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.
 
Maybe I am a Canadian cuck but I don't think that's fair. Trumped up charges. I don't like the idea of this accomplice law.

Did you miss the bit about the shootout with the police officer occurring at the end of a two day crime spree during which the fantastic five killed one person and kidnapped another?
 
Maybe I am a Canadian cuck but I don't think that's fair. Trumped up charges. I don't like the idea of this accomplice law.

We take home invasions seriously.

Key word being Canadian. For-Profit Prisons are an American industry, my friend. I'm sure our Brave Boys in Blue would never misuse such laws to their own benefit.

That's what trials are for.
 
These "accomplice laws" sound awful but this guy also sounds like a dumbass that should be in prison.

I think it's pretty harsh to charge a guy with murder for the death of a friend he didn't even shoot (the cop did), but maybe voluntary manslaughter would be sufficient. Not going full BLM or anything, but if the guy was white, I don't think he'd get half the sentence he did. Still a dumbass though, but the "charge everyone in the group with murder" has potential for abuse by racist cops and judges, and in the South, I'm pretty sure they exist.

Key word being Canadian. For-Profit Prisons are an American industry, my friend. I'm sure our Brave Boys in Blue would never misuse such laws to their own benefit.

Considering the kinds of people who actually want to become cops, I'd be extra wary of them more so considering that these laws actually exist. My friend's middle school bully is now a sheriff's deputy so yeah, there you have it.

For-Profit Prisons are America's answer to Chinese factory cities with suicide nets, but with more shankings, racism, and homosexual rape.
 
I think it's pretty harsh to charge a guy with murder for the death of a friend he didn't even shoot (the cop did), but maybe voluntary manslaughter would be sufficient. Not going full BLM or anything, but if the guy was white, I don't think he'd get half the sentence he did. Still a dumbass though, but the "charge everyone in the group with murder" has potential for abuse by racist cops and judges, and in the South, I'm pretty sure they exist.

If his friend had shot and killed the cop do you think they should have all been charged, or only the shooter?

The consecutive sentencing is definitely novel and it will be interesting to see whether he appeals the sentence and whether the sentence is upheld.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: heathercho
If his friend had shot and killed the cop do you think they should have all been charged, or only the shooter?

The consecutive sentencing is definitely novel and it will be interesting to see whether he appeals the sentence and whether the sentence is upheld.

Just charge the shooter, the other guy might not have even known about the gun for all we know. If he was committing a different crime, just charge him with that (burglary or whatever). This is an obvious power grab on the part of for-profit prisons. Sometimes all you have to do is threaten charges to get what you want, that "innocent until proven guilty" shit doesn't even exist in practice.

Of course, every trial and circumstance is different. In some places, you can get 25 years for stealing a piece of pizza, depending on the circumstances. I'm not so sure this "tough on crime" shit even works, to be honest.
 
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.
It makes me wonder how situations where the cop acts improperly or draws and shoots his weapon without justification.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not talking about dindus. Cops fuck up sometimes. In my neck of the woods we're ramping up to a trial for the cop that shot that Australian woman just because he was startled. What I'm wondering is how would they try to punish the robber in cases where it can be demonstrated the cops didn't follow procedure and are potentially guilty themselves?
 
It makes me wonder how situations where the cop acts improperly or draws and shoots his weapon without justification.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not talking about dindus. Cops fuck up sometimes. In my neck of the woods we're ramping up to a trial for the cop that shot that Australian woman just because he was startled. What I'm wondering is how would they try to punish the robber in cases where it can be demonstrated the cops didn't follow procedure and are potentially guilty themselves?

Like I said, this thing has some serious potential for abuse. And that Somalian cop was a bit of a screwball himself if his colleagues are to be believed. Affirmative action hire, most likely.

And don't forget, body cameras "malfunction" at opportune times.
 
I liked the article I read about this on Huffington Post where they complained that "as for the white officer who actually pulled the trigger? A jury cleared him" like that was salt in the wound of these idiots getting what they had coming
Time and again the Paint Huffing Post (and the rest of the mainstream media itself) have demonstrated that they don't care how many people niggers kill, or who they kill, so long as nobody does anything to the niggers.
The same way they don't care how much worse off the poor are, so long as the rich don't get one extra dollar from anywhere.
 
Wait did I read that right? He got charged with murder because a cop shot his buddy? The fuck? He deserves to go to prison for the armed robbery, sure, but he shouldn’t be held responsible for his partner’s decision to shoot at the police.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just another example of the system keeping poor black boys down. Don't they realize that kids with stupid names like Lakeith, Jhavarske, Jadarien, La'Anthony, or A'Donte don't know any better?
"Honey what do you want to name our children?"
"I don't know. I'm craving some Alphabet soup."
Moments later
"We'll name him Jhavarske!"
"Where'd you get that name?"
"The toilet."
 
So if a cop shoots my friend I can be charged with the murder of my own friend?

That's fucked.
No, you can be charged if the cop shoots your friend after your friend tries to shoot someone else. I’m pretty sure there isn’t much of a legal distinction between attempted and actual murder. There certainly isn’t one where a cop is the one involved, and the way the dipshit is acting tells me he’d have shot him too if he had the gun.
 
To anyone butt-hurt about the accomplices getting charged:

Ghetto Ape gangs only arm the minors for a reason. They bully/peer pressure the youngest into carrying so that if they get caught the 16 year old gets charged with weapon possession and they don't, but the 16 year old probably will probably only be charged as a minor.

Fuck them.
 
No, you can be charged if the cop shoots your friend after your friend tries to shoot someone else. I’m pretty sure there isn’t much of a legal distinction between attempted and actual murder. There certainly isn’t one where a cop is the one involved, and the way the dipshit is acting tells me he’d have shot him too if he had the gun.

That may be the case, but again, it depends on the specific factors that were in play at the scene. I don't have any pity for the guy but I feel 65 years is wildly excessive and just being thrown at him to make an example out of him. Unless he's got previous charges for something else, which is entirely possible, but I digress.

To anyone butt-hurt about the accomplices getting charged:

Ghetto Ape gangs only arm the minors for a reason. They bully/peer pressure the youngest into carrying so that if they get caught the 16 year old gets charged with weapon possession and they don't, but the 16 year old probably will probably only be charged as a minor.

Fuck them.

That's not necessarily true, depending on the crime and the situation, 14-17 year olds can and do get charged and tried as adults if it is severe enough. There are quite a few examples, countless in fact.

Not butthurt over him being charged, but I'm wondering if 65 years is appropriate. Then again, he doesn't seem the type who would ever amount to anything if he was ever released at any time. And basically getting life for an innocuous comment seems harsh. 25, sure, but adding 40 for it? That's just vindictive as fuck.
 
It makes me wonder how situations where the cop acts improperly or draws and shoots his weapon without justification.

Yeah, yeah, I'm not talking about dindus. Cops fuck up sometimes. In my neck of the woods we're ramping up to a trial for the cop that shot that Australian woman just because he was startled. What I'm wondering is how would they try to punish the robber in cases where it can be demonstrated the cops didn't follow procedure and are potentially guilty themselves?

Really, the idea works only for certain situations, imo.
If they are engaged in battle ready tactics, then it would make sense. If they aren't and someone dies - i.e, they are unarmed and the police officer shot someone, would they go after a murder charge for the accomplice? I wonder how many of these cases get tried this way?

Aside from my dislike of the darkies, in situations of thugs like this, regardless of race, I think charging them with it is perfectly justified, though it won't bother this guy. He doesn't have to worry about working, providing a roof over his head, finding food etc for 65 years. That's the unfortunate thing.

(The Mohamed Noor case is quite strange - you have a Somali muslim who was poorly trained. I'm certain that his low IQ up bringing and religious values play a part in his stupidity, as they usually do. Ultimately he killed her because he was a retard. Fry him like Kabaab.)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Francis E. Dec Esc.
Back