Tyreke being sued
- Thread starter BMiller52
- Start date
This is pretty much how I feel. Im not getting into the particulars of the whole situation, but in general, everytime I read that story or something about that story I get a little sick. Eh... thats probly not the right word, Its just dissapointing. We dont know what really went down that night. I would bet the cops know either. I wish it never happened.
I don't care how you spin it... He was driving the car with someone who shot and killed someone. Yeah you'd be scared. But does anyone really believe he didn't know what was going to happen? As if he was just driving and all of a sudden they shot someone? You know people change and places are rough. I'm not going to hold this against Reke, but all of you just giving him a flat out pass is just ridiuclous.
and who's to say he wasnt threatened to doing it. a man with a gun can control a hundred men with out one. as lenin said.
we dont know the real story here.. tyreke was young 17 or something, we put ourselves in the victims shoes.. now lets try to put ourselves in tyrekes shoes, top HS prospect, skilled, gifted a prodigy in basketball with team tyreke etc. would YOU ruin it all with a silly GTA like drive by with your cuz?
thats why I believe the he didnt know his cousin was packing heat story.
we dont know the real story here.. tyreke was young 17 or something, we put ourselves in the victims shoes.. now lets try to put ourselves in tyrekes shoes, top HS prospect, skilled, gifted a prodigy in basketball with team tyreke etc. would YOU ruin it all with a silly GTA like drive by with your cuz?
thats why I believe the he didnt know his cousin was packing heat story.
Because it makes sense to drive your cousin to shoot someone who everyone knows he has problems with in a car linked to your family while you are a top high school prospect on magazine covers, then turncoat on your cousin and spill all the beans to the authorities because your shocked that somehow they found out you were involved? While thinking he didn't know what his cousin was going to do may seem far fetched to some of you the opposite would make Tyreke the dumbest man on the planet.
I wish people would read the Philly Inquirer article and realize he did not drive his cousin anywhere.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/brea...227_Evans_was_at_scene_of_fatal_shooting.html
I was prepared to be outraged but not after I read the description of events. You can pick your friends, but you can't pick your family.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/brea...227_Evans_was_at_scene_of_fatal_shooting.html
I was prepared to be outraged but not after I read the description of events. You can pick your friends, but you can't pick your family.
Money grab.
Nope. Criminal law requires that the jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. Being acquitted could simply mean that they didn't have enough evidence, or the prosecution did a lousy job stating their case. In the Simpson trial, there was crucial evidence that didn't get admitted, and most people felt that he was guilty. They just didn't convince the jury.
In Tyreke's case... Wait, I take that back. He didn't have a case. He wasn't tried and acquitted. He wasn't charged, and then the charges dropped. The investigation rendered him guiltless in the situation. There were no charges, not for accessory to murder, not for fleeing the scene of a crime, nothing. (Edit: And it's not like the police and the DA just looked the other way. His cousin is doing 9-20 years for third degree murder! The situation was taken seriously by the authorities.) But for Tyreke, there was no trial. It's not at all a similar situation.
This isn't "you got off for the murder of our son, and we are going to go after you however we can." What this is is a family who is saying "we lost our son, and we know you were there when it happened, and we might be able to get some money from you now that you've signed that $24 million basketball contract, so meet us in court." It's bogus, through and through.
Nope. Criminal law requires that the jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. Being acquitted could simply mean that they didn't have enough evidence, or the prosecution did a lousy job stating their case. In the Simpson trial, there was crucial evidence that didn't get admitted, and most people felt that he was guilty. They just didn't convince the jury.
In Tyreke's case... Wait, I take that back. He didn't have a case. He wasn't tried and acquitted. He wasn't charged, and then the charges dropped. The investigation rendered him guiltless in the situation. There were no charges, not for accessory to murder, not for fleeing the scene of a crime, nothing. (Edit: And it's not like the police and the DA just looked the other way. His cousin is doing 9-20 years for third degree murder! The situation was taken seriously by the authorities.) But for Tyreke, there was no trial. It's not at all a similar situation.
This isn't "you got off for the murder of our son, and we are going to go after you however we can." What this is is a family who is saying "we lost our son, and we know you were there when it happened, and we might be able to get some money from you now that you've signed that $24 million basketball contract, so meet us in court." It's bogus, through and through.
Last edited:
While I wouldn't say that just because a person isn't charged that person may not have some liability in all cases, reading the sequence of events if I understand them correctly there is no way Tyreke should be on the hook for anything here. Still I have a hard time condemning the family, people do all kinds of irrational stuff after losing a child.
Considering the low dollar amount and the facts of the case, I'm still shocked people are holding it this hard aganst the family.
Its more like, "Your cousin shot our unarmed son dead in the street and then you drove him away. You didn't even get charged with anything and your cousin only got 9-20 years so we want to take it a little further."
Its more like, "Your cousin shot our unarmed son dead in the street and then you drove him away. You didn't even get charged with anything and your cousin only got 9-20 years so we want to take it a little further."
I don't hate the family. They suffered a horrible loss, and while I don't think there's really any vindication to be had, I can understand how they would want everyone involved to have to pay, somehow, someway. I wouldn't feel that way myself, but I know that it's a common reaction.
That said, the low dollar amount is an indication to me that they just want some money. That amount of money can do a lot for a family from North Philly. And, like Brick said, the easiest way for Tyreke to handle this is to write the check, shut them up, and move on. It's a pay day for them.
1) What should he have been charged with? He wasn't an accomplice. He didn't shoot their son. He didn't drive his cousin to the scene of the crime. He did drive him away from the scene, but he cooperated fully with the investigation, and according to what the investigators found, he was found to be without fault in the situation. Accessory to murder, fleeing the scene of the crime, like you said, they didn't charge him with anything. Isn't it possible that he wasn't charged because he shouldn't have been charged? According to what we know, it isn't Tyreke's fault that their son is dead.
2) Only 9-20 years? Only? He was found guilty of third degree murder. He's going to be in jail for a long time. And even if he was charged with first degree murder and got the death penalty, guess what? They still don't get their son back. What difference does it make what his sentence is? "The guilty person's sentence wasn't long enough, so we're going to sue his cousin, who the police cleared, and that will make everything better"? Like I said, I don't get what difference it makes. You still lost.
I'm not trying to be insensitive here. I know what it's like to lose someone. I understand the anger. But this is a money grab, plain and simple. There's no way to paint it differently.
That said, the low dollar amount is an indication to me that they just want some money. That amount of money can do a lot for a family from North Philly. And, like Brick said, the easiest way for Tyreke to handle this is to write the check, shut them up, and move on. It's a pay day for them.
1) What should he have been charged with? He wasn't an accomplice. He didn't shoot their son. He didn't drive his cousin to the scene of the crime. He did drive him away from the scene, but he cooperated fully with the investigation, and according to what the investigators found, he was found to be without fault in the situation. Accessory to murder, fleeing the scene of the crime, like you said, they didn't charge him with anything. Isn't it possible that he wasn't charged because he shouldn't have been charged? According to what we know, it isn't Tyreke's fault that their son is dead.
2) Only 9-20 years? Only? He was found guilty of third degree murder. He's going to be in jail for a long time. And even if he was charged with first degree murder and got the death penalty, guess what? They still don't get their son back. What difference does it make what his sentence is? "The guilty person's sentence wasn't long enough, so we're going to sue his cousin, who the police cleared, and that will make everything better"? Like I said, I don't get what difference it makes. You still lost.
I'm not trying to be insensitive here. I know what it's like to lose someone. I understand the anger. But this is a money grab, plain and simple. There's no way to paint it differently.
Just because someone isn't charged it doesn't mean they aren't guilty of a crime (in general, not specifically this case). There could have been lack of evidence or a bad search that suppressed evidence. Remember the justice system is setup as innocent until proven guilty and many times the guilty still get off.
1) I'm not saying Tyreke should have been charged, sounds like he was totally innocent. I'm just saying from the aggrieved family's viewpoint his story could have been hard to swallow.
2) Yeah only 9-20 years. I don't know why the charges were dropped to 3rd degree murder, but their son was unarmed and shot twice in the street. 9-20 years to me is a light sentence for that act, and it was to them too.
Just because Tyreke was innocent of a crime doesn't mean he was innocent of bad judgment somewhere along in this tragedy. And bad judgement can be held against you in a civil case. I just don't blame the family for trying that case in court and think its REAL easy to judge from the outside what their main motives are.
2) Yeah only 9-20 years. I don't know why the charges were dropped to 3rd degree murder, but their son was unarmed and shot twice in the street. 9-20 years to me is a light sentence for that act, and it was to them too.
Just because Tyreke was innocent of a crime doesn't mean he was innocent of bad judgment somewhere along in this tragedy. And bad judgement can be held against you in a civil case. I just don't blame the family for trying that case in court and think its REAL easy to judge from the outside what their main motives are.
K
He meant he didn't drive his cousin over there to commit a drive by like people are making it out to be, like you yourself are trying to make it out to be. Tyreke put his car in gear, his cousin shot somebody, Tyreke didn't know if his cousin did the shooting or was shot himself and kept going. If you were black, from the hood, in the hood, and around violence that you don't condone and just want to get away from, you would drive off and not stop too. It's crazy how ignorant folks can be unless you actually have the life experiences of others, especially impoverished black folks in the ghetto.
Specifically in this case, there's no reason to go after Tyreke. According to all accounts, the investigation showed that he was guilty of nothing but poor judgment in driving away (which is arguable; some think the better judgment tells you to get the hell out of there). The guilty didn't get off. The guilty is doing 9-20 years.
Sigh, one more time. He did drive home, yes. I am sure if I was a teenager again and something like that happened I would just drive home too.
He did not drive his cousin to the location of the shooting. A drive-by has two parts the driving to and the driving away. In this instance the premeditated part of driving somewhere was missing. From the Sac Bee article it gives the impression that he was driver in a drive-by shooting. Since he was not and fully cooperated with the police that is why he was not charged. Like I said before I was ready to be outraged that we drafted a criminal but looks like a case of wrong place, wrong time.
Lastly, for the lawyers in the house what is third degree murder? What are the circumstances that lower it all the way to third degree? Was it a plea bargain? And if you have that many witnesses why plea bargain?
He did not drive his cousin to the location of the shooting. A drive-by has two parts the driving to and the driving away. In this instance the premeditated part of driving somewhere was missing. From the Sac Bee article it gives the impression that he was driver in a drive-by shooting. Since he was not and fully cooperated with the police that is why he was not charged. Like I said before I was ready to be outraged that we drafted a criminal but looks like a case of wrong place, wrong time.
Lastly, for the lawyers in the house what is third degree murder? What are the circumstances that lower it all the way to third degree? Was it a plea bargain? And if you have that many witnesses why plea bargain?
So what? They can be convinced that Tyreke was in the wrong. Doesn't mean they are right. They are emotional about the whole thing. The investigators went after the person they felt was responsible for the young man's death. He's in prison. That's enough.
From your link:
Now, if the DA asked me and my family to be there during the trial and wanted me to speak to the judge before sentencing, sure. If they need my help to get the person put behind bars, that's another story. But I'm not going to go home and pray that he rots in prison, or worse. His punishment, no matter how harsh or lenient, won't make me feel better. It would suck if he got off completely, but he's in prison for 9-20 years. And he's the one who pulled the trigger. Tyreke didn't have anything to do with it.
By the way, I think it's worth noting that Tyreke didn't testify in his cousin's behalf, as he had been expected to. It's not like he stood up in front of the courtroom and took his cousin's side.
Maybe he was guilty of poor judgment somewhere; what makes him different from every other 17 year old in the world? The thing about it is that, even if he did the wrong thing in driving away, that is not what led to their son being killed. It was after the fact. We can argue that he should have stayed there all day long, but him driving away didn't contribute to their son's death.
I think it's obvious what their main motives are. What else would they gain from a $50,000 check? It won't hurt Tyreke. I can understand that they feel that the only way they can personally hold him responsible is by suing him in civil court. I just don't understand why they want him to be held responsible. The person responsible is behind bars already.
From your link:
“They’ve [speaking of the defendant and family] got a moral victory. They were smiling,” said Dan Rivera, a brother-in-law of Reason. “(Evans) should be serving life in jail."
Rivera said even if Evans serves the entire two decades behind bars, he’ll still be able to walk around free when he gets out. “Marcus isn’t ever coming back. At the end of the day, they’ve come out winners.”
This is my whole point. I don't know why people think the justice system is set up to make the aggrieved family feel better. Their emotions are not a part of the sentencing process. I feel bad for them, and so does everyone else. They lost a son, a brother, a nephew, an uncle. It's one of the worst things you can experience in life. But this vindictive attitude is incredible to me. Give the shooter the death penalty, and you still don't have your loved one. I can understand wanting him to pay for his crimes. I just don't get what difference it makes what his sentence is. Sure, you can feel that justice isn't served, but even if justice is served, you still lost. No matter what. Marcus isn't ever coming back. The whole sitting in the courtroom hoping for the harshest sentence possible thing is beyond my ability to grasp. I just don't get it.Rivera said even if Evans serves the entire two decades behind bars, he’ll still be able to walk around free when he gets out. “Marcus isn’t ever coming back. At the end of the day, they’ve come out winners.”
Now, if the DA asked me and my family to be there during the trial and wanted me to speak to the judge before sentencing, sure. If they need my help to get the person put behind bars, that's another story. But I'm not going to go home and pray that he rots in prison, or worse. His punishment, no matter how harsh or lenient, won't make me feel better. It would suck if he got off completely, but he's in prison for 9-20 years. And he's the one who pulled the trigger. Tyreke didn't have anything to do with it.
By the way, I think it's worth noting that Tyreke didn't testify in his cousin's behalf, as he had been expected to. It's not like he stood up in front of the courtroom and took his cousin's side.
Maybe he was guilty of poor judgment somewhere; what makes him different from every other 17 year old in the world? The thing about it is that, even if he did the wrong thing in driving away, that is not what led to their son being killed. It was after the fact. We can argue that he should have stayed there all day long, but him driving away didn't contribute to their son's death.
I think it's obvious what their main motives are. What else would they gain from a $50,000 check? It won't hurt Tyreke. I can understand that they feel that the only way they can personally hold him responsible is by suing him in civil court. I just don't understand why they want him to be held responsible. The person responsible is behind bars already.
Last edited:
Not a lawyer...
First degree murder is premeditated, willful, deliberate. You have to prove not only that the accused committed the act, but that they planned to commit the act -- they planned to kill someone. Heavy burden of proof on the prosecution
Second degree murder is usually charged when someone is committing a felony, i.e., you're robbing a liquor store, the cashier pulls a gun, you or your partner(s) shoot him, he dies. You didn't plan to kill him, but you did plan to commit the felony. Accomplices to the felony can be charged with second degree murder even if they didn't commit the murder, including the getaway driver who wasn't even in the store (harder to get a conviction, but precedent is clear).
Third degree murder is when the intent was to harm someone, but not to kill them. Like a hazing or initiation incident gone wrong, or something like that.
In this case, I don't know why the charge was third degree murder, but it could have been a plea bargain, because Evans plead guilty to the charges, but they were originally going to go after him for first degree murder.
First degree murder is premeditated, willful, deliberate. You have to prove not only that the accused committed the act, but that they planned to commit the act -- they planned to kill someone. Heavy burden of proof on the prosecution
Second degree murder is usually charged when someone is committing a felony, i.e., you're robbing a liquor store, the cashier pulls a gun, you or your partner(s) shoot him, he dies. You didn't plan to kill him, but you did plan to commit the felony. Accomplices to the felony can be charged with second degree murder even if they didn't commit the murder, including the getaway driver who wasn't even in the store (harder to get a conviction, but precedent is clear).
Third degree murder is when the intent was to harm someone, but not to kill them. Like a hazing or initiation incident gone wrong, or something like that.
In this case, I don't know why the charge was third degree murder, but it could have been a plea bargain, because Evans plead guilty to the charges, but they were originally going to go after him for first degree murder.
Last edited:
Im not sure it matters that Tyreke was not in the wrong. I'm not saying that any of the decisions he made as a 17 year old in an extremely intense situation area blight on his character. But you're disgarding the possibility that even though's he's innocent of wrong-doing that something he did contributed partially to the victim's death. I'm no lawyer either, but my understanding is if it can be proved that he could and should have done something to prevent the death, than he can be proved liable. Maybe that means calling the paramedics instead of driving away. Can you really fault him for that as a person? Of course not, but maybe it makes him financially liable. (Again, I'm not a lawyer nor do I know all the facts. Jsut spitballing ideas here)
Really, I like Tyreke, it sounds like he did nothing wrong and afterwards dealt with everything head on and with a clear conscience which speaks to his character.
Really, I like Tyreke, it sounds like he did nothing wrong and afterwards dealt with everything head on and with a clear conscience which speaks to his character.