I'm sure everybody here knows the story about the two teens who tried to rob a mother in GA, and when she refused to give them money, one of the men shot and killed her baby as it lay in the stroller. I could not even imagine how that would feel. And, before this argument goes all "Stormfront", I wanted to post a copy/paste from an article about this story. The background is the defense attorney asking the other guy who was there, why he is testifying against the shooter, if there was no deal in place? Here is the excerpt:
Further trying to attack Lang's credibility, Lockwood asked Lang repeatedly if he'd reached a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony.
"Ain't no deal or no promise," Lang said.
During a conference between the judge and lawyers while jurors were out of the room, prosecutor Andrew Ekonomou said emphatically that there was no deal.
But Wrix McIlvaine, a defense attorney for Elkins' mother, pushed further in asking Lang why he would agree to testify and to admit to being there when the baby was shot if there was nothing in it for him. Lang continued to insist that prosecutors didn't offer him a deal or make promises but said they'd see how it went and wished him good luck.
What the fuck? When did you have to justify just doing the right thing? I'm sure this kid feels some remorse, and maybe just wanted to see the other guy go to jail for killing an innocent kid. Why are attorneys such pieces of shit? I just don't get it.
