This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This episode is brought to you by peacock, presenting the original limited series, a friend of the family, on the story of the Jan proper kidnappings from nick and sky executive producer of the act and candy and direct, Producer eliza hip comes a dark. Compelling look at the harrowing story through new lands produced which Robert herself, this theory stars anna pack, when Jake lacy, collen hanks LEO Tipton, and mckenna grace stream now only on peacock
discount, nike air, nice how you doing I'm ok, arson and in keeping with societal norms. How are you just
I'm doing wonderful. I had a long day at work and still have my foster dog, no one's taken him yet, but he's an awesome dog. So I don't mind having them this long. While there has been some entries hasn't there yeah we taken into several families and a lot of them either dont real. how big is or don't realize what jerks their dogs are in that there still she accept the new dog into the home. Now yet, oh it's! It is what it is before we get started. I just like to say we ve gotten a mountain of feedback. People which is incredible and its much appreciated. I love reading all the feedback we ve gotten some of it. Tried to address right away. I knowed jason. I have some new equipment that we ve been using ass couple episodes that should help thee,
equality, and on top of that, we ve gotten a lot of suggestions for topics which their incredible suggestions. So again. This is the kind of show or we just cannot run out of topics, because we have so many built up in our cue, but we are trying to go through in Try and take some of your suggestions and put them in here and there in future episode, so that eventually will cover what you sent us. We will get to it. Isn t it's episode, listener request? I said it's episode is definitely a lesser request. This is this is undoubtedly one of the biggest kay as I think that exists for anyone out there who concerned about innocence cases or unjust cases. This is a case that
not so much about innocence, but about application of law and was appropriate and so coarse sat surprising in this way. This was a request. Once he read over the story, you say: oh wow. This should be news all the time. Yeah. So. What are we cover tonight? Sinnott, we're talking about the Elk heart for and who are these kids? Well, the Elk heart for were friends. It starts off with five of them and I'll read them from the youngest, the oldest. We have jose key rose. He was sixteen blake layman. He was sixteen anthony sharp was eighteen, we buy sparks
eight, seventeen and dance l, johnson aged twenty one, and the story is that they decided third there not at school. They ve skipped school as the afternoon I decide they want to break into a house to get to get some goods to sell to get some money and they do have a plan, though they don't just pick a house at random and break into it. They actually are looking at the houses along the street to see if any of them seem vacant that no one's home to make it easier to get in and get out so that for one they're not caught too, they can get what they need, so they finally find a house they feels vacant and,
They say that they knock and ring the doorbell, hoping that if someone is home that they can just move along they'll find a different house. Well, just so happens that no one answered the door. I should say at this point that levi sparks the seventeen year old has decided to go along with this plan he's across the street. And of course there is controversy over whether he's a look out If he's just someone who lost it is nerve, and this doesn't want to go through with this. So at this point for them go in through the door, they break they break through the door. back, I believe, and the end of the home. Well, the homeowner is rodney scott.
and he has insomnia. So he wasn't awakened by the initial knocking on our door bell, but he was awakened when the doors busted it. He said it sounded like an explosion, because it was very, very loud. I'm sure that's exactly it, I'm sure he's stating it accurately, so he grabbed his gun and he does fire several shots and he he manages to hit Dan l Johnson and blake layman and dance l, Johnson dies and benefits. Essentially the case and in blake is injured but lives. Yes, every blake was shot him leg and damsel, I believe, was shot in the chest and then he he carouse the kids into like a room or some
in an calls, nine one one, the police show up and all of them are arrested and they take it off because it is a a murder scene because damsel was shot and killed at the scene and they clear rodney of any charges, because he's at home. This is kind of considered a home invasion. At that point, they say that rodney was defending himself. I mean there's castle laws whatever, so he was defending his home in and they they find him in the right. So they take these kids, I keep on kids because there are sixteen seventeen years old, damsel, the twenty one year old. He is, he is now past, so the only
person that was considered an doll in this group has died. So the rest, in my mind, our kids all keep referring to the as kids, technically anthony sharp being eighty, although I dont believe, is eighteen for very long year. He is somewhat concerted and adopt we'll get into more that later, because that actually effects where he goes after sentencing. They get these kids and the prosecutor decide to use the felony murder rule, which is, if a killing hers during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. The persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder, in this law is written for mostly if you got Two guys robin liquor store, rob a bank and you got it
get away driver and you got the guy in the liquor store. The guy in the liquor store, kills the cashier during the commission of the robbery or the felony now they can charge both of the people, the guide it pulled, the trigger and the guy envy the getaway driver. but if you re listen to what I just read that is so vague. Again so just open to interpretation that if you got those same two guys robin liquor, store and The guy goes and rob it into the cash register. Person decides to defend himself and kill the guy. That's robbing the store the getaway driver can be charged with murder, because his on our part, was killed during the commission of the crime or the felony. So that's what they charge these four four kids with
reading the reading the law, though it is a person who killed another human being while committing or attempting to commit and the novelist of crimes somewhat read that and say well, none of these people attempted to kill anyone, except for the homework yeah, of course, but they, but it's so poorly written that the homeowner funding himself in one of these kids dies or the the adult that was with the kids is killed. Now they say his death is a direct result of all everyone else. That was with the group that I understand what they're saying: That is the way I'm reading the law. It is a person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit yeah. That sounds like the first news perpetrating the crime. If they kill some,
well, the beginning of the law. The rule is: if a killing occurs during the commission, they don't say if you murder during the commission is that if a killing occurs, that's the vague part the rule, whether or not you agree with it. That's the logic there and so even the homeowner defending himself a killing occurred and that's how they interpret it and they charge These kids, the minimum sentence for this is forty five years they get fifty five years for three of the four and the fourth gets forty five years, while one of them actually accepted a plea deal yeah as a Quiroz, it is said that he tried to withdraw that deal, but the request was denied
Receive forty five years and since the case they actually had their sentences reduced to forty five years, so all of them now have a forty five. Your sons drop down from fifty five years. They're happy about this, but really what's the difference between
Thirty, five and fifty five when you're seventeen years old and the rest of your life is literally going to be ruined and you could possibly die in prison, but that's what the laws written for the laws written for. It's a tough on crime law! It's a! We gotta, get these violent offenders in jail for longer sentences, because that's how you resolve crime right and if you have to ex cons or two criminals, two thugs whatever you want to call them committing a crime and a killing happens during that crime or during that felony. Now you can charge all of them for that murder and that's that's your tough on crime law, and so here we have these kids all charged with this and the the judge.
erected the jury. He said one was there a felony committed yes or no to were all of the kids involved? Yes or no three did a murder occur or killing occur, yes or no four, was their immediate or you know, was their danger involved. Would you could you a perceived that there was somebody home essentially and the prosecutor proved that the kids knew. Somebody was home because there was a truck park there and there was a wallet and car keys and I'd like a jacket in the kitchen or something to that effect. Even though the kids mentally say we were for an unoccupied home, but they get over this by saying there was a truck and there was car keys. So there is no danger.
Their meaning where in america and all homeowners have gone. So, if you go into a house you, you expect to be killed by the homeowner, so they get over. This was their felony s where they all involved. Yes, did a murder happened? Yes, was them animate danger? Yes, therefore their guilty? These are the instructions that the judge gives the jury. If you answer yes to all these things, they are guilty and they will be sentenced to felony murder rule. That's how our justice system works, that they followed the letter of the law to a t. Here you could argue that they did it correctly. You can argue that these kids were responsible for the death of damsel, but is
Simple, more depends on you. Ass. The prosecution would say this. It's very simple: they discover that this law applies to this case. They presented it to a jury and the jury found that the prosecutions case was just that. That's that's what needed to be done and technically it does apply to this case and it would apply to a bank robber and his getaway driver. Technically it does. It fits the role. So what's the problem, these kids gotta, you know they got up hold their own responsibility for the death of their friends, as they should have known that breaking into this house could have got one of em kill
right case closed right. Well, in some respect. Yes, I there are, there will be a segment of america that will look at this and say logo through those check check box. You know the check marks in those boxes. They'll check off the first one Second one and the third one, the fourth one on the look out and say: well, it mentalities criteria, house where'd, you find it s kind of the first problem of what happens in the courtroom and de direction juries are given, because no wherein there did you really here, oh by the way you
find a medicine to finding a funny. I'm not guilty is something that's very tricky because there's too much evidence here that they committed crimes, they can't that this is something that came out from summoned. The jury is that you can't find them not guilty because they are guilty. It just depends on how you are applying the law here. So you can understand word if it's between not guilty and guilty and finding a not guilty would mean you're, not upholding the law that you're not doing what's asked of you and again it goes back to that question. Did the prosecution prosecute this case correctly, at least legal? and yes, they met all those criteria that this is where
get into the other segment of the population. That will ask the question: if you're dealing with young kids, which most let's just be honest, most of these people, our young kids, the young teenagers, They really understand the ramifications, the consequences of doing what they did. They don't have a clue I used to break into old, abandoned buildings of my friends. We used to go vandalized will we are terrible and to think that if we jump defence somewhere along the line in somebody decided to shoot one of us that all of us could have gone a jew. For the rest of our lives, for murder is, is its ailing? It's an alien concept to me, especially when I was sixteen years old.
But ignorance, the law is no excuse, and I mean these kids should you know they're they're being held responsible right. That is. That is one way to look at it and it's it's tough to deal with until you actually do something that I know I've been scoffed for in the past, but where's your heart. Where is the idea that you might do stupid stuff as a kid we can ask the question: were these kids arm the time when I was there any intention of harming anyone when they went into the house, because that that to me is a big question in this case is: have you if you're going to actually look at it with a heart and and ask what was their intention.
seems quite obvious to me that the intention was just to rob the place. That's not something that's an innocence deal is not like. It gets them off the hook it just. It brings up that question of. Perhaps they should have been charged with burglary breaking and entering instead of dropping this giant rock fanny murder on their heads. Because we could take these young kids and you still put him away for about twenty years, which is a long time. I mean just think back what what happened twenty years what were you doing twenty years ago, some people were just getting. high school. Look where you are now. If, if you lose time, Here's your life at a huge payment back into the system,
plus twenty years of your life. If the homeowner had died, if they had killed the homeowner fifty years. Ok, but in this case they didn't, kill the homeowner, the homeowner just defended themselves. They feared for their life. They feared for their safety. They were four of them inside his house, he has no idea what they're doing there, I'm sure yeah and there's no time to explain no, they have no business being in that house. So I can sort of understand how people would say. Oh well, you have to hold them accountable. We can't make excuses for everyone, but I dont think twenty years an excuse, think that's a hefty. We have a purse in Missouri, whose serving a life sentence for marijuana possession- you am I correct. Yes, we do
this is where I am going to scoffed at the way the system works and and ask the question: why are we going to punish people who are making decisions as young people that were not intended to harm anyone? at least physically. This is where they could learn a lesson and maybe become productive members of society again at some point, but by putting of away for fifty years on this charge that, while legal, is it just as harm than good. I think, because no one wins here, except for one person and that person is Curtis hill, the prosecutor. He can make himself look good in his next election by saying I'm tough on crime. I dont put up with it look what I did it to people that,
the law technically Curtis didn't do anything wrong here. Technically Curtis applied the law appropriately, but now, let's look at a few other cases. I go back to episode, one where you hear about me and my jury duty. There was for guys that came into a house with the intention, robbing the house robbing the people they knew these people were there. They had the intention of going there, robbing them and two of the four end up killing the victims at the house. Do they charge the other two assailants with fell anymore, no, they do not even know they were all for their together to commit a felony together in its proven that they were all there to do that
we were talking earlier and you brought up a. Why wasn't dorian Johnson Michael browns friend? Why wasn't he charged with a felony murder rule because Missouri actually has a harsher felony murder rule than Indiana and most other states. in Missouri, it doesn't even have to be a you, don't have to prove an intimate danger or that there was you would have expected danger. It could have been a felony that is a victimless felony crime and if somebody slips and falls and dies during that they can charge you with the felony murder rule. So Missouri actually has a a luck, a much harsher law about this. Yet I decided two cases that they didn't apply it what's up with the inconsistency here. Why don't know that it's inconsistent because Curtis hill wasn't in charge yeah. This is true. We've talked
or about prosecutors that feel like they have to bring the hammer so to speak. But I think when were the again we're dealing with people who could maybe chant your lives around by letting them know that there is no chance to turn their life around you're, saying the message that nothing they do matters anymore. There already screwed and I know people will say well you're making excuses for them again or they did turn their life's or their lives around in prison, but honestly, Imagine yourself going to prison for fifty years. You tell me how much you can turn your life around the whole on Imagine yourself going to prison for one year in how screwed up your life would be all the concessions. You'd have
To make specially, let's say, you're a single parent or a single and come home and you're the breadwinner, and you have to go to prison for one year one single year, your life is destroyed with just one year in prison. If I went to prison for one month I might lose my house. I might there there's a lot of things that might happen. Well, then, you got gotta fall, the largest cause. You know we gotta think about all the repercussions. Well, yes, but when you're sixteen you're, not thinking that way, Yeah now I think Mckenna, you know that cop put his lights on, pull over and not try to run from because well going to jail or getting shot in the phase. Isn't What I want to do when I'm almost forty years old, but one sixteen, that's not how you behave the euro in india. Fifty five years, you gimme a fifty five years old.
Guess what I'm going to jail and I'm gonna try to be the king pin criminal in jail, because I'm not getting at any time soon I'm going to do what I have to do, to survive and likely to be a well behaved, criminal, J o because what's the point as a life sentence, what's the point of being the good Any citizen you're not gonna, get out any time soon. It's a mandatory sense of forty five years and the rest of society as apparently given up on you yeah you're a convicted criminal. Someone died because of what you did yeah weird ways that the laws are replied I mean I have a family member that It's a cousin! I didn't have a lot of interaction with her but she's doing fifteen years in jail and federal penitentiary. Fifteen heart, meaning no possibility plural for essentially selling methamphetamine me.
While I have another family member that was brutally attacked last year,. there. Finally getting around two sentencing. The person that attacked her and he's plea bargain down to five years in jail and they haven't even sentenced him. Yet he might get off for all. I know, but that's the the rumor is he could get five years for a brutal attack.
It literally was attempted murder and he might get five years, and I just I can't wrap my head around this at all and when I hear it about this case and I'm like well, hey, they followed the the the law they they applied. It correctly and nobody's happy about it. So it's I. I have a hard time wrapping my head around it because it's like well, they did what the law did. You know this guy did it but prosecutors, judges, everybody. They have something called discretion that they don't seem to want to use when it's appropriate and juries don't have or the discretion that they don't seem to understand. That they have is that you can find people not guilty, and you find these kids not guilty of murder, while the prosecutor can turn around and recharge them with. You know, felony trespass,
burglary, whatever they want, or they can let him walk, but the fact that you know that they're gonna go to jail for the rest of their life. If you find them guilty you to say not guilty trust me, the law will keep charging them until they get something to stick its not upon you to think that you let a guilty person walk trust me. They they'll they'll get their punishment or they have already been punished because, while their best friends been gun down a name that might have been enough of a wake up, call for them to turn their life around will that's where one of the things that that's forgotten this aside from. you are brave choices, find them not guilty there is there. Is that possibility that seeing their friend killed would probably but a damper on any more ideas breaking into a house seemingly bay in turn out. That's just some,
we'll. Never now, at least as far as it stands now I had two kids repeatedly break into my garage. One of I didn't know how old they, because I never saw them. I just know that my garage is being broken into over and over again and they were stealing stuff. My roommate happened, a catch them doing it and he he detain them until the police came. But let me say this that if I walked into the garage- and there was two people in there- I might have pulled out my gun- I mighty yelled at them first and tell them to leave, but I would only give them brief seconds to go and if they
didn't go. I might open fire. The two kids that were breaking into my garage, one was eleven and his older brother was fifteen years old. Luckily, I never came across them, especially when I was carrying my gun, because that would have been horrific. Now these kids got a slap on the wrist. The the courts did nothing with them. They just said you know, go go beyond probation for a while, but I can tell the eleven year old. It scared the daylights out of him to be in court And I know that eleven year old it it had an impact on him, the fifteen year old I dunno, but again I didn't care that they got a slap on the wrist. I do you know cause, that's it doesn't matter to me. The the monetary loss that I suffered was not anything great. And with these guys sixteen seventeen eighteen years old, I dont think
should have actually served any jail time. I know that's gonna probably put me at odds with a lot of. People not even to me, I don't think they should have served any jail time. I think they should have been. I think they should have been charged with something and given community service given a lot of things, but throwing a sixteen year old in jail, isn't going to make the situation any better. I'm stay we're getting at there's that idea that these people could, as I said earlier, turner lives around you give them yet it give them an opening. If you don't give them the open, they don't have a chance. So I understand where you're coming from the. I still think that we can't we can't treat them
their little kids there still young their young men. I dont think I would. I would definitely give them time. I just don't like the idea that they lose their entire. The bulk of their Would you give them time and juvenile hall or a regular adult prison while there is most of them were not an adult prison? Most of them were they. They went first step to the juvenile area, but the eighteen year old actually had to coming act. They said they had made a mistake that he needed to be in the adult area. And then, when the others turn eighteen, they get transferred to the adult institution. Well, when you get old enough, you have to be happy in the appropriate area. That's all there is to it
I still think they need to serve time. I dont think, but let me put it this way. We can talk all day long about their intention, I feel as though the intention is not to harm anyone, but I think it debatable on whether or not they knew some of his home. We just don't know that's up for debate here. You know, there's a truck in the driveway, the keys did they see the keys. I have no idea, but if they, if they do see a vehicle there, that that's a possible tip off at someone's home, so you can argue that there they had a suspicion. Someone might be home but you can't just break into people's houses. They do need to learn a lesson. I dont know their learn, a lesson. If they don't serve any time you can say you can put him to use. I dont know I do think they should serve time. What what that amount is,
It really depends on what you charge him with and that's where you're taught you get into the discretion thing there. The prosecutor could have chosen to apply different law here and it would still be appropriate. That's thing that's just missing, I it. It just seems so obvious to me that they could have applied a different law here and then you know judge either ages. I think the age should matter wins when twenty five in their committing breaking, and yet they get is different. Now, If these kids were twenty five, years old, possibly with records with a track record of they are not a good person or you're not adding to society. Ok, maybe we can. We can stop him with a harsher sons, but this is most of their first offences I couldn't,
find all of their records, but for the most part none of them had records because there too young to have records. So this is their first offence and their first offences getting them fifty five years in jail. I guess if you had a sixteen year old boy who murdered his entire family, I think that might the fifty five years since might seem more appropriate, but for the most part I, when they weren't there to commit a murder, I think that's pretty provable, but some people might say it's in home. It's a home invasion and you don't know what they're, therefore wild almoner didn't know, but they under their own admittance. Now, what I think really got them in court, though, is none of them took the stand and they didn't have any character, witness
as for them, so literally they had no defence. So the prosecutor had his way and I think that's what really took him down. I mean you, don't have to take the stand to defend yourself. I think other people, shouldn't take the stand because as soon as they opened their mouth, they might lose a lot of sympathy from the jury, but in this case When you see interviews with these kids they're, not very well spoken there, he, he just you you it really does he really have to sympathize with them because of their age and their immaturity, while I think the other part of it is, is the jury instructions and having to decide between? Not guilty and guilty and the guilty is just took them in that
action that they were charged with felony murder, its and it must have been difficult, furthers yours, I I don't know that people really get fat, but having to make a decision you're trying to get it right. These people didn't go to school. For this there are literally chosen Then there sat down and their toll basically how to think they review evidence and then they have to apply what they ve been told. Does this match? That is this satisfying? This and they got on a less than what you said before- check boxes Jim Jim Jim, jumped in it it's a foregone conclusion really did that the It is almost a formality at that point, yet there there handcuffed, I would say- and you are right- that they could have buck the system. They could have said not guilty, not guilty not guilty, but that
that's not what most people are going to do with anyone, because they want to get this right. They they want say what's the law with the law we have, but they just that's, not that's not with their taught to do they want to uphold the law, but, as you said, the other things that could be done, and this is a huge undertaking and I know most people on society just don't care, because there are not faced with these problems, but you could have someone run against this prosecutor. You could change the law there. Changes that could be made. They just take effort so depends on how they pay are. There actually feel like the laws in their area are unfair, unjust if you feel like people are being bludgeoned over the head with. be laws went there. They are seemingly overkill and perhaps you should become more involved instead.
Just saying wow, that's sad, that this is happening to them. What most people think wool? A law, therefore, there is a good reason that law exists and we need to fulfil that law. I know this is a whole paradigm shift for most people, but there's something called jury nullification where you find somebody not guilty, even in the face of the justice system, you to say not guilty, you know yeah, he was caught with a whole bag of crap. one of them- and it is totally obvious that he is a crack dealer and it is totally obvious that he was selling that crack and I find him not guilty because I don't believe in drug laws.
You can do that and there's no repercussion for doing that? You cannot be found in contempt of court for making an a guilty or not guilty decision. I mean think about the casey anthony case. I mean that you know they. They they found her not guilty and there's no repercussions to them. I mean public opinion might be low, but the court, the court didn't go after him and you can do that. You can find anyone not guilty just because you feel like that, you don't want them charged with whatever the sentence is going to be low, is an understatement if you're ever on a jury. Take that into consideration that, even if you think this person is guilty as hell, if you don't think the punishment fits the crime, you can just find them not guilty and there's nothing. The court can do to you, there's nothing. The law can do to you you're free to make that decision.
Regardless of court instruction regard regardless of what the judge tells you and I we should ask whether its two wrongs make a right did the boys do wrong? Yes, does sentencing em too, he plus years make any real sense? Is it fair? Is it just? It seems it seems like it's just too much, and so in that case, as judge Suggested you that's why they bring the jury in they can determine what happens from here on out it's up to them, but I dont think juries understand their power now I think they understand their task. Their task is well laid out for them, but their power is not. I don't and that's where juries are sort of malleable, at least for the prosecution or defence, but usually for the prosecution. I would say
after all, they're the ones defending the law. The defense is defending the person and that's where the the conflict is, but at you could be. You can be an objector here and say you know what not guilty, because I don't agree with the prosecution of these people and even if you're, the only person on that jury, that does it will now it's a hung, jury and that person has another chance because they're Yet another trial people got a stick to their guns. I mean think about all the grand jury, indictments or non indictment set of happened with the police per tonne betty and whatever that's happened lately, if wonder, just decided. I think that was in the wrong in not gonna, listen to what they presume is probable cause or what they presume is standard procedure. think what he did was wrong and I'm gonna stick to my guns, although
I've got an indictment, but it was the people, the jurors, that let these cops walk, weather you agree with that they are the ones that let him walk, but we have to keep in mind that seemingly. it's a seemingly, and I don't think it applies to all of them. But many prosecutors dont have to care about the people involved. They do not care about the lives of those people involved or the family members of those. Used. This is where the jury should be able to use their hearts. Their minds editor Whether its appropriate, that's another angle in andrew and keep in mind not guilty, does equal, innocent, necessarily and justice. and pointed out, you could say not guilty you know their guilty, but just because you don't feel that the sense is appropriate that the weather out the law applied is appropriate in the case
And a lot of tat a lot of times they can retry someone under a different, a different law. One thing I am sure they could have brought these people back in four part very because they charge them with burglary, originally know, and they totally would of if they would have walked for d felony murder charge. You know the prosecutor would have brought him in and kept bringing him in. I mean we look at the David Camm case or a lot of the cases where we see prosecutor they lock on and they don't let go even in their found, not guilty charge em again charge him again until they get somethin to stick, don't feel like you're, letting a guilty person walk, use your power and use it for good. Again, that's that's just where they don't understand their power. The prosecutor will not charge them with everything they could, because, while the price
bring out the big guns first and they'll settle for something second, if they have to exactly. so. I'm sure the listeners out there had their own opinions on this case and we haven't heard a lot from them only because. When it was suggested to us. You know you vibe of what that listener thinks, but we'd be interested here Well, listeners, I think, on what? How do you feel this case is prosecuted? Do you think it was just after all it was it was. It was appropriate from the prosecution's point of view, but if it's, Just let us now to this citizen email or get our facebook pay let us now. I know our people,
They think I'm some bleeding heart liberal right now that doesn't want to put people in jail, but whatever I've been accused of everything under the sun, so it's good. Well again, I can see where there's different opinions on this case. I know I've I've spoken with a number of people just today and Austria, as was yesterday training. game where they were out on this case in some I had heard about it, some hadn't my laid out the case and most felt that this was overkill. But there was someone that thought that well they did the crime do the time. It is that simple, and it didn't matter that they were sixteen or seventeen years old, that's their old and the no better, as I was told, so I know that we
listeners out there that are not in their heads and saying yet they broke the law, they do the time, but let us now I mean we might hear from someone who has perhaps an interesting spent on this case I just want: are our system and our laws to be more more co? You're more applied evenly for for the crimes committed will again, that's that's what most people, I think talking planners cases, intent and if one of these kids had attacked, honor and attempted to harm or kill them we'd be sitting here. I don't know what hence I would want, but it would be a lot more than after twenty years. I think I think if switch over to wanting El somebody, I think, there's really something wrong there and ends.
rejoining. Society is something that should be taken lightly. True and. Any you'll red. When you read up on his case, if you read more after you hear podcast, you may go see something about a gun or an I've, just keep in mind that when they prosecuted this case and even before they Ask you when they are investigating these things, just weren't there just not really a factor They were not. The main points are issues that the prosecution used, which is very telling, because if a prosecutor could place a gun in the hand of one of these, the perpetrators of the crime. Then he would have used that he would have said they came to harm the homeowner. They are prepared to do that that that
wasn't part of this case. It was simply utilizing that law, as just laid out. and prosecuting in that way. The the the. Do you hear that its little space for mindfulness become the medication pie. Gasped in fifteen minutes are, alas, become yours, is to unwind listen. Exclusively on amazon, music, or so
tell your echoed a vice alexa play the podcast become.
Transcript generated on 2022-10-18.