17 yr old Kills 15 yr old & Gets Probation

[Hagar]

Here’s Reader’s Digest version.  
The 15 yr old bought marijuana from 17 yr old.  15 didn’t pay & took off running.  17 chased him down & stabbed him repeatedly to death.  Dare I say IDIOT JUDGE tells 17, “Your a bright kid with a bright future, and I wonder what you’re doing in my courtroom”.   
My question, what is IDIOT JUDGE doing in the courtroom?  
I read this just after watching Pelosi saying she has no idea why we’re having such lawlessness.  The Democrats are experts at creating chaos and then claiming they have no idea.  That’s a great plan if you can find enough goofy, or uninformed people to believe you.  Why they can now, in this age of the social media & non-stop news, is a puzzle.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[InMAGAWeTrust]

Golly gee shucks. Imagine if we could… buy marijuana in a store.. just like alcohol and tobacco.

Nahhhhh

[BS Wildcats]

7 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Golly gee shucks. Imagine if we could… buy marijuana in a store.. just like alcohol and tobacco.

Nahhhhh

So you have no issue with the probation sentence? Typical Democrat!

[baddog]

9 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Golly gee shucks. Imagine if we could… buy marijuana in a store.. just like alcohol and tobacco.

Nahhhhh

Golly gee sucks, he could steal it from the store and get off scott free. On the street, he’s a dead man. 

[Hagar]

1 minute ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Golly gee shucks. Imagine if we could… buy marijuana in a store.. just like alcohol and tobacco.

Nahhhhh

Somewhere in my late 60’s, I gave up on marijuana being illegal.  Can’t stop it.  Can’t control it.  It’s analogous to the prohibition of alcohol.  I would suggest more lives are being ruined by mj being illegal than would be if it was legalized.

I’m sure my position is opposite of most of my conservative friends, and that’s okay.  Even though I turned 21 in 1966, I’ve never used it in any form our fashion.  My knowledge of it is limited, although I’ve read it has many medicinal qualities.  Why it’s not legal as a medicine is a question that I doubt anyone can answer.  Heaven knows there are much more powerful meds/hallucinogens you can get a prescription for than mj.  I could rant on about the advantages of legalizing mj, but that’s for another thread.

[InMAGAWeTrust]

2 minutes ago, Hagar said:

Somewhere in my late 60’s, I gave up on marijuana being illegal.  Can’t stop it.  Can’t control it.  It’s analogous to the prohibition of alcohol.  I would suggest more lives are being ruined by mj being illegal than would be if it was legalized.

I’m sure my position is opposite of most of my conservative friends, and that’s okay.  Even though I turned 21 in 1966, I’ve never used it in any form our fashion.  My knowledge of it is limited, although I’ve read it has many medicinal qualities.  Why it’s not legal as a medicine is a question that I doubt anyone can answer.  Heaven knows there are much more powerful meds/hallucinogens you can get a prescription for than mj.  I could rant on about the advantages of legalizing mj, but that’s for another thread.

Yup spot on.. it’s amazing how many other conservatives magically forget the whole “personal freedoms” mantra when it comes marijuana. 

[InMAGAWeTrust]

8 minutes ago, baddog said:

Golly gee sucks, he could steal it from the store and get off scott free. On the street, he’s a dead man. 

Unbelievable lol 

[tvc184]

43 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Golly gee shucks. Imagine if we could… buy marijuana in a store.. just like alcohol and tobacco.

Nahhhhh

Whether marijuana should be legal or not would have changed anything. Maybe the dead kid would not have been there but another person would have been there in his place buying something else illegal.

Just like in the days of prohibition, when Al Capone and other gang leaders we’re selling alcohol because it was illegal and they use the illegal product to make a lot of money. When alcohol became legal, did the mafia go away and quit committing crimes? Did they all go out to get respectable jobs?

The obvious answer is no but the next question is, why?

Because they are criminals and will use whatever crime is available to make their money. Prostitution? Gun running? Selling of other drugs that are illegal? Even the selling of marijuana in Colorado where it is legal, is a felony if you don’t have a store and pay the tax. Only certain people in Colorado are allowed to sell. I can guarantee they’re still illegal sales of marijuana in Colorado where the possession of it is legal. it is interesting that you list tobacco. 
 

Want an example? In New York City there was a high tax for regular cigarettes. That is why some people (criminals) drive across the bridge to New Jersey and buy cigarettes and return to sell the loosies on the streets of New York. That is how Eric Garner died of a heart attack in a struggle with police who are arresting him not for selling cocaine, not an illegal gun and not marijuana but a cigarette that you could buy over the counter at any convenient store in this country. It was no different than rum runners going across the border with Canada and returning with alcohol. 

Wait, I thought cigarettes were legal everywhere in this country, How could somebody die fighting the police for selling a cigarette?

A person who is willing to commit a felony by selling marijuana, is not all of a sudden going to be a model and upstanding citizen because marijuana becomes legal. He will just change it to selling PCP, cocaine, guns or in the case of Eric Garner, a Marlboro cigarette.

Where does the rationale come in believing that felons are only felons because of something like marijuana being illegal. Like a person is going to say gee, I don’t mind going to prison for selling a little bit of marijuana but I sure don’t want to go to prison for selling a gun or cocaine.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Golly gee shucks. Imagine if we could… buy marijuana in a store.. just like alcohol and tobacco.

Nahhhhh

So nobody steals stuff you can buy in a store???  🤦‍♂️

[InMAGAWeTrust]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Whether marijuana should be legal or not would have changed anything. Maybe the dead kid would not have been there but another person would have been there in his place buying something else illegal.

Agree to disagree 

 

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Just like in the days of prohibition, when Al Capone and other gang leaders we’re selling alcohol because it was illegal and they use the illegal product to make a lot of money. When alcohol became legal, did the mafia go away and quit committing crimes? Did they all go out to get respectable jobs?

The obvious answer is no but the next question is, why?

So what illegal product are they pushing now? Not being facetious.. just rarely hear about the mob these days 

 

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Want an example? In New York City there was a high tax for regular cigarettes. That is why some people (criminals) drive across the bridge to New Jersey and buy cigarettes and return to sell the loosies on the streets of New York. That is how Eric Garner died of a heart attack in a struggle with police who are arresting him not for selling cocaine, not an illegal gun and not marijuana but a cigarette that you could buy over the counter at any convenient store in this country. It was no different than rum runners going across the border with Canada and returning with alcohol. 

Is this the argument you intended to make? Sounds like a COP ISSUE to me, tbh 

 

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

A person who is willing to commit a felony by selling marijuana, is not all of a sudden going to be a model and upstanding citizen because marijuana becomes legal. He will just change it to selling PCP, cocaine, guns or in the case of Eric Garner, a Marlboro cigarette.

 

No offense but this is just a bunch of koolaid cop talk. I know plenty of dudes who sold weed in college, who now work corporate jobs and have families.. upstanding tax paying citizens, not “felons” based off some dumb and outdated rules 

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Where does the rationale come in believing that felons are only felons because of something like marijuana being illegal. Like a person is going to say gee, I don’t mind going to prison for selling a little bit of marijuana but I sure don’t want to go to prison for selling a gun or cocaine.

Again, no offense but this is cop talk.  Selling marijuana, and selling guns and/or cocaine, are not even close in comparison. 

[tvc184]

21 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Agree to disagree 

The kid that sold marijuana did so because it was an easy way to make a buck. You could cross out the word marijuana and replace it with anything illegal and the result would be the same. Because you believe that marijuana should be legal does not stop somebody wanting to make easy money by committing a crime. The 17 year old would have simply sold something else.

 

So what illegal product are they pushing now? Not being facetious.. just rarely hear about the mob these days 

I don’t know what they are involved in now, probably drug smuggling, guns and casinos.  The media reports almost nothing these days except politics. In the 80s and 90s, the Vietnamese and Chinese gangs in New York and to some extent around the country, even locally, were gunning down people even at funerals. Even back then, how much of it was reported? 

Is this the argument you intended to make? Sounds like a COP ISSUE to me, tbh

It was a lazy criminal issue. It was the police following the law that the Democratic city Council put on the books to make more tax money. It is no different than a speeding ticket. The police simply enforced a minor law and a guy died because he did not want to accept  the misdemeanor arrest. It was a stupidity issue on part of the criminal.

It was also a nice deflection because I showed you that even if you replace marijuana with something else, people that want to make easy money will still do so around the law. In this case a guy was selling otherwise legal cigarettes. If your argument is to do away with all laws, great but I don’t think you would like the results.

No offense but this is just a bunch of koolaid cop talk. I know plenty of dudes who sold weed in college, who now work corporate jobs and have families.. upstanding tax paying citizens, not “felons” based off some dumb and outdated rules

Some of the biggest or former criminals in the country are working corporate jobs. What does that have to do with anything? Yes, they were (or are) felons and they got away with it. Good for them. About 30 years ago I worked and armed robbery where the suspect was shot in the chest. It wasn’t some misdemeanor crime but sticking a gun in a couple of people’s face and one of his two victims that night pulled a gun. I believe he was on crack and was trying to get money for more drugs. I really thought he was going to die at the scene but EMS got there fast and with the help of the police, got him loaded into EMS extremely quick and got him to the hospital in time to save his life. He was sentenced to prison. Maybe 10 years ago I stop the car for a minor traffic violation. It was the same person. He had his wife and a couple of his kids in the car. Should doing cocaine and committing armed robberies and threatening to kill people with guns be legal? Just because he was doing whatever you might consider a “legitimate” felony and not some “outdated law”, does not stop a person from changing his life. That isn’t Kool-Aid, they just got away with it. 

 

 

21 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Again, no offense but this is cop talk.  Selling marijuana, and selling guns and/or cocaine, are not even close in comparison. 

They are exactly the same. Because you might agree with one and not the other, it does not change the fact that if a person thinks he can make money by selling something illegal, he will do so. It is silly to think that someone is willing to commit a crime of selling (not using) an illegal item but will only do so if it is marijuana.

In this case you had a 17-year-old kid trying to make easy money and when he did not make that easy money, he murdered a 15 year old. Is it your premise a 17-year-old who is willing to commit a felony and then murder a child when he could not complete that felony, would not be a criminal except for marijuana being illegal? The same 17 year old would not have sold something else illegal for easy money?

 THAT, is the kool-Aid. 

[Setx fan]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

 

They are exactly the same. Because you might agree with one and not the other, it does not change the fact that if a person thinks he can make money by selling something illegal, he will do so. It is silly to think that someone is willing to commit a crime of selling (not using) an illegal item but will only do so if it is marijuana.

In this case you had a 17-year-old kid trying to make easy money and when he did not make that easy money, he murdered a 15 year old. Is it your premise a 17-year-old who is willing to commit a felony and then murder a child when he could not complete that felony, would not be a criminal except for marijuana being illegal? The same 17 year old would not have sold something else illegal for easy money?

 THAT, is the kool-Aid. 

Not everyone that’s willing to make a little easy money selling weed to their peers is willing to deal with the hassle of selling cocaine to hardcore drug users. Although I haven’t yet looked at the numbers I’m willing to bet the crime rate went down at least a little after alcohol was legalized up until the cocaine era of the 80s. And yes the Mob still exist but they’re legit now. 
 

I guess technically you do have to label the young “unidentified” boy a criminal and a muderer too I guess but I don’t think it’s fair to define him by his  tragic mistake. The kid did not intentionally set out to kill the victim. The victim attempted to run to avoid paying the “unidentified” kid for the drug exchange.. The “unidentified criminal”, then chased him down and attempted to tussle with him. I’m guessing this was probably an attempt to wrestle the money from him or something. The victim, who is said to have been on the wrestling team at the school, is said to have won the wrestling match and may have slammed the “unidentified criminal’s” head on the ground a few times. The “unidentified” kid then grabbed a sharp object and stabbed him. This case would probably be self defense in most people’s eyes as well as the court of law if an illegal substance were not involved. The judge might have realized this fact and also the fact that weed is legal in half the states and felt a little sympathy for the “unidentified” criminal. I’ve heard many stories like this and it normally doesn’t go well for the person in the “unidentified” criminals shoes? I wonder why the kid remains unidentified? 

[baddog]

10 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

Not everyone that’s willing to make a little easy money selling weed to their peers is willing to deal with the hassle of selling cocaine to hardcore drug users. Although I haven’t yet looked at the numbers I’m willing to bet the crime rate went down at least a little after alcohol was legalized up until the cocaine era of the 80s. And yes the Mob still exist but they’re legit now. 
 

I guess technically you do have to label the young “unidentified” boy a criminal and a muderer too I guess but I don’t think it’s fair to define him by his  tragic mistake. The kid did not intentionally set out to kill the victim. The victim attempted to run to avoid paying the “unidentified” kid for the drug exchange.. The “unidentified criminal”, then chased him down and attempted to tussle with him. I’m guessing this was probably an attempt to wrestle the money from him or something. The victim, who is said to have been on the wrestling team at the school, is said to have won the wrestling match and may have slammed the “unidentified criminal’s” head on the ground a few times. The “unidentified” kid then grabbed a sharp object and stabbed him. This case would probably be self defense in most people’s eyes as well as the court of law if an illegal substance were not involved. The judge might have realized this fact and also the fact that weed is legal in half the states and felt a little sympathy for the “unidentified” criminal. I’ve heard many stories like this and it normally doesn’t go well for the person in the “unidentified” criminals shoes? I wonder why the kid remains unidentified? 

You practically described the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident. Which way did you go in that one?

[tvc184]

24 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

Not everyone that’s willing to make a little easy money selling weed to their peers is willing to deal with the hassle of selling cocaine to hardcore drug users. Although I haven’t yet looked at the numbers I’m willing to bet the crime rate went down at least a little after alcohol was legalized up until the cocaine era of the 80s. And yes the Mob still exist but they’re legit now. 
 

I guess technically you do have to label the young “unidentified” boy a criminal and a muderer too I guess but I don’t think it’s fair to define him by his  tragic mistake. The kid did not intentionally set out to kill the victim. The victim attempted to run to avoid paying the “unidentified” kid for the drug exchange.. The “unidentified criminal”, then chased him down and attempted to tussle with him. I’m guessing this was probably an attempt to wrestle the money from him or something. The victim, who is said to have been on the wrestling team at the school, is said to have won the wrestling match and may have slammed the “unidentified criminal’s” head on the ground a few times. The “unidentified” kid then grabbed a sharp object and stabbed him. This case would probably be self defense in most people’s eyes as well as the court of law if an illegal substance were not involved. The judge might have realized this fact and also the fact that weed is legal in half the states and felt a little sympathy for the “unidentified” criminal. I’ve heard many stories like this and it normally doesn’t go well for the person in the “unidentified” criminals shoes? I wonder why the kid remains unidentified? 

It is hard for me to tell in this forum whether someone is being sarcastic or serious.

I will go with this being sarcasm for now as that is some of the most nonsensical stuff I have ever read.

[Setx fan]

24 minutes ago, baddog said:

You practically described the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident. Which way did you go in that one?

Trayvon didn’t steal anything from George. What are you talking about? 

[tvc184]

24 minutes ago, baddog said:

You practically described the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident. Which way did you go in that one?

I am not taking issue with your response or analogy….   But, there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased anyone. Actually quite to the contrary. 
 

I guess it is the same but with Zimmerman,  the chaser was killed and not the chasee. 👌

[Setx fan]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I am not taking issue with your response or analogy….   But, there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased anyone. Actually quite to the contrary. 
 

I guess it is the same but with Zimmerman,  the chaser was killed and not the chasee. 👌

Rentacop, Zimmerman instigated that whole situation with a teenager who was minding his business. That’s the difference. Thank you guys for reminding me who I’m conversing with. Let me quit wasting my time 

[tvc184]

Just now, Setx fan said:

Rentacop, Zimmerman instigated that whole situation with a teenager who was minding his business. That’s the difference. Thank you guys for reminding me who I’m conversing with. Let me quit wasting my time 

When you were beaten, it is time to quit.

Martin attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I am not taking issue with your response or analogy….   But, there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased anyone. Actually quite to the contrary. 
 

I guess it is the same but with Zimmerman,  the chaser was killed and not the chasee. 👌

I knew the situation was different, except for the scuffle and one winds up dead. Funny how one can take up for the killer in one instance, because he was being beaten, while taking the supposed victim in the other. 

[InMAGAWeTrust]

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 

They are exactly the same. Because you might agree with one and not the other, it does not change the fact that if a person thinks he can make money by selling something illegal, he will do so. It is silly to think that someone is willing to commit a crime of selling (not using) an illegal item but will only do so if it is marijuana.

lol come on mannnn

 

anyways - I think everyone’s mind is already made up on this topic. Y’all have a good Christmas break 

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

It is hard for me to tell in this forum whether someone is being sarcastic or serious.

I will go with this being sarcasm for now as that is some of the most nonsensical stuff I have ever read.

Don’t think he’s being sarcastic.

[bullets13]

Back to the actual case: it’s been reported that after he stole the weed, a struggle ensued and the victim ended up on top of the killer, who at that time stabbed him.  I understand why this can’t be self defense, but given the circumstances I kinda get a lenient verdict.  If he was selling an Xbox I think everyone looks at this differently.  I realize it was illegal to sell the weed, but the guy stole from him and then was beating him up when he tried to get his stuff back.  I don’t know that I agree with the sentence, but I don’t know that I disagree with it, either.  I’d be curious to hear all of the details of the case.  

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Back to the actual case: it’s been reported that after he stole the weed, a struggle ensued and the victim ended up on top of the killer, who at that time stabbed him.  I understand why this can’t be self defense, but given the circumstances I kinda get a lenient verdict.  If he was selling an Xbox I think everyone looks at this differently.  I realize it was illegal to sell the weed, but the guy stole from him and then was beating him up when he tried to get his stuff back.  I don’t know that I agree with the sentence, but I don’t know that I disagree with it, either.  I’d be curious to hear all of the details of the case.  

News media….

I read a couple of variations of this. One gave the account that the deceased was fighting the suspect after stealing the marijuana. The way it sounded but did not specifically say, it was like a 15-year-old beat up the 17 year old in order to steal the marijuana. Another media article said he grab the marijuana and fled and was chase down and stabbed by the suspect.

That goes to extremely different situations, depending on which one is correct. I tend to believe that the 15-year-old fled and was chased by the 17-year-old. I believe the media that reported the fight, left out the “little tidbit” of the chase. Huge? Uhhhh…. yeah!

Let’s go with the assumption that the 15 year old stolen marijuana and then using his wrestling skills, jumped on the 17 year old and started thrashing him pretty good. That would not only seem to lessen the responsibility of a 17-year-old, it might actually absolve him of guilt. It might be a pure case of self-defense during a robbery. I have actually want these kinds of cases. If one guy goes to sell a $10 blunt and during the sale the buyer pulls a gun and takes the blunt and the seller’s money, we call that aggravated robbery. 

If the 17-year-old was committing a crime by selling the weed and when he lost a little bit of his profit, chase down that Juvenile thief and began stabbing him, that is clearly way different. I should be first-degree murder which is exactly what he was charged with. 

I think that judge’s comments are disgusting. He said the 17 year old murderer was is a bright kid with a bright future. HUH??  Yeah, the bright kid as the judge claims, just pleaded guilty to murdering a child in a bad drug deal. Bright kid with a bright future? In Chicago? He now has street creds and will eventually be leading an organize crime organization.

Either this was purely self-defense even though he was selling a little bit of marijuana and he should’ve been cleared of murder or it was first-degree murder and he should be in prison.

The reason his name was not given is because in Illinois, he is a juvenile.  He could have been tried as an adult but I guess this bright kid needed a break..

[bullets13]

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

News media….

I read a couple of variations of this. One gave the account that the deceased was fighting the suspect after stealing the marijuana. The way it sounded but did not specifically say, it was like a 15-year-old beat up the 17 year old in order to steal the marijuana. Another media article said he grab the marijuana and fled and was chase down and stabbed by the suspect.

That goes to extremely different situations, depending on which one is correct. I tend to believe that the 15-year-old fled and was chased by the 17-year-old. I believe the media that reported the fight, left out the “little tidbit” of the chase. Huge? Uhhhh…. yeah!

Let’s go with the assumption that the 15 year old stolen marijuana and then using his wrestling skills, jumped on the 17 year old and started thrashing him pretty good. That would not only seem to lessen the responsibility of a 17-year-old, it might actually absolve him of guilt. It might be a pure case of self-defense during a robbery. I have actually want these kinds of cases. If one guy goes to sell a $10 blunt and during the sale the buyer pulls a gun and takes the blunt and the seller’s money, we call that aggravated robbery. 

If the 17-year-old was committing a crime by selling the weed and when he lost a little bit of his profit, chase down that Juvenile thief and began stabbing him, that is clearly way different. I should be first-degree murder which is exactly what he was charged with. 

I think that judge’s comments are disgusting. He said the 17 year old murderer was is a bright kid with a bright future. HUH??  Yeah, the bright kid as the judge claims, just pleaded guilty to murdering a child in a bad drug deal. Bright kid with a bright future? In Chicago? He now has street creds and will eventually be leading an organize crime organization.

Either this was purely self-defense even though he was selling a little bit of marijuana and he should’ve been cleared of murder or it was first-degree murder and he should be in prison.

The reason his name was not given is because in Illinois, he is a juvenile.  He could have been tried as an adult but I guess this bright kid needed a break..

I kind of get the impression it might be a hybrid of the two situations you mentioned.  The 15-year-old took the weed and ran.  The 16-year-old (at the time) chased him down trying to retrieve his stuff.  He didn’t start stabbing him, he just tried to get his stuff back.  At that point the 15-year-old jumped on him and started thrashing him pretty good, and it wasn’t until this point the 16-year-old took out the knife.  So if I’m selling you an Xbox, you take it and run, I chase you to get it back, then you start beating me up, and THEN I stab you, what’s the opinion?

[baddog]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I kind of get the impression it might be a hybrid of the two situations you mentioned.  The 15-year-old took the weed and ran.  The 16-year-old (at the time) chased him down trying to retrieve his stuff.  He didn’t start stabbing him, he just tried to get his stuff back.  At that point the 15-year-old jumped on him and started thrashing him pretty good, and it wasn’t until this point the 16-year-old took out the knife.  So if I’m selling you an Xbox, you take it and run, I chase you to get it back, then you start beating me up, and THEN I stab you, what’s the opinion?

For me, I have to distance myself from the sale and theft of the drugs. It comes down to the fight. I’m not sure when stabbing someone is legal. I carry a knife in my front pocket. If someone attacks me unprovoked, then I feel I have a right to defend myself. If I attack someone unprovoked and I bit off more than I could chew, I don’t think I have the right to stab the person I attacked. That’s just me. The courts might see it differently.