MODESTO, Calif.—Prosecutors say the man behind the wheel of a car involved in a fatal drive-by shooting of a San Francisco man could get up to 140 years in prison after being convicted of first-degree murder and other charges Friday.To me it seems like a wildly excessive sentence for the shooter, since he was only 14. But the decision to charge and convict the driver for 1st degree murder is absurd. I'm all for shared responsibility, but this is something different.Stanislaus County Deputy District Attorney Brad Nix says 20-year-old Isidoro Mata could get even more time than the convicted shooter in the case.
Jurors needed only three hours to convict Mata for driving the car that carried the gunman who shot and killed 28-year-old Manuel Rayas at a child's birthday party in Modesto in June 2006.
Mata is due back in court April 23 for sentencing.
The gunman, Angel Cabanillas, was sentenced in October to 132 years to life in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder. Cabanillas was 14-years old at the time of the shooting.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI'm all for shared responsibility, but this is something different.
How is it different, Mikeb? Sounds like a triumph for the "shared responsibility" theory of justice. Does the problem lie in the fact that those convicted have Hispanic names, meaning it's not those nasty old southern redneck white boys who are going to prison?
I'm all for shared responsibility, but this is something different.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, in this instance the person had knowledge of the crime beforehand and the means to stop it. Very unlike the "shared responsibility" of gun owners.
I don't see how this is any different than what you have claimed every gun owner should somehow be aware of.
ReplyDeleteYou have claimed that gun owners should bear the responsibility of folks that have gone off the deep end and killed people, even if we never knew them or associated with them---all on the faulty premise that because we promote the right to bear arms, that we somehow also promote irresponsible or illegal behavior.
It also is faulty because you wish to hold us responsible, even though we had no definitive evidence of a person going off the deep end beforehand. But you claim that we should have known anyway, and are responsible anyway.
Here, in this situation, the driver did know that a crime was to be carried out. He not only knew beforehand, he actively participated in committing the crime. That makes him an accomplice. He is complicit in the crime.
"I'm all for shared responsibility, but this is something different."
ReplyDeleteI have to echo what Shrimp said. You want to hold gun owners responsible for crimes committed by people they don't even know, yet think this is "something different"?
You are completely backwards.
MikeB: “But the decision to charge and convict the driver for 1st degree murder is absurd. I'm all for shared responsibility, but this is something different.”
ReplyDeleteBut what if he also actively resists gun control legislation? Would his 140 year sentence be justified then?
-TS
For the accomplice, 10 years would have been about right, not 10 times that. Remember Lillo?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that they are talking about the sentance...
ReplyDeleteregardless, the wheelman had the knowledge of what was happening and the ability to stop it, the blood is on his hands too. By acommidating the shooter, he commited murder by proxy.
140 years sounds too harsh to me as well, but 10? No, I'm thinking 25-ish.