Young man being sent to prison for 162 years

[Bucket_Nakedz]

for a string of armed robberies (http://news.yahoo.com/insight-florida-man-sees-cruel-face-u-justice-050157061.html).

though, it was his first time getting caught, 162 years seem kinda excessive. discuss...

[LamarOdom]

Daym if it's just robberies he doesn't deserve more than 3-10 years.

[n00bie]

Seems excessive.. but what exactly do they mean by "a string of robberies"?!?!

Maybe he had over 200 armed robberies? :eek:

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Daym if it's just robberies he doesn't deserve more than 3-10 years.
he was armed, bruh. plus, he's black, so you know he had no chance. i could understand 20-25, but that's how much they charge first time convicted drug dealers.

[Sarcastic]

That's more years than Madoff got. :facepalm

[flipogb]

thats not long if there was possibility of parole, but there isn't .

he wont even finish 1/4 of that

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Seems excessive.. but what exactly do they mean by "a string of robberies"?!?!

Maybe he had over 200 armed robberies? :eek:
he was charged for 7 robberies at fast food chains and a drug store. yes, he was armed, but he still didn't hurt anyone.

[Real Men Wear Green]

With good behavior he could be out in 80.
That's more years than Madoff got. :facepalm
Madoff is white collar and probably had better lawyers. Never will be free though so doesn't matter much (in this particular case).

[Sarcastic]

With good behavior he could be out in 80.
Madoff is white collar and probably had better lawyers. Never will be free though so doesn't matter much (in this particular case).

I understand that. Just goes to show you though, it's better to steal $60 billion than whatever thousands this guy stole.

[Scholar]

Damn, that is definitely excessive. I definitely believe the guy deserves large amount of jail time, but not so long that he dies in prison among people who truly deserve to die there (eg. child molesters, rapists, serial killers, Madoff, etc.).

[franchise#3]

He probably didn't plead guilty.

[johndeeregreen]

When you start pointing guns at people, bad things are bound to happen. He should be happy to be alive as well as not having killed someone on his conscience. He may well have had no intention on hurting anyone at all or even pulling the trigger, but it only takes a fraction of a second for something in your head to tell you to pull the trigger and then you're on trial for murder. Unless you like jail, you don't point a firearm at someone else, period.

162 years is a little ridiculous, but I don't sympathize with the guy at all.

[DFish]

I understand that. Just goes to show you though, it's better to steal $60 billion than whatever thousands this guy stole.

They don't sentence a person according to how much money they steal. They look at the crime committed. And a person repeatedly committing armed robberies is a much larger detriment and danger to society. Madoff got a plenty long sentence, but this "young man" showning a blatant disregard for human life by repeatedly putting people in danger? I say 162 years is just right. Maybe even too short.

[Myth]

That is ridiculous. Just cut that sentence in half and let him out after 81 years. :lol

[Bucket_Nakedz]

When you start pointing guns at people, bad things are bound to happen. He should be happy to be alive as well as not having killed someone on his conscience. He may well have had no intention on hurting anyone at all or even pulling the trigger, but it only takes a fraction of a second for something in your head to tell you to pull the trigger and then you're on trial for murder. Unless you like jail, you don't point a firearm at someone else, period.

162 years is a little ridiculous, but I don't sympathize with the guy at all.
i agree with what you are saying, but i kinda feel bad for the dude. does that say something about me? idk, but i feel like he should've been given at least 4-5 years for every robbery. gives him plenty of time to reflect.


They don't sentence a person according to how much money they steal. They look at the crime committed. And a person repeatedly committing armed robberies is a much larger detriment and danger to society. Madoff got a plenty long sentence, but this "young man" showning a blatant disregard for human life by repeatedly putting people in danger? I say 162 years is just right. Maybe even too short.

i agree that this case should not be comparable to madoffs because life is far more valuable than money. but 162 years is right or maybe too short? gotta disagree with you there, hollywood.

[Myth]

Shitty human being gets shitty prison sentence. Not a single f*ck should be given.

[LamarOdom]

When you start pointing guns at people, bad things are bound to happen. He should be happy to be alive as well as not having killed someone on his conscience. He may well have had no intention on hurting anyone at all or even pulling the trigger, but it only takes a fraction of a second for something in your head to tell you to pull the trigger and then you're on trial for murder. Unless you like jail, you don't point a firearm at someone else, period.

162 years is a little ridiculous, but I don't sympathize with the guy at all.

I don't sympathize with him but do you know who pays for him now? It's just unecssary to let him stay in prison so long when he didn't even hurt anyone.

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Shitty human being gets shitty prison sentence. Not a single f*ck should be given.
:coleman:

[LamarOdom]

Shitty human being gets shitty prison sentence. Not a single f*ck should be given.

You should, it's not he who pays for his sentance it's the taxpayers.

I could agree with 7-10 maybe even up to 15 but cmon until he dies? that's like 80 years = alot of money.

[Myth]

You should, it's not he who pays for his sentance it's the taxpayers.

I could agree with 7-10 maybe even up to 15 but cmon until he dies? that's like 80 years = alot of money.

We'll probably pay for this asshole whether he is in prison or out of prison. If it keeps the streets safe, that is worth taxes to me. However, I also have no problem with the death penalty, even if somebody has not committed murder. I'm not saying this guy deserves the death penalty per se, but certainly more criminals do than receive it, so if we take out a couple of them, then this thug will fit right into the prison budget.

[Kblaze8855]

Davis's unusually long sentence results from a controversial practice known as "stacking," in which each count of an indictment is counted as a separate crime, thus transforming a first-time defendant into a "habitual criminal" subject to multiple sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.

That seems...totally reasonable.

You rob a gang of people and get caught why should you only go to jail for robbing one person?

He says its his first offense...clearly...he didnt do one crime. So what does it matter if hes been caught before on individual crimes?

[Draz]

only 162? why not 163?

[Smoke117]

Armed robbery is a very serious felony. What kind of stupid fool says to get 3-10 years for that? You want some dumb ass mother ****er pulling a gun out in your face and robbing you and not knowing what the hell is going to happen? This bitch going to get nervous or trigger happy? Screw this guy.

[RoseCity07]

Robbing is a violent crime whether you kill someone or not. He did this more than once. He needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.

This isn't a guy who stole food because he was hungry or scammed a bank. He committed robbery. Good riddance. If he's stupid enough to rob people he should not be allowed to live in society.

[CelticBaller]

thieves are scumbags

good riddance

[Rockets(T-mac)]

I really think guys in prison should be doing labour or some kind of work, why should they get a free meal?

[LamarOdom]

I really think guys in prison should be doing labour or some kind of work, why should they get a free meal?

I agree! But don't they do that right now?

[Sarcastic]

They don't sentence a person according to how much money they steal. They look at the crime committed. And a person repeatedly committing armed robberies is a much larger detriment and danger to society. Madoff got a plenty long sentence, but this "young man" showning a blatant disregard for human life by repeatedly putting people in danger? I say 162 years is just right. Maybe even too short.

Of course they look at what you steal. There is a difference between larceny and grand larceny. In Madoff's case, it was the most money stolen in recorded history.

And I understand he committed armed robbery, which is a violent act. But he never actually hurt anyone. I don't think he should be set free, or get a light sentence, but I do think 162 years is excessive. I think 10-20 years would more than suffice.

[johndeeregreen]

I don't sympathize with him but do you know who pays for him now? It's just unecssary to let him stay in prison so long when he didn't even hurt anyone.
Sentences aren't based on how long taxpayers will have to pay for a guy to be in jail, thankfully.

[Reef]

That's ridiculous. He shouldn't have to do a day over 120 years!

[BrickingStar]

I'll be an eye on this

[BrickingStar]

I actually feel bad because he'll be getting raped for the rest of his life lol

[Joshumitsu]

I don't get it.

Black man doing something stupid and illegal and getting overcharged for it.

Don't see anything out of the normal here.....

[Draz]

I don't get it.

Black man doing something stupid and illegal and getting overcharged for it.

Don't see anything out of the normal here.....
Robbery over 7 times armed, is overcharged? What are you black or something? Jesus. He could of continued if not caught.

[28renyoy]

Who cares. Anyone committing armed robberies deserves to be dead, someone SHOULD have shot and killed him when he repeatedly pulled guns on people. He's lucky to spend the rest of his life in a prison rather than be dead right now.

[28renyoy]

:(


that's just sick. he didn't even hurt anybody

Yes..because armed robbery isn't hurting anyone :rolleyes:

And he probably pistol whipped someone as well

[Kobe Jnr]

You have to kill minimum 4 people, to go to jail in this country..

[28renyoy]

what makes you assume he pistol whipped someone??


But you're right, robbery is not cool.
people getting trauma and shit and for some life will never be the same.

at the same time he is a young man who was caught for the first time. young people do dump shit.
Why not give him some perspective? Like that he might get out at the age of 60 and enjoy life for couple of years...
and comperad to other crimes this conviction is totally out of line

He got caught for the first time...and committed 7, SEVEN, felonies. It wasn't his first time, it was his 7th time. I don't care if he wasn't convicted.

[Kobe Jnr]

cya Knicks. I knew he would do something like this.

[chains5000]

You have to kill minimum 4 people, to go to jail in this country..
So you could kill YGS, ZeN and Knicks and be free?

[Bucket_Nakedz]

Who cares. Anyone committing armed robberies deserves to be dead, someone SHOULD have shot and killed him when he repeatedly pulled guns on people. He's lucky to spend the rest of his life in a prison rather than be dead right now.
http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/109513_o.gif

[OmniStrife]

Well, it's a good thing he's young then...

[The Real JW]

Not sure how people are saying he's lucky to be alive, you would prefer life in prison to being dead?

He can always kill himself if he decides it to be the better option. But he can't be dead and then decide he wants to choose the jail option instead.

[TheMan]

They should do like the Saudis and cut his hands off, that should do the trick and we don't have to pay to feed and house this prick.

[timlush]

If he didn't want to spend 162 years in prison, all he had to do was not commit any crimes.

[Draz]

they could of just called it life sentence.

[Myth]

And I understand he committed armed robbery, which is a violent act. But he never actually hurt anyone. I don't think he should be set free, or get a light sentence, but I do think 162 years is excessive. I think 10-20 years would more than suffice.

When you commit armed robbery, you often say something along the lines of "Don't move and you won't get hurt." That essentially means: "I plan on killing you if you do something to try to stop me." I hate the idea that his punishment after getting caught essentially depends on MY actions and that he only gets a more severe punishment if I try to defend own life. F*ck that. You rob somebody at gun point, I say f*ck your life forever because you said don't defend your life or die.

[D-Wade316]

:( 10-30 years would be enough.

[tpols]

This is absurd.. he robbed a couple convenience stores and got two life sentences. Thats more time that murderers and rapists get.

[dude77]

:( 10-30 years would be enough.

you think 10 yrs would be ok for 7 armed robberies and discharging a firearm in the process of said robberies at a customer ? .. you should go work in the judicial system in canada, you'd fit right in ..


this guy committed ARMED robbery .. a violent crime .. not once, not twice .. 7 fkn times .. there's a god damn pattern there .. he's going to keep doing it and eventually 'accidentally' kill someone .. he doesn't give a fk if he kills .. shooting wildy at a dog .. shooting at a customer .. fk this pos .. I wanna see what one of you fktwats would say after this guy got out after '10' and went and robbed you and killed your wife or kid ..

no problem with this sentence .. I do have a problem though with this inconsistent fknut of a judge giving his accomplices much lighter sentences so they'll be released not too far into the future to wreak more havoc on innocents .. way to cancel yourself out stupid fk

[dunksby]

Well it seems getting lucky not being caught multiple times has a bad low.

[D-Wade316]

you think 10 yrs would be ok for 7 armed robberies and discharging a firearm in the process of said robberies at a customer ? .. you should go work in the judicial system in canada, you'd fit right in ..


this guy committed ARMED robbery .. a violent crime .. not once, not twice .. 7 fkn times .. there's a god damn pattern there .. he's going to keep doing it and eventually 'accidentally' kill someone .. he doesn't give a fk if he kills .. shooting wildy at a dog .. shooting at a customer .. fk this pos .. I wanna see what one of you fktwats would say after this guy got out after '10' and went and robbed you and killed your wife or kid ..

no problem with this sentence .. I do have a problem though with this inconsistent fknut of a judge giving his accomplices much lighter sentences so they'll be released not too far into the future to wreak more havoc on innocents .. way to cancel yourself out stupid fk
:sleeping It did not happen tho...

[tpols]

Well it seems getting lucky not being caught multiple times has a bad low.
Thats what Im saying.. this is not the same as if he got caught once, served time, did it again, got caught again, served more time, got out, did it again and so on... If he saw what it was like once or twice in federal prison, he might not have done the same acts when he got out. It's called a second chance.

This reminds me of when Caron Butler went to jil as a teen and was in solitary for like 6 months.. its not likely, but that scared him straight and he worked harder than ever to achieve success and never be in that situation again. You gotta at least see if the person has the capacity to be like that especially when he didnt even physically touch anyone.

This has got to be the longest sentence for a non physical contact crime in the history of the country.

[Myth]

You can't give someone threatening to kill someone the same punishment as someone who actually kills someone.

If they are brandishing a gun while doing it, I would. Like I said, the difference in their punishment level should not be based on whether or not I defended myself. At a certain point, a criminal should no longer be allowed in society, and I believe that the point is no return is when you are willing to kill somebody over some money, whether you actually do it or not. I understand that this is going to be a minority view though.

[dude77]

If they are brandishing a gun while doing it, I would. Like I said, the difference in their punishment level should not be based on whether or not I defended myself. At a certain point, a criminal should no longer be allowed in society, and I believe that the point is no return is when you are willing to kill somebody over some money, whether you actually do it or not. I understand that this is going to be a minority view though.

totally agree

[Sarcastic]

It's pretty sad that the recidivism rate is so high in the US, and we try to punish our criminals as hard as we possibly can, while you look at countries in Europe where they try to rehabilitate their criminals, and their recidivism rate is extremely low in comparison.

This is how jails look in Austria for example.

http://www.carniola.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/austrian-prison.jpg

http://www.carniola.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/austrian-cell.jpg

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/2007/04/austrain01.jpg

http://summermb.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/reflect.jpg

[ace23]

If he didn't want to spend 162 years in prison, all he had to do was not commit any crimes.
Really? Have you jaywalked or sped lately?

If a punishment doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. 162 years is unjust. Period.

[Sarcastic]

If they are brandishing a gun while doing it, I would. Like I said, the difference in their punishment level should not be based on whether or not I defended myself. At a certain point, a criminal should no longer be allowed in society, and I believe that the point is no return is when you are willing to kill somebody over some money, whether you actually do it or not. I understand that this is going to be a minority view though.

What are you Tom Cruise here? You want to punish people for a crime they may or may not commit in the future?

Do you understand how the law works in this country? We don't have psychic aqua triplets that can tell us who is gonna commit a crime. We punish based on what you actually do, not on what you may do.

There is a huge difference between pulling a gun on someone and actually pulling the trigger.

[johndeeregreen]

There is a huge difference between pulling a gun on someone and actually pulling the trigger.
You're right.

But at the same time, I don't think many in this thread seem to understand how serious an offense armed robbery is. When you point a loaded gun at someone and demand that they follow your orders, that's one step away from murder. It's through sheer luck that this guy wasn't killed or didn't kill anyone. No, he's not a murderer, but many people in this thread are acting way, WAY too callous about how dangerous an offense this is, like the guy that said 3-10 years (LOL). Like I said, 162 years with no chance of parole is pretty ridiculous, but at the same time he made this bed for himself. Threatening people's lives with a loaded firearm is no f*cking joke, man. You don't do that shit.

[johndeeregreen]

Really? Have you jaywalked or sped lately?

If a punishment doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. 162 years is unjust. Period.
Yeah, jaywalking is totally comparable to armed robbery.:rolleyes: Way to compare two non-criminal offenses to one of the most serious felonies out there.

[CelticBaller]

retirement plan, Austrian criminal.
:lol

[ace23]

Yeah, jaywalking is totally comparable to armed robbery.:rolleyes: Way to compare two non-criminal offenses to one of the most serious felonies out there.
Punishment does not fit the crimes is all I'm saying. Not comparing the two at all. 162 years without parole is just a little extreme, no?

[johndeeregreen]

Punishment does not fit the crimes is all I'm saying. Not comparing the two at all.
Why bring them up then?

I agree 162 years without parole is too steep. But I still feel the general sentiment in this thread is that armed robbery (7 times!) isn't really a big deal, which is ridiculous.

[ace23]

Why bring them up then?

I agree 162 years without parole is too steep. But I still feel the general sentiment in this thread is that armed robbery (7 times!) isn't really a big deal, which is ridiculous.
Not sure why this is, but hypocrisy just lights a fire under me, especially when it comes to things like this. Would you want a year in jail for speeding? No, so don't come in here with this, "All he had to do was not commit any crimes." (:facepalm) bullshit.

Yea

[johndeeregreen]

Not sure why this is, but hypocrisy just lights a fire under me, especially when it comes to things like this. Would you want a year in jail for speeding? No, so don't come in here with this, "All he had to do was not commit any crimes." (:facepalm) bullshit.

Yea
Well that wouldn't happen because speeding in itself isn't a criminal offense. So your comparison is null and void right there.

And yes, if he didn't want to go to jail, all he had to do was not commit crimes. That part is pretty simple. If you aren't prepared for the consequences, then don't commit the crime. I'll reiterate, that although the sentence seems unreasonably long, I have no sympathy for someone who repeatedly put people's lives in danger for his own personal gain. 162 years? Too bad, so sad. Don't pull guns on people and you won't have to worry about some judge making an example of you.

[Myth]

Maybe they would be willing to kill someone, maybe not. Obviously deserves heavy punishment but not equal or more severe than actually killing someone.

My point is, either way they should lose their right to live in society. I view it as more of a threshold. Most people have a threshold, but mine is just lower. For example, many would agree that a person who killed 30 people and a person who raped and killed 30 people should be put to death (if you believe in the death penalty). It is the same punishment, even though the guy who also raped his victims did a worse crime. That is because at a certain point, crimes reach a threshold where the punishment is essentially the same. I just happen to have a lower threshold and think that if you robbed multiple people at gunpoint, you already showed that you would rather put other peoples' lives at risk than follow some basic societal rules, and thus you should be removed from society. At that point, I don't care if the person is put down or put in jail, all I know is I don't want that asshole on the streets where he can endanger others ever again.

[po3try]

162?! Why not 163 or 161 or 178 or 200 or 500?

[Sarcastic]

My point is, either way they should lose their right to live in society. I view it as more of a threshold. Most people have a threshold, but mine is just lower. For example, many would agree that a person who killed 30 people and a person who raped and killed 30 people should be put to death (if you believe in the death penalty). It is the same punishment, even though the guy who also raped his victims did a worse crime. That is because at a certain point, crimes reach a threshold where the punishment is essentially the same. I just happen to have a lower threshold and think that if you robbed multiple people at gunpoint, you already showed that you would rather put other peoples' lives at risk than follow some basic societal rules, and thus you should be removed from society. At that point, I don't care if the person is put down or put in jail, all I know is I don't want that asshole on the streets where he can endanger others ever again.


And what do you do if they caught the wrong person? Do you realize how many people have been sent to jail, and even executed, who were found to be innocent later on? You are willing to take a person out of society for the rest of his life, based on a legal system that commits errors at every step of the process?

[johndeeregreen]

And what do you do if they caught the wrong person? Do you realize how many people have been sent to jail, and even executed, who were found to be innocent later on? You are willing to take a person out of society for the rest of his life, based on a legal system that commits errors at every step of the process?
You're right. Best to just release him because the system isn't perfect.

You do understand how ridiculous of a point this is, right? Advocating lighter sentences for convicted felons because in some cases he may be wrongly convicted? That's an issue for the criminal prosecution process, not an argument for lighter sentencing.

Anyway, he's got 162 years to prove himself innocent. Better get cracking, maybe by the time he's 70 he'll be able to find some 'proof' that he wasn't a thug committing numerous armed robberies and firing guns off.

[johndeeregreen]

And enough of this 'first offense' nonsense. If a serial killer is arrested for the first time after killing 20 people, do we just ignore the people he's killed before just because he wasn't arrested for it previously? Of course not.

If this had in fact been a one-time thing, then absolutely the situation would be different. However, since he made it pretty obvious through his actions that he was going to continue waving guns in people's faces until he got caught, I have no problem with throwing the book at him. Like I said before, he's lucky he's not dead and/or killed someone else. Because that's the only two ways his life was going to go left to his own devices.

[Myth]

And what do you do if they caught the wrong person? Do you realize how many people have been sent to jail, and even executed, who were found to be innocent later on? You are willing to take a person out of society for the rest of his life, based on a legal system that commits errors at every step of the process?

I think they should be pretty damn sure if they are going to commit them to a serious punishment. If the case of whether they did it is cut and dry, then give them a serious punishment. If it is a case where all the evidence points to them and they are found guilty, but it is not necessary 100% conclusive, then don't give them such a punishment. If you were caught red handed by the police, that is 100%.

[RaininTwos]

I really dont understand what is to be argued here. The punishment didnt fit the crime, give the kid a second chance at life. Oh I forgot, it's ISH, the place where people always try to assert their intelligence in the dumbest ways.

The crimes have already been committed, all of the "he shouldn't do the time, if he cant do 162 years" talk is beyond facepalm worthy.

I understand armed robbery is a serious offense, but are people not understanding how long 162 years are? With no chance of parole? This is crazy and the sentence is unfathomable. Cars,telephones,TV and Radio are less than 162 years old.

The Justice System is such a f*cking mess, I don't understand how people can rape babies, get like less than two years, yet a kid robs 7 gas stations/fast food joints and gets almost two centuries. SMH.

[RaininTwos]

Did this happen?
Yes, IIRC it was florida. I posted it in the Mike Vick thread years ago and have never forgot it lol