Law Smug Smartest Monkey in the Jungle gets 65 Years for Crime, Instead of 25. - He said "I ain't got time for dat", Judge disagreed.

An Alabama teen has had his sentence almost tripled after rejecting plea deal
IN A harsh lesson on why you should be respectful in court, a young criminal has copped a brutal sentence from a judge who wiped the smirk off his face.

Kathleen Joyce
Fox NewsAPRIL 9, 201812:13PM
05e80d707616c8a493c19dabcca1b236

Lakeith Smith was sentenced to 65 years after refusing a plea deal. (WSFA 12 News)Source:Facebook

AN Alabama teen laughed Thursday, as a judge sentenced him to 65 years in prison for murder and theft after he rejected a plea deal that would have given him 25 years behind bars.

Lakeith Smith, 18, of Montgomery, Alabama, was sentenced to 65 years by Judge Sibley Reynolds for “felony murder, armed burglary, second-degree theft and third-degree theft,” according to Fox News.

Smith smiled and laughed while being sentenced at the Elmore County courthouse. He had turned down a plea deal that would have recommended he spend 25 years in prison on the charges.

“I don’t think Mr. Smith will be smiling long when he gets to prison,” C.J. Robinson, chief assistant district attorney, said. “We are very pleased with this sentence. Because the sentences are consecutive, it will be a long time before he comes up for even the possibility for parole, at least 20 to 25 years.”

Judge Reynolds said Smith seemed to show no remorse for his crimes during the trial and did not apologise. He also overhead the teen say, “I don’t have time for this.”

“You got plenty of time for this,” Reynolds told Smith before announcing the sentence. “When I called the case earlier you said you ain’t got time for this, so I didn’t know if you had time for this now?”

Smith laughed and said he did not know Reynolds heard his comment.

“You just don’t get it, do you?” Reynolds asked. “He hasn’t said I’m sorry yet. He hasn’t acknowledged to this court that he shouldn’t have done, shouldn’t have come around, in fact, his attitude toward this court and life, in general, has been sour.”

Smith’s grandfather pleaded with the judge and the teen to give him a chance to apologise.


“He’s had every opportunity,” Reynolds said. “I’ve asked two or three times today.”

“Are you sorry?” the grandfather asked Smith. The teenager replied that he was.

Smith was charged under Alabama’s accomplice law, “which holds co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are committing a crime,” the Montgomery Adviser reported.

On Feb. 23, 2015, Smith, along with four other people, broke into two homes in Millbrook. Police responded to calls of the robberies, and the suspects fired at the officer who entered the home they were raiding. The suspects fled the home but continued to fire at the officer.

One of the suspects, A’Donte Washington, 16, of Montgomery, who was armed with a revolver, allegedly pointed a gun at the officer, body cam footage showed. The officer fired at the teenager, killing him.

Smith was charged with Washington’s death despite not firing the shots due to the accomplice law. A grand jury cleared the officer who fired the shots at Washington.

The other suspects, Jhavarske Jackson, 23, Jadarien Hardy, 22 and La’Anthony Washington, 22, entered guilty pleas of “felony murder, burglary and theft” but have not been sentenced yet.

“Standing there in court, I couldn’t help but have compassion for his grandfather, for his family,” Robinson said. “Because of his stupidity, they have lost him for 65 years.”

News.com.au

:story: Life in an enclosure will suit this low IQ gorilla.
 
I'm not disagreeing with the sentence per se, and cheeking the judge at your own trial is pretty dumb, but did I read this right? They're charging this dude with murder because his friend got shot for pointing a gun at the police? That seems like an odd sequence of events to me. I get that it's supposed to be a deterrent and all of that but it kinda makes me uncomfortable that you can be charged with a crime for events that weren't under your control.

E. I know I'm likely to get bad internet stickers. I'm not going full BLM here and I don't think the officer is wrong for shooting the other guy I just don't fully follow the chain of events that leads to this genius being charged with it.
 
I'm not disagreeing with the sentence per se, and cheeking the judge at your own trial is pretty dumb, but did I read this right? They're charging this dude with murder because his friend got shot for pointing a gun at the police? That seems like an odd sequence of events to me. I get that it's supposed to be a deterrent and all of that but it kinda makes me uncomfortable that you can be charged with a crime for events that weren't under your control.

The law is that if you're both (1) actively committing a felony crime, and (2) someone dies while you're commiting the crime, in a way that is directly related to it, you are responsible for the death. That is entirely under your own control, because you chose to commit the crime that put others in danger.
 
The law is that if you're both (1) actively committing a felony crime, and (2) someone dies while you're commiting the crime, in a way that is directly related to it, you are responsible for the death. That is entirely under your own control, because you chose to commit the crime that put others in danger.

So if a cop shoots my friend I can be charged with the murder of my own friend?

That's fucked.
 
The law is that if you're both (1) actively committing a felony crime, and (2) someone dies while you're commiting the crime, in a way that is directly related to it, you are responsible for the death. That is entirely under your own control, because you chose to commit the crime that put others in danger.
That's not an invalid interpretation at all, it just surprised me. I can imagine that in Europe, it wouldn't survive an appeal, he'd just claim he was dragged along and didn't mastermind any of the crime or something like that.
 
I'm not disagreeing with the sentence per se, and cheeking the judge at your own trial is pretty dumb, but did I read this right? They're charging this dude with murder because his friend got shot for pointing a gun at the police? That seems like an odd sequence of events to me. I get that it's supposed to be a deterrent and all of that but it kinda makes me uncomfortable that you can be charged with a crime for events that weren't under your control.

E. I know I'm likely to get bad internet stickers. I'm not going full BLM here and I don't think the officer is wrong for shooting the other guy I just don't fully follow the chain of events that leads to this genius being charged with it.

To be honest, I thought the same, but it seems fairly logical, especially when you consider the demographics it'd effect.
I guess the logic is : these people go into the crime "Battle Ready", so if it weren't for their original and subsequent crimes (Break and Enter + shooting at a police officer), the police officer wouldn't need to use deadly force and the individual wouldn't have had to die.

I don't think it would deter any of these cityapes, but at least they're accountable for the situation they've caused. If they don't want to end up in jail or dead, don't be a criminal.
 
If you and your friends decided to take turns shooting apples off of each other's heads with a bow and arrow, and one of you got skewered through the eye socket, all of the survivors would probably get charged with something. It's the same idea here. You all decided to engage in a super deadly activity (armed robbery). During the course of which, one of you got smoked. You're partly responsible for that. A murder charge seems a little excessive to me, but that's just how it is in Alabama I guess.
 
It's a low grade murder, but murder nontheless.

Most states have some version of "Felony Murder' on the books, different names, different places, different elements, but it's fairly common. In my state it's "Third Degree Murder" , but the idea is the same.

ANY death that occurs during the course of a FELONY as a direct result OF that felony is on you.

Accomplice gets smoked by a cop during a robbery? That's on you.

Cop crashes his car chasing you and dies? That's on you.

Pull a gun on the bank teller and the little old lady next to you freaks and runs to get away, trips over those rope-belty-thingies and falls over and splits her head open? On you


These have been on the books for a hundred years in some places, if it was going to be the gateway for some kind of systematic legal abuse, it'd have happened by now. And my compassion for getting booked for someone you didn't directly kill is muted because the necessary prerequisite is, well, a goddamned FELONY.
 
Back