I cannot imagine this mother's pain. This verdict reminds me of the movie Law-abiding Citizen and how the prosecutor felt they did such a good job accepting a plea. The thing is even 25 or 50 years would not be enough, but 15 is a slap in the face. That killing was very personal and overkill. I agree more could have been done in this case from what the mother presented. The person that helped disposed of the body can possibly graduate to a higher level of crime since they were not deterred now by facing consequences. This is just sad and no his sexuality does not matter. This is just sad.

This is ridiculous. This is what the person who helped should have gotten with this person getting a lot longer. I am sorry for the mother that the nation has failed her.

You must understand that both sciences of politics and law are at play in this unfortunate scenario. The fact that a family lost a loved one who showed so much great signs of success is , unfortunately, only secondary. And the pain and emotions will probably last longer than the sentence tge accused killer got and the fact that his alleged accomplice ( AFTER THE FACT) is still a fugitive from Justice.
.
. When an accused person agrees to plea bargain and plead ‘guilty’ in a case of manslaughter, this automatically causes his maximum sentence to be reduced by about 1/3 so if the maximum sentence for manslaughter is 30 years, then the maximum in this case is now 20 years. Then the court will also take other factors into consideration. The fact that it is the accused first crime of record, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, though brutal in the face of it, it was not premeditated, but a crime of passion. Hence the fifteen year sentence. And it is more likely that the defense lawyers were trying to get ten.

.
And as for the politics of the matter. It is already public knowledge that at least two high profile persons were on the list of suspects of who may have committed the crime. And some of the evidence may be of a very personal if not intimate nature. So the decision to bargain for a plea deal may not only be to avoid embarrassing moments in a trial but some of the evidence and a tearful,emotional, apologetic testimony from the accused can lead to a hung jury or even a not guilty verdict. Then there will have to be a retrial and this can easily lead to a miscarriage of justice or even a ‘ no accused to prosecute if he is granted bail and is being electronically monitored. Hence the saying ‘law has no emotion. Just cold hard evidence.’ And yes tge still grieving family’s pain is real and so is their disappointment in the ‘slap on the wrist’ sentence.

I agree with the mother the sentence is to low his life was worth more than that,,

O.J. Simpson, the decorated football superstar and Hollywood actor, dead @ 76. --- Good Day!

May his soul finally Rest In Peace

It's not a perfect system. --- We the populaces' --- Recognise weselves in the judges. --- Good Day!

The fact that a plea deal could be offered for such a heinous crime speaks volumes about our justice system. We have prosecutors too lazy to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and a court system too slow and clogged to try matters in a timely fashion resulting in criminals beating the rap and a victim's family without justice. The system is truly broken and this is sad all around.

Well you have to back that up a little bit first. You must ask the question ‘why was Toussaint charged either manslaughter and not murder?’ And the answer is that he did not set out to kill Omar. Murder was not his intention. The convicted killer admitted and the police report confirms that there was a violent confrontation between the killer and the victim and the fight became deadly. And, in a panic, the killer engaged a third person, who because of his age and relationship to the killer may have not known he was committing a crime by helping to dispose of a dead body.
.
. So now the accused is charged with manslaughter. Meaning it was not his intention to take a life. So the maximum penalty for manslaughter is 30 years, that being the worse of the worse. So now tge matter goes to trial, running the risk that the accused can be found not guilty. But assuming he is convicted, the judge must now set his sentencing within the parameters of 30 years being maximum. He must also take other factors into consideration, like this being the boys first run/in with the law and also weigh the relationship between the accused and the victim. And after this and a long drawn out revealing trial, the sentence can still be around 18 years and definitely not more than 20. So is it really worth going to trial?

'**may have not known** he was committing a crime by helping to dispose of a dead body'

Yeah sure!!

I didn't think that even you could write something this stup..d but you didn't dissapoint.

I know, it’s difficult to disappoint an idiot. Put it in the context it was written tgen apologize, idiot

Context?? Do you even know what that word means fool? Considering what you plainly wrote?