User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:06:33 PM EDT
[#1]
i concur
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:07:40 PM EDT
[#2]
You realize your hypothetical situation is completely wrong, right? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:07:56 PM EDT
[#3]
If homeboy 2 didn't "convince" his friend he should not have robbed the store, then its his fault that homeboy 1 died. If it was only homeboy 1 that went in and got killed, then its pure self defence.
If they both went in and both got killed its also self defence. But if 2 go in, and only 1 comes out dead, he's responcible for his partners death. If its legal to shoot in self defence in that state, then they had to assume the clerk might have been armed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:08:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Our 1st degree murder is your second degree. samething. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:11:27 PM EDT
[#5]
 With Arson, Rape, or Murder, if we saw it, we can shoot to prevent flight. To iffy for me though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:12:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Took the words out of my mouth. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:13:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Agree. BG2 willingly and equally shared in the commission of the felony, so he should equally share in the penalty for any deaths arising therefrom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:14:37 PM EDT
[#8]
+1 My crim law teacher sucked balls, but at least she had a good homicide ladder chart. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:21:40 PM EDT
[#9]
while it is true that homeboy 1 did not physically kill homeboy 2, he did directly contribute to homeboy 2's death by participating in a crime that forced the store clerk's hand. Same as if a robber invades your home (depending on your location/laws) and you shoot him in self defense, and when you shoot, you hit his driver and kill him. He goes down for killing his driver because the driver would not have died if the robber had not robbed you.
Effectively, by committing the crime, he caused the death of homeboy 2, and therefore should be prosecuted as such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:23:01 PM EDT
[#10]
You are talking about a felony murder statute. I think there has to be a murder committed during the common plan felony (armed robbery). However the clerk shooting the two Home Boys is not murder, it's self-defense...so I don't think HB2 gets charged with felony murder.
To truly have a felony murder situation HB1 shoots clerk, HB2 didn't know HB1 was going to shoot and couldn't do anything to stop it. Is HB2 guilty of the clerk's murder? Felony murder statute states say yes, he was part of the felony (armed robbery) and somebody was murdered during that felony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:23:48 PM EDT
[#11]
I honestly didn't see so many people not agreeing. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:27:43 PM EDT
[#12]
I agree with it.
It's also the law here in CALIFORNIA! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:29:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Thank you for weighing on on the subject. I know that you actually know what you are talking about. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:32:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Had they not entered the store with the thought of robbing it at gun point then neither would have been shot. Both robbers were equally responsible for any deaths involved in the robbery even thier own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:33:11 PM EDT
[#15]
This would be my defense if I was HB2. How can I be guilty of a murder that didn't happen? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:33:17 PM EDT
[#16]
The way it happened is what I posted. He was explaining it to my dad and I because we were curious about what had happened. The clerk wasn't shot, and I don't know if they shot at him, but they both had guns. I'm not saying it follows the law to a T, but homeboy 2 was charged, and convicted of both, and is currently serving life. It happened 2 years ago, so he'll be out in 6-8 more.  don't you LOVE overcrowded prisons
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 7:58:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Look up transferred malice and proximate cause. People are charged with it all the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2007 9:19:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Yeah, I was surprised to hear about it, but I like it. I have a kinda renewed interest in stuff like this as I'm majoring in criminal justice and am gonna be an LEO one day.
 Yay for the %40 pay cut Actually, it's much worth it. I hate this job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:44:28 AM EDT
[#19]
bump for the morning crew
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:46:50 AM EDT
[#20]
I agree with it. As already pointed out this is the felony murder rule.
ETA: The rule would vary state to state based upon what the case law says about the death of a co-felon. I do agree with the rule though. If you are planning an inherently dangerous felony where someone dies, you should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the felony, if the deaths are reasonably foreseeable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:51:19 AM EDT
[#21]
I think some of the logic stems from the old.... I didn't pull the trigger bullshit they all try. Doesn't matter. You both decided to engage in a armed felony and someone died as the direct result of that. Doesn't matter WHO it was.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:55:20 AM EDT
[#22]
One we've been on for literally about a thousand years... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:56:16 AM EDT
[#23]
So if I am taking a piss in the alley after coming outside of the bar (felony, in some places), and some chick who is overwhelmed with awe at the sight of my pecker crashes into a fence because she is staring, did I commit murder?  Seriously, I'd have to think about this one before stating any opinions. I'm not sure that the fact someone was hurt while you were committing a "felony" should be the standard. But at the same time, someone getting killed during a chase because you are running from the police, or an innocent bystandard being hit and caught in the crossfire of an exchange of gunfire that YOU made happen by assaulting someone, etc.....clearly you should be charged with that persons murder. I am going to think on this and find this thread later. But in order to find a good answer to this, we need a solid philsophical definition of the word "murder", with particular attention paid to the nature of the cause and effect relationship required between an action and a death for that action to qualify as "murder". I would be willing to be that the real answer lies in a better definition of when a death that was a direct or indirect result of a chain of events set in motion due to the commission of an act qualifies as a murder. In other words, the standard that a crime being committed somehow has a cause and effect relationship to a death, may not be quite an accurate enough standard. Clearly there are cases where the application of this law is just and necessary. But I think one could come up with some examples where that wouldn't be the case. I think that intent, conscious reckless/neglegent endangerement of others, and some other factors might come into play in this equation. pretty complex and interesting issue. Good discussion. Taggage for tonight when I am off work. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:57:27 AM EDT
[#24]
I agree with the original question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:58:37 AM EDT
[#25]
I agree. Hang the sorry shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 6:59:01 AM EDT
[#26]
Sounds like a good standard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:00:06 AM EDT
[#27]
I'm a criminal defense attorney and I agree with felony murder statutes. However, there are worst fact patterns to get involved in in felony murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:01:36 AM EDT
[#28]
also a good standard |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:03:00 AM EDT
[#29]
He through his criminal enterprise set the events in motion which caused the death. Now proximal cause comes into play and Paltzgraf, but most times this is used it's pretty clear cut. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:04:46 AM EDT
[#30]
After reading through the whole thread, and learning about the standards used to qualify this, I am going to say that I am all for it.
its good law IMO |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:05:27 AM EDT
[#31]
proximate cause.
he is guilty of felony murder. No prob with it. helo pilot dying, bad guy not the proximate cause. txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:06:32 AM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:07:25 AM EDT
[#33]
I see no problem with this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:14:24 AM EDT
[#34]
While I would agree with the basic premise, I disagree, only because it's subject to such abuse. I cite the news helicopter crash posted on here in August as an example.
If government drones were honorable men, and therefore able to restrain themselves against unethical acts, things might be different. Funny how accountants need to take yearly ethics classes and can be thrown out of our profession for unethical behavior, but that rarely happens with people who have the authority to put you in jail, ruining your life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:20:16 AM EDT
[#35]
For the most part, I don't see any problem. Both bad guys were equally happy to do a crime involving deadly weapons. One got dead, fuck the other. Who's to say that either or both wouldn't have killed the counter dude. You pull a gun, I assume you're likely to kill somebody. Again, fuck em. But, on the other hand, as much as I hate that stupid phrase, "slippery slope" comes to mind. Seeing how scratching your ass and offending somebody will probably end up being a felony some day with the feel-good libtards we got running this country, it's rather dangerous to give them more and more "worser laws" as I like to call them jokingly, with which to hang a person and abuse in general. Of course, when an innocent person loses their life during the commission of any crime, I again have to say fuck the bad guy(s). They had a choice. Do the wrong thing intentionally and sometimes it hurts. Your example though, yeah... Fuck em. Shoulda stayed home and played checkers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:24:43 AM EDT
[#36]
Bad example as YOU haven't actually committed any "felony" by simply owning that AR. Now, if you were in possession of a STOLEN AR, that complicates things a little. But I think we all know what you meant. There are WAY too many laws on the books that are just ripe for the abuse of by overzealous peoples in the chain of justice. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:29:02 AM EDT
[#37]
I wouldn't giva shit if you charged him with jaywalking as long as he was sent to a "pound you in the ass" hotel
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:32:01 AM EDT
[#38]
When you make the decision to rob someone you are making the statement that you are willing to kill to get money, that’s why you bring a gun. If you just intended to hurt the victim’s feelings you would have brought a book called “1,001 Insults for Every Occasion” instead.
So, you walk into a store with the intent to kill someone. (Sure, you’re hoping that everyone does just what you say and you won’t have to shoot them, but you have guns so you can shoot them if they don’t do what you have no lawful right to demand that they do. Therefore you intend to kill someone when you walk in.) Sure nuff, someone gets killed, just not the person you were expecting. Now, if anyone gets killed in the commission of a violent crime like this, the criminals should all be prosecuted for murder. It doesn’t matter of it’s a police bullet that kills a bystander. The criminals are the ones that put the cop in a position of having to shoot. It doesn’t matter if you cause a wreck while fleeing, it doesn’t matter if you were driving the getaway car and never went in the store… You participate and you deserve a murder charge when someone gets killed. Now, I generally agree that it’s a good idea, and really funny, to charge some gangsta thug with murdering his friend when the friend got offed by a clerk defending his store. If nothing else, you give the thug some incentive to plead guilty to robbery charges and agree not to sue in exchange for not charging him with murder. That being said, I think there is a perfect defense to the charge. It’s not illegal to shoot robbers. So, when the clerk shot HB#1 no crime was committed and therefore HB#2 shouldn’t be convicted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:33:29 AM EDT
[#39]
I thought that for that to stick, the DA had to prove the surviving homeboy was the ringleader?
But yeah, I'm OK with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:37:55 AM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:37:56 AM EDT
[#41]
What in the world does dinnerware have to do with this ? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:39:17 AM EDT
[#42]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:43:57 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:46:01 AM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 7:49:55 AM EDT
[#45]
Any death during the commission of a felony = Captial murder.
Doesn't matter it's homeboy who gets capped by some tax payer. Homeboy is guilty of murder and needs to get the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 8:00:32 AM EDT
[#46]
Does homeboy #2 deserve to die? sure does.
Do I think he is guilty of "murder" on homeboy 1? nope, he didn't kill him. It's a fine line to cross. If you are the passenger in a car, the driver runs down and kills a kid. Are you guilty of manslaughter as well? I mean you willingly got in the car! I know its not the same thing, but it does illustrate the fine line that this law begins crossing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 8:29:32 AM EDT
[#47]
Agreed. Guess scum will just have to be more careful about who they choose to commit felonies with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 8:35:47 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 8:35:55 AM EDT
[#49]
I disagree.
In my opinion, the punnishment for armed robbery should be enough. Obviously it isn't, or adding on punnishment for murder wouldn't be a big deal. The charges, and punnishment, should fit the crime. Homey #2 didn't shoot homey #1. So he shouldn't be charged with it. Homey #1 got killed, and that is HIS punnishment for the crime. Too bad, so sad. Homey #2 should only be punnished for armed robbery. But for punnishment, chop off a hand or something. Make the punnishment SO severe that anyone contemplating it would think twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2007 8:35:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Using some of theories applied in this thread so far, if the store clerk would have died from a heart attack during the robbery neither robber would be charged with murder. Years of poor diet would be the actual cause of death and the store clerk would have committed suicide............
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
