Philly; Man convicted of 3rd degree murder in shooting death of teen on his bike, is the sentence fair?

Question

July 2007, a teenager was shot to death while riding his bike in a busy section of South Philadelphia. The suspects trial ended this week with a verdict of 3rd degree murder. The family of the victim and prosecutors were hoping for 1st degree. The teens mother and family are outraged, (rightfully so). According to the defense attorneys, because the shooting was not intentional (pre-meditated) the jury agreed on 3rd degree charges, which carry a sentence (maximum 26 years) but the defedant may only serve 15 years. Two of the defendants friends testified that they never thought the teen on the bike imposed a threat. Apparently there were words exchanged between the defendant (in his car) and the teen, when he did not get out of the way fast enough while riding his bike.

Is this a fair sentence? Should he have gotten 1st degree?

Many people (including the family) are saying that the verdict was racially motivated because the the victim is black, and the defendant is white. Has the situation been reversed, he would have gotten life in prison without parole. How do you feel about that?

1st degree, and 3rd degree murder charges are totally separate, and may have been justified in this case. Should it have made a difference? Or was 3rd degree the right charge considering the circumstances of the crime?

Here are two links to the story

http://www.examiner.com/a-1517292~Phila__man_convicted_road_rage_killing_of_teen.html

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7110547&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Please read the story before you post your comments, thank you!

Answer 1

I read both stories.  And I'll say what I usually say in situations like this.

I don't know.

There's no way to tell.  That's why we have trial by jury in this country.  It allows 12 people to hear ALL of the evidence, and make a decision.  It could be that the jury didn't feel that the murder was pre-meditated (I certainly didn't see anything in the stories that pointed to a previous altercation between these two youths).

It's a shame that this young man is dead...but to say that you have a 'full understanding' of the situation just because you read a couple of newspaper clippings is quite a reach...

Answer 2

Well in most cases what the citizens think it is not whats presented in court. Cases go by evidence and whatever the jury believes happens. Theres pretty much more to the story then they are telling you. Either if he goes to jail for 15 years or 25 years theres no difference. it doesn't change what he has done. And due to double jeopardy laws he can NEVER be trialed again by law. So he deserves a punishment and he got it

Answer 3

i live in  philly.  i am familiar with the story . i dont think the sentence was justfully right.  

Answer 4

I read both articles and it's clear the decision to find him guilty of 3rd degree murder is wrong.  He should have received 1st degree murder.

Answer 5

I agree with you 16 years is ridiculous.I would think 2 years would be a good time.

Answer 6

Thank you for bringing this story to our attention.  After reading the articles I think he should have been charged with at least second-degree murder.  It doesn't seem there was any premeditation but this was an intentional murder.  I don't believe the "self-defense".  There was an argument and this hothead pulled out a gun and shot the kid.  They were in a car, the kid was on a bike.  All they had to do was drive away.  I also  absolutely do not believe this was the first time this guy has carried a gun.    I loathe when the race card is flippantly played because it detracts from actual instances of racism.  But here I think race may have played a role.  What really made me see red is in the first article it states that the jurors believed he only meant to hurt, not kill, this kid.  What a steaming pile of BS.  When you take a gun and shoot someone you're intentions are not merely to hurt someone.  I also think that a mentality that would pull a gun out and shoot a stranger over some minor argument is a very dangerous individual and cannot be trusted to be free in society.

Answer 7

I would say 3rd degree is about right. If the guy had gone and got a gun came back and killed the teen then that would be cause for 1st degree. The fact that words were exchanged shows there was an escalation in what they were saying to each other so one could argue there might have been some degree of fear. The other fact is one guy was in a car and the other on a bike, so the driver should have just found a way to drive off and leave it be like any reasonable person would. I do think 15 is to short and he should be made to serve his whole sentence. Yet a good prosecutor would have argued that it was 1st degree murder. In order for it to be 1st degree you have to show that it was premeditated. Now that does not mean thinking about it for a day or even an hour. The fact that the man did reach over and take the time to get his gun shows that he was planning to kill the boy. So that I would say is premeditated. People need to calm down and start acting right. It seems that every time there is an argument now some fool pulls a weapon.