If they lacked the foresight to be born wealthy and enroll in an ivy league college, that's their fault.
Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets forgotten too often. Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone.
Obviously substantially different crimes, but the comments were mostly people salivating at this "animal" getting "what he deserved."
> Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone.
You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death.
Taking cheap-shots at southern states with disreputable histories is easy, but the vast majority of states (46 out of 50, as of 2008) in America have a Felony Murder rule.
But tellingly, virtually only in the US. Other common law countries which had it, abolished it for being unconstitutional.
In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
Here's an image showing lynchings (what you call "disreputable histories"): Alabama earned it's disrepute, which is why I wasn't surprised.
I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these "histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts.
Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.
Replying to myself because I can no longer edit my post to include the image[1]. The image comes from a fortuitously timed "60 Minutes" episode[2] that discusses a lynching memorial that's opening soon. In Alabama.
If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught.
The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight. That's disappointing.
>"histories"
English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment) you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories".
Doubtful. In most scenarios where it applies the cops are not involved in the killing (For instance, if bank robber Bonnie commits murder, bank robber Clyde can be charged for that murder.)
Furthermore if a cop lawfully kills a criminal who was acting alone, felony murder doctrine is not involved in the scenario but the cop is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny as he would be if it were.
And if a cop unlawfully kills a criminal who was working together with other criminals, felony murder doctrine doesn't make it easier for the cop to get away with it (nor harder, for that matter...)
This week there was an event at the UFC where on of their biggest fighters (Conor McGregor) and a dozen or so of his associates attacked a bus, smashed windows and injured several people in the bus who then couldn't fight at the event. He posted 50k bail and is now on the way home to Ireland.
When I saw this I thought to myself if some poor black teenagers had done exactly the same thing they would be in jail for the next 10 years or be dead by now.
I wrote "poor black". I think being poor gets counted the most but being black also gets counted against you. I think the point of this thread is that bad behavior gets treated differently for different people. I don't even want to consider what would have happened if a bunch of illegal Muslim immigrants had attacked the bus.
Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets forgotten too often. Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone.
Obviously substantially different crimes, but the comments were mostly people salivating at this "animal" getting "what he deserved."
Anyway, thanks for mentioning this point.