Skip to comments.Teen ‘Who Shot Baby Dead In Stroller” Now Blames Baby’s Parents For The Murder
Posted on 08/18/2013 8:51:15 AM PDT by barmag25
It was a shocking story from March of this year: DeMarquis Elkins, 17 at the time, deliberately murdered 13-month-old Antonio Santiago in his stroller, because Antonios mother carried no money when Elkins and an accomplice tried to rob her. Now, that tragic story has taken a turn for the bizarre. Elkins, who is being tried with his accomplice, Dominque Lang, 15, claims that Santiagos mother and father put out a contract on their son in order to get insurance money.
On March 21st, his last day alive, little Antonio could toddle but not yet talk. His mother, Sherry West, strapped him in a stroller and took him for a walk near their apartment in Brunswick, Georgia. According to the story she told police at the time, 17-year-old Elkins and a 14-year-old companion suddenly confronted her, waving a gun, and demanding money. West cried as she told the Associated Press how Elkins deliberately slaughtered her child because he viewed it as the reason she had no money to give to him:
He asked me for money and I said I didnt have it, she said. When you have a baby, you spend all your money on babies. Theyre expensive. And he kept asking and I just said I dont have it. And he said, Do you want me to kill your baby? And I said, No, dont kill my baby!
(Excerpt) Read more at mrconservative.com ...
There must already be a word out there to describe the state of mind of such a person.
Heres Money-ville’s Facebook page.
This is obviously the lawyers idea as this guy is too stupid to come up with this defense.
The lawyer knows the little POS is going away for a long time and will try anything.
He needs to be disbarred for being a total POS like his client.
The parents in this situation seem extremely peculiar and shady to me. But even if they did contract a hit on their child, the accused is the one who did it. Which makes it premeditated. Which means that he should never get out of jail.
what a bunch of barbarians.
Woman: “But we have to free Hat.
Stan: It’s just that, you know, he killed twenty-three babies.
Man 4: Well yeah, but it was in self-defense!
Cartman: He... killed... twenty-three babies in self-defense?
Skeeter: Hat was attacked maliciously and unprovoked by a gang of babies in West Town Park. When that many babies get together they can be like piranha.
Man 5: Three eyewitnesses testified that if Hat hadn’t killed those babies, they’d have killed him!
Crowd: YEAH! [the signs go up] Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat!”
- South Park, Free Hat episode.
Can’t even get original with their stupidity so the have to rip off South Park.
The article said she was concerned about how "soon", not how "much", since the policy would already have been written for a given amount. Isn't it remotely possible that she was concerned about hospital bills for her own shot leg and funeral expenses for the baby? Many people are living at the edge of financial ruin in this economy.
He should be shot while “escaping”.
The baby was obviously racist.
I don’t know who is more sick, The feral animals who perpetuate this crap or the white Borg who allow it to happen.
What benefit does the baby-killer expect from asserting a “Murder for Hire” “defense” (essentially a M1/Death Penalty guilty plea, when a jury of HIS peers might have let him off with M2/Life for a robbery gone very bad?). Even if the parents were guilty too, he has downgraded whatever chances he had, with zero upside. The huge disadvantages of this move suggests revenge (or perhaps he is the evil idiot he appears to be).
Would be interesting to know whether an insurance policy ever existed, when it was taken out and by whom, and its characteristics. (That the mother was shot and id’ed the perp, might raise suspicion that the daddy made any contract arrangements all by himself. Neither the shooters nor the mother necessarily knew any or all the details). Why would essentially destitute parents spend money they didn’t have on life insurance on a baby (if they did)? The desire “to guarantee coverage later in life” doesn’t seem to fit the socioeconomic situation of this family.
That’ll work just fine, too.
“Drop him into a woodchipper.”
Feet first, preferably.
Because you could charge him with conspiracy on top of the first deg. murder. ;-)
That shouldn't be a problem. Let's just waterboard the perps on a daily basis till they turn 18 and then kill them.
Doesn’t change the date of the crime.
The country came to a standstill over martin/zimm. NOT A WORD about this in the mainstream media. This deserves outrage. The few normal people who heard about it were outraged. The media knew about it and approved of it.
This is a subhuman feral savage.
How about bunking him with a cell mate nicknamed VLAD THE IMPALER...!
Sometimes ya just gotta look at the comments... Not for any particular insight, but just for assurance that the world isn’t going completely crazy.