1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stupid wrong!

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Gina B, Jan 27, 2012.

  1. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Ratings:
    +3
    http://www.news9.com/story/16615174/oklahoma-man-acquitted-of-murder-in-death-of-toddler

    Last I checked, if someone dies during the commission of a felony, the people committing the crime are charged with the murder. IE You and your friend rob me, my neighbor shoots your friend to defend me, my neighbor is fine but YOU get charged with murder.

    SO how sad is it that this baby is dead? Extremely!
    WHY oh why aren't the robbers being charged? Who brings a 1 year old baby to a robbery? How on EARTH should the victim who was robbed and beaten have had any clue whatsoever that the criminals had a baby in their car?

    So the man gets robbed, beaten, shoots at the criminals car, and now will be deemed a child murderer and likely spend his life in prison.

    Yeah, justice.

    There should be a national outcry over the injustice of this one.
     
  2. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    God told Moses that a miscarriage that was incidental to another event was a civil matter to be settled with a cash payment.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    OK, this was a different situation but God's instruction was based on the lack of intent on the part of the bad guys. The bad guys didn't know the baby was there and there was no intent to harm the baby. How is this different than incidental and unintended deaths produced by US drone raids?
     
  4. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Ratings:
    +3
    But Bill, this wasn't the bad guy. This was the victim. He shot at the bad guys vehicle after he was robbed and beaten.

    As far as unintended victims of drones, that seems worse in that their is knowledge that this happens and there's going to be innocent victims, but we as humans accept innocent casualties as part of war. (if I understand what you meant by what you said.) Whole different situation there. I don't pretend to understand all the parts of war and don't really want to. That's why men have usually been the ones in war. They are better at handling it emotionally than women are. (don't care who says otherwise, it's true. The majority of women are less able to handle that type of trauma than the majority of men)
     
  5. freeatlast

    freeatlast New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree that the person should not have been charged based on that article as long as there is not more that is not told. If a police officer had done this he/she would have never been prosecuted so this person should not have either. However if you notice the robbery was over and they were fleeing and in many jurisdictions it is seen as no longer necessary to shoot them since the danger is past. I am not suggesting I agree with that but that is the way it is in many places. The problem is with the jury as much as the law as they should not have found him guilty in my opinion. The jury does not have to follow the letter of the law or the judges instructions if they disagree with the law or the judges instructions in any particular case. It is called Jury nullification. Personally I would not have found him guilty based on the article. You may keep this in mind if you ever set on a jury.
     
    #5 freeatlast, Jan 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2012
  6. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Ratings:
    +0
    IMO the robbers should be charged with the child's death since harm to the child was a foreseeable possibility when they decided to do the robbery.
     
    #6 targus, Jan 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2012
  7. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,075
    Ratings:
    +208
    Faith:
    Baptist
    http://www.swtimes.com/news/article_ee8f81bc-4764-11e1-bdd9-001871e3ce6c.html

     
  8. Don

    Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,675
    Ratings:
    +558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So there are no "good guys" in this story...except for the baby that was killed....
     
  9. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Ratings:
    +3
    Glad you found that Jerome. Now *I* feel stupid!

    Okay, all of them can rot in prison if it's true that he was selling that junk. Less trash on the streets, don't care what they charge people like that with as long as they're put away.

    I sure wish the NEWS would report the NEWS and not leave stuff out!
     
  10. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ah but now there is the question of whether his prior bad acts convinced the jury to convict. Who's word was taken on the charge of selling drugs? The ones who admittedly robbed and beat him?

    I'm sensing an appeal here. I do agree with Freeatlast that if the robbers were fleeing, then the shooting was probably indefensible. You just don't shoot people in the back. Plus, he should have considered who or what might have been walking by or just sitting in the street. If you live in the city, then you should have sense enough to know not to shoot toward a general target, because who knows what might get in the way? Even without the drug charges, he was wrong to pull the trigger in that situation. Does he deserve the sentence he got? Maybe, maybe not, I can't say based on what I've read.
     
  11. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,075
    Ratings:
    +208
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He admitted in an affidavit that he had previously sold them "xanax, OxyContin and meth".
     
  12. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Ratings:
    +292
    That the child was shot and killed is a tragedy. In my opinion, the one who shot should be charged with either murder, or whatever the charge for vigilanteism is at the least. His shots were not in self defense, they were in revenge.

    The men who robbed him should be charged with accessory to murder, as well as the original crime of aggravated robbery. The woman riding in the car could also be called an accessory by association.

    All in all, it is a sad case where no one wins, and only the innocent died.
     
Loading...