBN243246. “

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

Felony Murder is a bitch, just like whoever wrote that headline.

load more comments (50 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

Yes, if a crime you are committing results in a police death of a person then you are liable

In the US at least, not Canada

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 month ago

Love that people doing crimes are held to higher standards than cops

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago

Yes, you're reading it right: "whom was shot".

Whomsoever wrote that should be shot.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
612 points (84.6% liked)

US Authoritarianism

784 readers
794 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS