Carjacker chased down and killed by parents/mob in Philadelphia

[win231]

So, Win, by your logic, any time anyone behaves badly or breaks the law, he/she should be beaten to death by an enraged mob? Instead of this newfangled trial by jury system, invented in 9th century England, let's go back to the good old days!

Anyone accused of any wrongdoing will be instantly removed from this earth forever, and all the members of the mob that beat him to death can sleep better at night in their snug (or maybe, smug?) little beds.

Ah....yes. a perfect example of "Logic by way of extreme exaggeration & nonsense." Much like: "So....if you believe people have a right to own guns for self defense, you think everybody - including murderers & bank robbers should own guns."

No - only morons would be in favor of executing everyone for any crime, regardless of how minor. But this guy wasn't shoplifting. Carjacking & kidnapping are not minor crimes. You seem to forget that this guy was not only a carjacker, he also kidnapped children. And he probably would not have died if he didn't put up a fight when people tried to stop him. Yes, kidnapping means he got what he deserved. Perhaps you feel they should have just stood by & let him get away with the kids.

 

[treeguy64]

Ah....yes. a perfect example of "Logic by way of extreme exaggeration & nonsense." Much like: "So....if you believe people have a right to own guns for self defense, you think everybody - including murderers & bank robbers should own guns."

No - only morons would be in favor of executing everyone for any crime, regardless of how minor. But this guy wasn't shoplifting. Carjacking & kidnapping are not minor crimes. You seem to forget that this guy was not only a carjacker, he also kidnapped children. And he probably would not have died if he didn't put up a fight when people tried to stop him. Yes, kidnapping means he got what he deserved. Perhaps you feel they should have just stood by & let him get away with the kids.

Do me a favor, please post the link that reveals that the guy knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the kids were in the car, before he jumped in, and I'd like the source where you read how he put up a fight when apprehended, before the mob started beating him to death. Thanks.

 

[win231]

Do me a favor, please post the link that reveals that the guy knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the kids were in the car, before he jumped in, and I'd like the source where you read how he put up a fight when apprehended, before the mob started beating him to death. Thanks.

If he was too blind to notice two kids in the car, he'd have to be too blind to drive. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't let someone steal my dog; much less my child. They'd pay dearly, either way. One less dirtbag to add to our pathetic revolving-door justice system.

 

[911]

Obviously, here in Pennsylvania, the culprit would have been charged with felony theft and kidnapping. Other charges could have been brought, but the D.A. would have decided what, if any, additional charges would have been added to the list. I can think of a few.

Mob justice just can’t or shouldn’t prevail. However, if the mob had a reasonable expectation that the children’s lives were in jeopardy, then the D.A. has a tough call.

I think there was a similar case somewhere down south where the carjacker did kill the child inside the car, so again, if this is true, it could be used as a precedent. Too many possibilities, but I think that at least some charges will be handed down.

The jails are full. Criminals are being given fair sentences, but because of over-crowding, the Parole Boards have had to give in or capitulate by allowing prisoners to go free with shorter than normal time. The juries are permitted to recommend sentencing, but judges normally use guidelines as set by the DOJ. After using several pre-sentence reports from all sides, the judge will then hand down his final decision.

One exception to this rule is felony murder, which is automatic life/no parole in this state.

 

[win231]

Obviously, here in Pennsylvania, the culprit would have been charged with felony theft and kidnapping. Other charges could have been brought, but the D.A. would have decided what, if any, additional charges would have been added to the list. I can think of a few.

Mob justice just can’t or shouldn’t prevail. However, if the mob had a reasonable expectation that the children’s lives were in jeopardy, then the D.A. has a tough call.

I think there was a similar case somewhere down south where the carjacker did kill the child inside the car, so again, if this is true, it could be used as a precedent. Too many possibilities, but I think that at least some charges will be handed down.

The jails are full. Criminals are being given fair sentences, but because of over-crowding, the Parole Boards have had to give in or capitulate by allowing prisoners to go free with shorter than normal time. The juries are permitted to recommend sentencing, but judges normally use guidelines as set by the DOJ. After using several pre-sentence reports from all sides, the judge will then hand down his final decision.

One exception to this rule is felony murder, which is automatic life/no parole in this state.

I think it's wrong to assume the mob beat him to death out of revenge. More likely, he resisted & was injured during the struggle. When suspects resist arrest by police officers, they can also end up dead, which is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
If felony murder is an automatic life/no parole, how are some of the Manson murderers being granted parole? And why should it take the Governor to veto it?

 

[rgp]

I think it's wrong to assume the mob beat him to death out of revenge. More likely, he resisted & was injured during the struggle. When suspects resist arrest by police officers, they can also end up dead, which is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
If felony murder is an automatic life/no parole, how are some of the Manson murderers being granted parole? And why should it take the Governor to veto it?

Different state, than 911 was referring to.

On the rest I agree. I have no use / no sympathy for criminal thugs. IMO any planned crime should bring the death penalty . If they can plan a crime against society .... then [again opinion] society does not need them. I assure you if that were implemented .... crime rates would drop like a rock.

 

[treeguy64]

Different state, than 911 was referring to.

On the rest I agree. I have no use / no sympathy for criminal thugs. IMO any planned crime should bring the death penalty . If they can plan a crime against society .... then [again opinion] society does not need them. I assure you if that were implemented .... crime rates would drop like a rock.

Jeez, did you read "1984," and adopt its Big Brother operating philosophy as your credo? I'm really getting freaked out by some of y'all, no lie!

 

[Sunny]

Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.

(You did say, "planned crime." So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense. Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")

 

[treeguy64]

Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.

(You did say, "planned crime." So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense. Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")

I'll stick with 1984: Any offenses against Big Brother were capital crimes. You never knew, though, when you were going to be taken out, as I recall.

I do like your AIW comparison, to be sure! Nice!

One thing that I take heart in: We're mostly older folks, in here. When we're gone, hopefully the extremist, scary ideologies will be gone, too! Then again, without getting into politics, an offense that'll get me banned, I can say that the world, today, seems to be putting out some very scary ways of looking at things!

 

[Sunny]

Treeguy, we can only hope.

 

[hollydolly]

I'll stick with 1984: Any offenses against Big Brother were capital crimes. You never knew, though, when you were going to be taken out, as I recall.

I do like your AIW comparison, to be sure! Nice!

One thing that I take heart in: We're mostly older folks, in here. When we're gone, hopefully the extremist, scary ideologies will be gone, too! Then again, without getting into politics, an offense that'll get me banned, I can say that the world, today, seems to be putting out some very scary ways of looking at things!

You must be joking TG..with all the permanently offended snowflakes nowadays...once this elder genaration are gone, there'll be no-one at all to bring them to their senses...

 

[Trade]

You must be joking TG..with all the permanently offended snowflakes nowadays...once this elder genaration are gone, there'll be no-one at all to bring them to their senses...

I guess I must be one of those rare old geezers who thinks young people today are on the whole a lot more reasonable than some of these nasty old set in their ways curmudgeons.

 

[hollydolly]

I guess I must be one of those rare old geezers who thinks young people today are on the whole a lot more reasonable than some of these nasty old set in their ways curmudgeons.

I wish it were so..TG...

 

[rgp]

Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.

(You did say, "planned crime." So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense. Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")

OK, I may have painted with a broad brush....but then you knew that. I am just sick & tired of crime/criminals, and sick & tired of coddling them.

But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with ....

 

[treeguy64]

I wish it were so..TG...

That was from Trade, not me.

 

[treeguy64]

OK, I may have painted with a broad brush....but then you knew that. I am just sick & tired of crime/criminals, and sick & tired of coddling them.

But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with ....

Yeah, in your world, the saying would be: Kids WON'T be kids! It would go right up there with: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!

 

[hollydolly]

That was from Trade, not me.

oops sorry Both....

 

[911]

I think it's wrong to assume the mob beat him to death out of revenge. More likely, he resisted & was injured during the struggle. When suspects resist arrest by police officers, they can also end up dead, which is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
If felony murder is an automatic life/no parole, how are some of the Manson murderers being granted parole? And why should it take the Governor to veto it?

So, yes, Pennsylvania is a bit quirky right now with sentencing due to the political climate. Here in the Commonwealth, If a defendant is found guilty of felony murder, or what most people refer to as first degree murder, the best the defendant can hope for is life/no parole. The death penalty is always on the table, however, our Governor has put a moratorium on the death penalty until he leaves office.

California also has the death penalty and they do sentence people accordingly, but again, their Governor has not signed a warrant to exercise the sentence in a long time. When the Manson family was sentenced to death, the SCOTUS overturned all death penalty sentences as being cruel and harsh punishment because of the manner of which some states were using to carry it out. So, all states commuted all death sentences to life/no parole. In California, if a prisoner can show cause why parole should be considered, such as having a terminal illness, then the Governor could grant them an exception and ask for parole.

Vigilante justice is definitely not a good thing. We may not always agree with the court’s sentence, but allowing everyone due process is the proper method that a civilized society operates. Allowing street gangs to dish out whatever punishment they feel is needed will only bring about chaos in our society. And street gangs, thugs or whatever group that is involved in these attacks should be held accountable.

I often think about John Gotti’s neighbor that struck and killed John’s youngest son and months later went missing. The young child darted out into the street in front of then oncoming car and was struck and killed. Years later, the neighbor (driver of the car) was declared dead by the courts. Last seen, he (the neighbor) was being shoved into a white van and never seen or heard from again. Was that fair?

 

[rgp]

Yeah, in your world, the saying would be: Kids WON'T be kids! It would go right up there with: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!

I never said that, I said I was WRONG stating it as i did. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[911]

D.A.’s and Prosecutors have two rules they live by:

1. Never file any charges that you can’t substantiate
2. Never take any case to court that you don’t have a reasonable chance of winning.

So, here we gave a carjacking with kids in the car. The carjacker is caught and beat to death. After all the legal wrangling is over, the jury, which will be made up by the mob’s peers, will issue the final verdict.

What’s the chances of getting a guilty verdict, if their peers think the mob did the right thing?

 

[win231]

Let me know the next time some neighborhood brats decide to egg someone's car, or TP someone's house. I'll organize the execution squad right on the spot. Society does not need them.

(You did say, "planned crime." So. if the kids made plans to do their mischief that night, that qualifies as a capital offense. Not so much 1984, treeguy, it's more Alice in Wonderland. "Off with their heads!")

No one in their right mind would advocate such stupidity as executing kids for mischief. Not a logical way to make your opinion seem valid.

 

[win231]

D.A.’s and Prosecutors have two rules they live by:

1. Never file any charges that you can’t substantiate
2. Never take any case to court that you don’t have a reasonable chance of winning.

So, here we gave a carjacking with kids in the car. The carjacker is caught and beat to death. After all the legal wrangling is over, the jury, which will be made up by the mob’s peers, will issue the final verdict.

What’s the chances of getting a guilty verdict, if their peers think the mob did the right thing?

Zero - as it should be. Much like in the case in post #7

 

[win231]

My old man left me in the car by myself when I was about 4 and went into a bar to partake of his favorite beverage, a shot in a beer. But he wasn't stupid. He didn't leave the car running with the keys in it. Plus I got to meet Buffalo Bill.

So did my dad when I was 4 or 5. He wasn't very smart, either. Especially since he knew I played with every button & switch in the car - including that starter button. He did learn not to leave me in the car any more after I played with that pull-out parking brake & the car rolled down a steep hill & crashed into a tree. Could have been another car or a pedestrian.

 

[Sunny]

"Leaving justice up to the incredibly ignorant, teeming masses" is exactly how our jury system works.

That's a very interesting statement, Win. The operational part is "incredibly ignorant." And that's the difference between a jury trial and an enraged mob.

You say the actions of an ignorant mob are the same as the actions of a jury that has sat through many hours, sometimes weeks or even months, of hearing testimony, seeing evidence, evaluating witnesses, listening to the logic advanced by both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, etc. The jury may have been just as ignorant as the mob on the first day of the trial, but they are sworn to consider all evidence and render as just a verdict as possible. And if the prisoner is sentenced to death, it isn't by the hands of the same people who found him guilty.

Of course, the outcome isn't always ideal. But it's very, very different from the outcome of an enraged mob with weapons in their hands and the adrenaline running. It's the difference between civilization and anarchy.

 

[win231]

That's a very interesting statement, Win. The operational part is "incredibly ignorant." And that's the difference between a jury trial and an enraged mob.

You say the actions of an ignorant mob are the same as the actions of a jury that has sat through many hours, sometimes weeks or even months, of hearing testimony, seeing evidence, evaluating witnesses, listening to the logic advanced by both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, etc. The jury may have been just as ignorant as the mob on the first day of the trial, but they are sworn to consider all evidence and render as just a verdict as possible. And if the prisoner is sentenced to death, it isn't by the hands of the same people who found him guilty.

Of course, the outcome isn't always ideal. But it's very, very different from the outcome of an enraged mob with weapons in their hands and the adrenaline running. It's the difference between civilization and anarchy.

We use a jury system in this country because it's the cheapest option; not the best option. I compared the ignorance of people on a jury to the complaint about an ignorant mob. The mob provided justice & also prevented the deaths of 2 children. Jurors are "sworn to consider all the evidence" etc. but they are not legal experts & have their own prejudices & thoughts about what justice is. That's why a good defense attorney can confuse them & that's why they get it wrong so many times.
That's where the quote comes from: "A jury consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty."