Yup. Get injured easier, and takes longer to heal. I got a Covid-ish (never tested positive) respiratory infection back in Oct, have had breathing/coughing issues ever since, this led to blood pressure issues, leading to issues in my eyes and just overall quality of life issues. Now that I’m on a laundry list of daily meds I can finally live a somewhat normal life :P. I wish I took my grandfather’s advice and never got old.

I got laid off and within a few days our dishwasher died. Had to wait for months until I got a new job to pull the trigger on a new dishwasher, all the while our stove was threatening to die on us. All this after our furnace died on us within a year of buying the house just a few years earlier, and then our AC just died last summer (not the end of the world, but insult to injury).

All you want is revenge. You don’t care about justice, just accept that. You can’t beat logic with ad hominem attacks.

“Justice is a legal or moral process of evaluating and resolving conflicts, whereas revenge is a personal desire to cause harm or injury to someone who has wronged you.”

You don’t give a fuck how they get to it, you just want punishment, that’s not moral process of evaluating or resolving conflict, it’s revenge.

He doesn’t eat brains, McDonalds doesn’t have brains on the menu. He just slowly poisons minds with his illogical gibberish.

Then I’m sorry, you don’t care about justice, you just want vengeance. Just remember this is a slippery slope and some day you might be on the losing end of it.

OK, let’s start where we agree: home invasion is not OK, and it deserves punishment. Furthermore, I want to remove this individual from the public (until such time that they have been reformed, or at least served their sentence) so they are not able to repeat such behaviour.

Here’s where we seem to disagree: you want punishment, seemingly, by any means necessary. My stance is, punish him based on the crime he directly committed.

He was set to potentially recieve up to 25 years just for the burglary and then an additional 30 for murder and the judge dropped it to 24-30. So, if they had just charged and convicted him for the burglary would that not been enough for you? The murder charge, in this case really only provides for a slightly higher upper limit and probably increases time until he is eligible for parole. It’s also a slippery slope that can easily be used to pile on charges. So, is piling on the murder charge really worth it? He got caught, he was charged, he’s been convicted, they probably would’ve thrown the book at him just with the burglary charge. Seriously, do you really still think adding that murder charge is worth it?

Not assuming anything, what you are asking for is revenge not justice. Justice is proportional disciplinary action relative to the crime, tou just want them punished and you don’t care how or why, that’s just simply revenge.

You’re looking for revenge, not justice.

What are you arguing? I 100% agree he deserves to be punished… for the actual crime he committed, which was robbery.

Stupid is as stupid does.

It’s like someone took a bunch of Republican grievance talking points and tossed it into a big nonsensical word salad of fear mongering.

Listening to him is to hear the sound of dementia.

Acting normal for 3 minutes would be a record for Trump.

Yeah, I figured that. Thanks for the confirmation though.

Felony murder would perhaps work if you were directly involved. For example, if the guy had been active in a shootout with the cops with his friend, or e en if he was then only one shooting at the cops and his friend was shot and killed, then yeah sure I get it. But here, the only common thread in the incident is the robbery, the surviving kid ran into the woods to escape while his friend actively engaged the cops. They weren’t acting together at that point. Otherwise, yeah I agree that there also should have been safe guards in place since he was a minor at the time as well.

That is an insane leap in logic. You can have a trial with multiple co-defendants that results in different punishments, or separate trials for each defendant with different outcomes.

He should be punished for the crime he committed. His friend had a mind of his own, and agency over his own actions. No one forced him to engage the police.

As I said before, the way this law is written is just an excuse to find ways to pile on more charges.

OK, this, much like the specific law involved in this situation, is ridiculously reductive.

Did they break and enter? Yes. Did the friend, who was shot and killed, engage police with a weapon? Yes. Did the guy charged with murder force his friend into the situation that led to his death? NO! The kid who was killed decided to engage the cops with a weapon, while the kid who was charged ran into the woods.

The law just seems like a poorly veiled means of piling additional charges on to criminals, no matter how petty the crime. I’d bet there are probably some more wild situations where the justice system managed to butterfly effect their way to linking some petty crime with something not at all associated with the crime itself.

Yeah, I mean I wouldn’t necessarily attribute it to someone buying such a specific type of tech, but in many other hobbies it wouldn’t be unusual