Does He Deserve His Sentence?

Not asking if he deserves any sentence, just the one he got. Do you think it was justified? The crimes he committed are pretty violent/bad and you have to call into question what could have been.. But at the same time, no priors or anything, and there is an abundance of people with a longer prior sheet, who committed worse crimes, and got lesser sentences.

Poor dog.

162 years without the possibility of parole for armed robbery? No. Seems like Florida's war on African Americans is still goin strong.

He deserves to go to jail, but 162 years is way too much.

Should have killed someone, would have gotten a lighter sentence.

162 years is stupid, who the *** are they hiring these days?

The ***? No. That's ridiculous.

Some time, yes. But 162 years in prison from a case that seemed nearly entirely based on his accomplices saving their own *** and potentially blaming him for things they did is stupid.

Myabe they misplaced a decimal somewhere..

Floridians.

Isn't Florida retired people, cubans and oranges?

even if he did exactly what they said, as a teenager without even an injury caused by him, "life" is a ridiculous sentence, especially if he truly aspires to better himself, 5 years and requiring a GED and employment for parole while being monitored for another 5 would more than suffice.

That being said: the article said his involvement was indicated by his "accomplices testimony" without any other hard evidence (skimmed the article, I may have missed it but I didn't see it indicate there was footage or anything, or a weapon recovered, etc, so if I'm wrong forgive me) and find that him actually getting convicted at all, especially without a bargain being offered is total ***, he needs to appeal.

At least I know I'm not crazy now. I read the comments, and everyone was basically saying 'good riddance'..

I agree with the do the crime do the time philosophy, but I felt the sentence was ridiculous.. I started to doubt myself when like everyone on Yahoo unanimously agreed there was nothing wrong with this picture.

the people on yahoo comments are idiots beyond comparison, I wouldn't let what they say bother you.

I don't usually, but at least there's usually a handful of people who have the same stance as me.. When there's none, I have to wonder..

Not justified but I don't see him becoming a respectable member of the community either. Some time is in order, but life is way too much.

word

A significantly more than life sentence is just stupid and has quite a lot of bullying behind it. Imagine the logic of suggesting that at, say 90 years old he would still be a danger to society and unfit to live outside of a penitentiary. Of course, by then it would be cruel to release him (shocking an elderly person into an entirely new way of living and removing them from everyone and everything they've ever really known).

Considering the lack of proof that he was armed at all and the fact that nobody was physically hurt, I would suggest a maximum of 10 years in prison. More than that and you really begin to damage a person that in fact has not inflicted bodily harm on anyone else.

The outlook for convicted felons is already bleak. As an employer I try to give people second chances, but there are a number of people and organizations that I work for that will not allow ex-cons to do even the most menial tasks on their property. Shutting someone off from society for hugely extended periods of time does not make them work better in society. This is of course tangential as I just think extremely long sentences are a bad idea almost no matter what. For this particular case it's ridiculous. If you're going to bully someone by telling them they no longer have a free life at least have the balls to take it away (though I don't typically condone that either and certainly not in this case).

20 Years max, 14 if good behavior and only if he was robbing banks.*

162 years in jail and he is that young? Man, I would just hang myself and be done with it.

Wow, 162 years is outrageous.

He should serve 10 years at the max, especially since there were no records of assault (despite the incident where he shot at the dog, I'm assuming the dog was not harmed) or manslaughter. And his colleagues get *** 9-22 years? What a crock.

Yeah, you get less for killing someone...

Only kinda skimmed the article but the bright side may be that the appeal will bring this whole sentence "stacking" BS under review by the Supreme Court eventually.

Small consolation to the guy though as the appeal process can be pretty lengthy.

Why are all the sentence suggestions 10 or more years?

It's been statistically proven 99% of crimes are done out of necessity.

Put the f*cking senator in prison for maintaining conditions that pray on the downtrodden.

162 years is what you deserve if you get 100 people to drink the Kool-Aid, not armed robbery.

No priors, no fatalities,

I would just love to see where that statistic came from

And 100% of those crimes are illegal and deserves some form of punishment.

C'mon guys, CLEARLY murder and rape are done out of necessity.

debatable, as a lot of crimes shouldn't be crimes

lol