Atlanta GameStop Murder Suspects Will Not Face Death Penalty

January 31, 2011 -

Suspects in a 2010 robbery that lead to the murder of a GameStop customer will not face the death penalty, according to the Rockdale Citizen. Three Atlanta men were robbing a GameStop in November of last year when the victim, 40-year-old Adrian Snow of Stone Mountain, entered the store. He was immediately shot by one of the defendants and was killed instantly. The men were later apprehended and face a litany of charges.

The men arrested were 27-year-old Giovannte Maddox, 25-year-old Tron Lamar Hill, and 17-year-old Markus Isiah Seymore. The men were charged with "malice murder," felony murder, three counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of obstruction of a law enforcement officer and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Hill faces an additional charge - possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

The three will have their first appearance in Rockdale County Superior Court on Tuesday for an arraignment hearing before Superior Court Judge David Irwin. The District Attorney's office decided not to pursue the death penalty in the case. District Attorney Richard Read said that pursuing the death penalty would be "unconstitutional" because the person they believe pulled the trigger was Seymore. Because there was only one shooter, the other two will not face the death penalty either.

"We believe the actual shooter in this case was under the age of 18, so we’re barred by the U.S. Supreme Court from presenting (capital punishment)," Read said, citing a 2005 federal case.

Source: Rockdale Citizen


Comments

Re: Atlanta GameStop Murder Suspects Will Not Face Death ...

 Seriously?!? What difference does it make if he's just short of 18?

Its not like once he turns 18, he'll have this moment of enlightenment and realize,

"Man, I just turned 18 and what I'm doing is wrong, I should not kill people and rob gamestops"

 

Whatever, the law is fLAWed!

Re: Atlanta GameStop Murder Suspects Will Not Face Death ...

"We believe the actual shooter in this case was under the age of 18, so we’re barred by the U.S. Supreme Court from presenting (capital punishment)," Read said, citing a 2005 federal case.

I thought minors who commit serious crimes are tried as adults. out of curiosity, isn't it possible to simply delay the death penalty until he is 18?

岩「if Phyllis Schlafly wants to undo Women's Rights, she should lead by example and get back in the kitchen」

岩「…I can see why Hasselbeck's worried about fake guns killing fake people. afterall, she's a fake journalist on a fake news channel」

Re: Atlanta GameStop Murder Suspects Will Not Face Death ...

"out of curiosity, isn't it possible to simply delay the death penalty until he is 18?"

Given that it takes years to exhaust all the appeals in a death penalty case, it's pretty much a given that he'd be over 18 by the time an actual execution took place.

Here's an article on the Supreme Court case: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html  It looks like the offender has to be over 18 at the time the crime in order to be elligible for the death penalty.

However, felony murder's a capital offense in Georgia.  Thus it seems like the prosecutor may have theoretically had the option of pursuing the death penalty against the other two.  Still, that seems like it'd be an uphill battle to seek the death penalty only against the two people who didn't pull the trigger.

Re: Atlanta GameStop Murder Suspects Will Not Face Death ...

Here's to hoping that, even without the death penalty, people get the idea that these criminals are/should be punished fully and completely.  I'm local to the incident and hope to see no more crimes like these.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Whose next half decade of superhero films are you most looking forward to?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, AE, Yeah, that is why I have a hard time understanding critics of Sarkeesian. I look at them as a Feminist review of video games, but for some reason, others look at them as personal attacks.10/30/2014 - 12:01pm
E. Zachary KnightDefinitely a good answer. That is the way I lean. If you actively chose to stop gaming, or just stopped out of habit, then yeah, you are no longer a gamer.10/30/2014 - 11:45am
Matthew WilsonAE i agree, but it is worth pointing out the fact that that is whats happening.10/30/2014 - 11:45am
quiknkoldbehavior to warrant having a Title that doesnt involve a piece of paper.10/30/2014 - 11:43am
quiknkoldwaiting in line. Thats not being a Gamer. Thats akin to me reading a Pamphlet in line and calling myself an active reader. or watching a movie trailer on a tv in walmart and calling myself an active movie goer. There has to be some form of repetitive10/30/2014 - 11:42am
quiknkoldbeing A Gamer is a Conscious decision. I am consciously engaging in this form of media and showing some form of enthusiasm. The only person I Wouldnt call a gamer is somebody who has a random game on their phone just to kill 5 minutes cause they are10/30/2014 - 11:41am
E. Zachary KnightSo how much time must pass since the last time you played a game before you are no longer a gamer?10/30/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew Eisen"Plays" is present tense so the clarification doesn't seem necessary to me.10/30/2014 - 11:18am
quiknkoldI would change that from "One who plays games" To "One who currently plays games". Like my friend as a kid playd games but then he stopped and hasnt for the last decade+ so I wouldnt call him a Gamer.10/30/2014 - 11:16am
Andrew EisenHmm, that sounds like a great idea for a series of articles! I bet they'd be well-received and not taken the complete wrong way at all!10/30/2014 - 11:12am
Andrew EisenThat's right, gamer simply means one who plays games. That's it. The idea that "gamer" refers to something very limited and specific, well, that's no longer applicable in this day and age of mainstream gaming.10/30/2014 - 11:12am
Andrew EisenMatthew - As I said last night, that is not a bad thing. Different types of reviews to serve different interests is a GOOD thing and should be encouraged! There is not, nor should there be, only one way to review a game or anything else.10/30/2014 - 11:01am
ZippyDSMleeAnyone see this? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/29/1339617/-Cartoon-Gamergate-Contagion-Spreads?detail=facebook10/30/2014 - 10:55am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, Matthew, yeah, there is no "wrong" way to review a game. It all depends on who the reviewer wants reading the review.10/30/2014 - 10:48am
quiknkoldhas their own stream, you are a gamer. I think the only prerequiset is to Play Games for Enjoyment10/30/2014 - 10:21am
quiknkoldI always felt the Gamer Identity was expressing an enthusiasm for Gaming in general. There are different degrees to that. If you say "I love this game and play it, lets see what else" with Ipad game, you are a gamer. If you are a retro game collector who10/30/2014 - 10:20am
NeenekoIt is long overdue, and things will probably settle down when they accept that the industry does not cater to them and them alone and go back to posturing within their own subculture.10/30/2014 - 10:10am
NeenekoThe community has always been split, with many factions within it, and they used to not interact all that much. Now they are having to confront they are not alone and thus not the one twue gamer identity.10/30/2014 - 10:09am
CMinerMW: The two are not mutually exclusive.10/30/2014 - 10:05am
Matthew Wilsonthe gaming community is going to split in to 2 groups. one wants games reviewed as product, and the other as art with all the social critique that comes with that. at this point i dont think it can be stopped sadly.10/30/2014 - 9:56am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician