Instead, the “journalist” chose to depict this as a child falling afoul of an unjust system:
A 15-year-old Syracuse boy will spend the next two to six years in juvenile detention and the rest of his life as a felon as a result of his sentencing today for a robbery that netted him and an accomplice seven cents.
No, this criminal isn’t going to suffer these very minimal consequences as a result of his sentencing, but as a result of his crime. And the implication that the size of the haul is relevant is sickening.
This criminal didn’t lift seven cents off a lunch counter or steal it from the change drop of a soda machine…he took it from the pockets of an elderly man he’d just violently beaten to the ground.
He had no way of knowing how much or little money the victim had to steal…would the sentence, in the view of this “journalist” been more just had the victim been carrying more money to steal? How much is enough to justify a harsh sentence for a violent crime? Ten dollars? A hundred? A million?
BS. I don’t care if the victim didn’t have a cent to his name, it is completely irrelevant how much money was involved. What is relevant is that these criminals violently attacked a man they perceived as weak for no reason other than to take what didn’t belong to them.
And, in a few years, when this violent felon is back on the streets beating, robbing and possibly murdering the vulnerable and weak of our society, “journalists” like this will insist that it’s because the law abiding are “allowed” to purchase firearms, not because of the thugs that they coddle and empathize with as they insist that they be left free to victimize and brutalize over and over again.
And they wonder why their industry is dying.