Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 10/9/2007 6:39:50 PM EDT
My grandfather and I were talking the other day. He was LRPD for 39 years, I'd say for the most part, he knows his shit.

He was explaining this law to me about being an accessory to murder. It had an interesting twist. To explain it, it's easier to give a scenario, like he did. So that's what I'll do.


2 homeboys decide to rob a gas station. Both are armed. They proceed inside, and the clerk spots them quickly and realizes something is about to go down. He draws his gun, but keeps in concealed behind the counter. A few seconds later he sees Homeboy 1 draw a pistol as he's walking up to the counter. Clerk quickly puts one in his head, and moves to the second threat, who is reaching into his pocket. Puts 2 COM into homeboy 2. He was using 9mm so he lived (ok so I added that part)

By Arkansas (and I assume some other states) Homeboy 2 gets charged with the following.


Armed robbery.
1st degree murder. (What most states call 1st degree, murder ie; premeditated, we call Capitol murder)

The deal is, because someone was killed in a crime in which he was a part of, he assisted in causing the death, and is therefore implicated and charges.

The clerk obviously walks.

I'm a hard ass, so I agree with it. Any contrary opinions? I'm especially curious as to what LEO's have to say.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:40:32 PM EDT
I agree.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:41:53 PM EDT
Works for me.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:42:11 PM EDT
I agree too.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:43:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
I agree.


Same here.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:43:57 PM EDT
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:44:31 PM EDT
Agree

Hang him, burn him, piss in the ashes.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:44:59 PM EDT
He didn't kill anyone, yet he is guilty of first degree murder? How is this justified?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:45:48 PM EDT
I think this is akin to someone being charged with murder if they run from the police and an innocent person is killed at some point during the chase.


I agree with it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:45:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
I agree.


Same here.
You voted in the non LEO option!
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:46:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 6:50:34 PM EDT by Barrelburner]
I agree and it is called the felony-murder rule.

It dates back centuries to English Common Law.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:46:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ampn:
He didn't kill anyone, yet he is guilty of first degree murder? How is this justified?


He's guilty of "felony murder" which happens to carry the same penalty as 1st degree.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:46:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:46:54 PM EDT
I agree. Hesitate in a situation like that and your dead
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:47:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:48:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:

Originally Posted By ampn:
He didn't kill anyone, yet he is guilty of first degree murder? How is this justified?


He's guilty of "felony murder" which happens to carry the same penalty as 1st degree.


Right, but in the scenario above, he did not murder anyone yet is convicted of murder. This doesn't make sense. (the law seldom does anymore, it seems)
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:49:33 PM EDT
I don't have a problem with it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:49:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:50:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 6:51:01 PM EDT by Smead]
You get charged with all deaths which occur in the course of a felony crime.

To include if you blast your crime buddy by mistake.

Sounds good to me, more probability that any surviving criminals go away for a good long while.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:50:21 PM EDT
he didnt murder anyone. why should he be convicted of murder?

intent. his intent was to roll over the gas station, not kill his buddy.

do i think he should spend ages in jail, of course. do i think he killed someone, nope.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:50:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chips:
I think this is akin to someone being charged with murder if they run from the police and an innocent person is killed at some point during the chase.


I agree with it.


Sounds like a great idea but that is one slippery slope..
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:51:52 PM EDT
I agree.

Homeboy 2 helped create the situation that brought about homeboy 1's lawful shooting.

Though, maybe not 1st degree murder. I thought in most States, 1st degree had to be premeditated. It would be hard to prove that he intended homeboy 1 to get killed.

Maybe Second Degree Murder would be more appropriate.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:52:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Originally Posted By chips:
I think this is akin to someone being charged with murder if they run from the police and an innocent person is killed at some point during the chase.


I agree with it.


Sounds like a great idea but that is one slippery slope..



Remember the news crew that died in a helo crash when they were filming a high speed pursuit?
Did the driver ever end up getting charged with felony murder in that case?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:53:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ampn:

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:

Originally Posted By ampn:
He didn't kill anyone, yet he is guilty of first degree murder? How is this justified?


He's guilty of "felony murder" which happens to carry the same penalty as 1st degree.


Right, but in the scenario above, he did not murder anyone yet is convicted of murder. This doesn't make sense. (the law seldom does anymore, it seems)
I honestly do understand that point of view. That's why I added the "I'm a hard ass" part to my agreement.

He participated in a crime where an innocent could have died. Whatever it takes to get the bastard off the streets short of planted or made up evidence, I'm ok with. It was a consequence, in place, before stupid struck, and that makes it fair in my eyes.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:54:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I agree.

Homeboy 2 helped create the situation that brought about homeboy 1's lawful shooting.

Though, maybe not 1st degree murder. I thought in most States, 1st degree had to be premeditated. It would be hard to prove that he intended homeboy 1 to get killed.

Maybe Second Degree Murder would be more appropriate.
Felony-murder is second degree murder.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:54:45 PM EDT
It doesn't matter if they "didn't intend" for anybody to die.

"We only wanted to rob the place."


You made your bed. Now sleep in it.



I agree. I'm not sure it should be a "murder" charge. It sounds, though, like there is a specific charge for it.

Doesn't bother me.

Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:06 PM EDT
I don't believe it would fly here, but it's obviously not something I work with much. Here, IIRC (I'm a little drunk and it's been a long day) the law specifically requires the person who was injured/murdered to be himself not involved in the commission of the crime. Therefore perp two would not be eligible for the felony murder law (or one of the higher robbery charges if injury instead of death) because perp one was in fact involved in the commision of the crime.

I kind of think that is more 'fair'. However, as for perp two, fuck him, if you don't like it stop committing crimes and you wont have to worry as much.

-K
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:16 PM EDT
i agree with it.



Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I agree.

Homeboy 2 helped create the situation that brought about homeboy 1's lawful shooting.

Though, maybe not 1st degree murder. I thought in most States, 1st degree had to be premeditated. It would be hard to prove that he intended homeboy 1 to get killed.

Maybe Second Degree Murder would be more appropriate.
I addressed that point alread. What we call 1st degree murder here, is second degree in most states. What most states call first degree, we call capitol murder.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 6:56:19 PM EDT by kill-9]

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


Like I said, I disagree with your viewpoint.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:53 PM EDT
I agree. I have no sympathy for armed robbers anyhow
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:55:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 6:56:40 PM EDT by badfish274]
.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:56:07 PM EDT
no problems
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:56:27 PM EDT
The clerk should punished also!

­

<­BR>



For not finshing the job and costing tax payer a lot of money!!
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:56:49 PM EDT
If I'm reading this right, i.e. the 2nd perp lives and is charged with the murder of his accomplice, I disagree.

He wasn't responsible for his death, he was an accomplice. For participating in an armed robbery I would hang his ass high. If the only way to accomplish that is to pervert justice by accusing him of "murdering" his friend I would say we have a problem with our justice system.

To hell with the circumlocution. We do have a problem with our justice system.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:57:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.

You have committed no felony. Your point is moot.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:57:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.

You have committed no felony. Your point is moot.
yup he is missing the corpus delicti
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:59:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 7:00:10 PM EDT by Kalahnikid]

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.

You have committed no felony. Your point is moot.


What felony? Say you werent even home at the time of the raid...why should you be charged with murder? ETA: And all the guns are legal of course.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:00:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.


huh?

what felony is committed in your hypothetical?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:01:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.

You have committed no felony. Your point is moot.


What felony? Say you werent even home at the time of the raid...why should you be charged with murder?

YOU WOULDNT BE CHARGED WITH SHIT!

You have to be in the commission of a felony when another person dies.

Say the ATF comes JBTing your house and you are not in the commission of a felony - if one of those tards shoots another tard, you are not liable in any way, shape or form. You were not committing a felony at the time, thus FELONY MURDER DOES NOT APPLY.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:02:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.


No, it's not the same. Robbery is a felony, owning a legal firearm is not a felony for most people. "You" actually have to be committing a specified felony in order to be charged with the felony murder rule.

Brian
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:02:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


Agreed, he didn't murder him. He should be charged with contributing to it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:02:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Disagree. The perp did not kill the "murder" victim, plain and simple. It seems like common sense to me...maybe that's why I'm not a prosecutor.


+1, Perp 2 had nothing to do with perp one getting killed.


Anyone who commits a felony should be responsible for all deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Homeboy or innocent bystander.


I disagree.

What if someone see your AR's and calls the police on you. They raid your house looking for these "machine guns" and one of them shoots another in the back and kills him. You are charged with his murder. Thats the kind of thing we could be talking about.



Sorry, that situation is void.

No law is being broken owning an AR.

Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:03:36 PM EDT
Homeboy 2 didn't kill anybody and he shouldn't be charged with murder. It's a stupid law.

Homeboy 2 did however commit armed robbery, and the clerk should be free to put a round between his eyes if the fucker is still breathing after going down.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:03:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:
YOU WOULDNT BE CHARGED WITH SHIT!

You have to be in the commission of a felony when another person dies.

Say the ATF comes JBTing your house and you are not in the commission of a felony - if one of those tards shoots another tard, you are not liable in any way, shape or form. You were not committing a felony at the time, thus FELONY MURDER DOES NOT APPLY.


Ok so if you have legal AR's and this happens you are not charged, but if you have an unregistered MG you are charged for the murder?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:04:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 7:07:29 PM EDT by Dusty_C]
I only got beat by like 15 minutes
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:05:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
YOU WOULDNT BE CHARGED WITH SHIT!

You have to be in the commission of a felony when another person dies.

Say the ATF comes JBTing your house and you are not in the commission of a felony - if one of those tards shoots another tard, you are not liable in any way, shape or form. You were not committing a felony at the time, thus FELONY MURDER DOES NOT APPLY.


Ok so if you have legal AR's and this happens you are not charged, but if you have an unregistered MG you are charged for the murder?



I would not agree with the use of the felony murder rule in THAT situation,

because it's not a good law. Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita.

In my opinion.

Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:05:22 PM EDT
Depends. If it's foreseeable that the death could occur during the commission of the crime I think that 2nd degree murder would be a more appropriate charge. If it's not foreseeable then I don't think murder is a warranted charge.

There are a lot of felonies out there so conceivably you could commit one that has nothing to do with any kind of assault but if any chain of events following the commission of your felony result in the perpetration of murder by a person *other* than yourself it does not necessarily follow that you should be charged as an accomplice.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:05:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
YOU WOULDNT BE CHARGED WITH SHIT!

You have to be in the commission of a felony when another person dies.

Say the ATF comes JBTing your house and you are not in the commission of a felony - if one of those tards shoots another tard, you are not liable in any way, shape or form. You were not committing a felony at the time, thus FELONY MURDER DOES NOT APPLY.


Ok so if you have legal AR's and this happens you are not charged, but if you have an unregistered MG you are charged for the murder?
It has to be a felony which can forseeably result in a death. Simply possession of contraband does not.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:06:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Primos:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
YOU WOULDNT BE CHARGED WITH SHIT!

You have to be in the commission of a felony when another person dies.

Say the ATF comes JBTing your house and you are not in the commission of a felony - if one of those tards shoots another tard, you are not liable in any way, shape or form. You were not committing a felony at the time, thus FELONY MURDER DOES NOT APPLY.


Ok so if you have legal AR's and this happens you are not charged, but if you have an unregistered MG you are charged for the murder?



I would not agree with the use of the felony murder rule in THAT situation,

because it's not a good law. Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita.

In my opinion.



+1 It may not be the worst law on the books, but it doesnt seem perfect.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top