Black man attacked by racists, shoots them with 9mm pistol

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a dumblaw LegendKiller, because his murder by virtue of its being self-defense is not a crime, so why charge somebody else with his death if we are already legally in agreement that his death was not a crime? Being complicit in a criminal murder (e.g. shooting an innocent) is different than committing a crime and one of your crew is shot and you get hit with it. It's silly, in part because there are LOTS of felonies.

Agreed, it's weird because the death of the one guy was not a crime in the first place. To charge a non-shooter with murder in the non-criminal death event seems illogical.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I guess you won't be bringing a friend along when you go to terrorize someone?
Definitely not!

It's a reasonable law. The same thing applies to Sean Taylor's murder. The guys think that only the one who shot taylor will get the big charge. However, since *all* were involved in a crime to commit murder they *all* will be charged with felony murder.

I like the law personally, nobody gets off for just being there, it makes you more responsible for your actions.

I'm not really in favor of laws that make people accountable for others' actions they had no choice over.

If you want to punish them for being part of it, make THAT the crime with the appropriate punishments.

Our laws are based on punishing people for making harmful choices, with intent or negligence, not for others' choices.

I recall watching an old western where the plot was about a young guy who had made the mistake of taking part in a bank robbery, and was trying to clear himself of having had any part in another of the robbers shooting someone. The culture in the film was that he was far more innocent had he not made the choice on the murder - but under today's laws, he'd be just as guilty.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,206
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/349532.html

Sounds like a good shoot. A lot of people don't know, but pounding on someone's car while they're in it justifies deadly force under the Castle Doctrine. Apparently these goons also brought a knife to the gunfight.

I think Martin Luther King would be proud to see the day when a black man could legally defend himself against white men with deadly force.

sorry, dr. king would probably feel sick to his stomach that this kind of bullshit is still going on and would feel bad that the guy killed someone. malcolm x would be the one to be proud... not mlk.

either way, :thumbsup: to that guy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
It's an unusual application, but the logic behind those laws is usually to make it easier to convict accomplishes in robberies that result in a murder. For example, you and your buddies hold up a liquor store, and someone shoots the clerk.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb

it's called the felony murder rule, and it's one we imported from england along with the rest of the common law.

I thought you guys fought a war a couple hundred years ago so you'd not have to live under the crown's guidance.

the state governments that were in existence at the time and had already been using english common law survived the war. additionally, you can't just start a country without laws. you use what you know.

Originally posted by: Craig234

I recall watching an old western where the plot was about a young guy who had made the mistake of taking part in a bank robbery, and was trying to clear himself of having had any part in another of the robbers shooting someone. The culture in the film was that he was far more innocent had he not made the choice on the murder - but under today's laws, he'd be just as guilty.

not sure where you're going, but felony murder rule isn't a new law.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I only have a problem with felony murder to the extent someone gets stuck with a murder charge when it would be unforeseeable that such a thing could happen. It doesn't take Nostradomus to see that armed bank robbery has a high likelihood of someone getting killed. Robbing a house at night, especially if unarmed, and the guy upstairs trips and falls down the stairs while investigating a noise he heard, I don't think that thief deserves life in prison.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?


In this case I have to agree. I don't blame the man for defending himself but murder didn't appear to be the perp's intent. Were they even armed with anything?

This is more like a zero tolerance law then a law that has anything to do with justice.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Vic
It's an unusual application, but the logic behind those laws is usually to make it easier to convict accomplishes in robberies that result in a murder. For example, you and your buddies hold up a liquor store, and someone shoots the clerk.

The senario you decribes seems quite logical. But in the present case there was no "murder". Rather, it was a justifiable homicide (I suppose that's the term).

I think most of this Martin Luther King stuff is misplaced. This appears to be more a case of road rage than anything. I.e, no evidence in the story that they targeted the guy because he was black, instead it was his driving "skills" (another of my objections to hate crime laws).

Fern
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,452
1
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a dumblaw LegendKiller, because his murder by virtue of its being self-defense is not a crime, so why charge somebody else with his death if we are already legally in agreement that his death was not a crime? Being complicit in a criminal murder (e.g. shooting an innocent) is different than committing a crime and one of your crew is shot and you get hit with it. It's silly, in part because there are LOTS of felonies.

But for the crime, there would be no reason to act in self-defense.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?


In this case I have to agree. I don't blame the man for defending himself but murder didn't appear to be the perp's intent. Were they even armed with anything?

This is more like a zero tolerance law then a law that has anything to do with justice.

Actually, i think this HAS to be judged on a case to case basis, there isn't really a way to get around that for either side.

I guess that is why the legal system works that way, people smarter than you and i thought this up and it's been adopted in every first world country that exists today.

This is not a coincidence, extremism never works no matter whether it's pure Communism/Socialism, Capitalism or any religious or other ideological extremism.

Our societies (plural since i live in England) are not perfect but they are a helluvalot better than the societies where extremism roam free.

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Based on the story, it looks like it's a shame the guy didn't kill the other attacker. Those two guys look like they were just wasting oxygen.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
It's an unusual application, but the logic behind those laws is usually to make it easier to convict accomplishes in robberies that result in a murder. For example, you and your buddies hold up a liquor store, and someone shoots the clerk.

Yeah, but you rob a liquor store and the clerk shoots your buddy?

The law is definitely too broad if it allows this.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/349532.html

Sounds like a good shoot. A lot of people don't know, but pounding on someone's car while they're in it justifies deadly force under the Castle Doctrine. Apparently these goons also brought a knife to the gunfight.

I think Martin Luther King would be proud to see the day when a black man could legally defend himself against white men with deadly force.

sorry, dr. king would probably feel sick to his stomach that this kind of bullshit is still going on and would feel bad that the guy killed someone. malcolm x would be the one to be proud... not mlk.

either way, :thumbsup: to that guy.

Actually Dr. King was a big proponent of gunplay, noting in his autobiography that he preferred to settle his differences through duels.

The more you know.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?

Logic and justice turned into law. Here's how I see it:

People (especially on a macro level like society) need someone to be responsible for everything that happens...someone to be at fault. This has led to some very bad tendancies: criminals suing the victims, society suing the victims, etc. The beauty of the felony murder law isn't that it exacts a punishment from a criminal, it's that it makes him/her responsible for everything that happens, which is as it should be. It's only a start, and it's too specific yet. The law should simply read that when any person(s) commit any crime they themselves accept full responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens as a result of their choice to act against societal and individual sanctity. The murder charges are just one aspect of that, but they're a good start.

This would protect victims, punish criminals, and give society the scapegoat that they seem to need in order to function.
 

jonmcc33

Banned
Feb 24, 2002
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/349532.html

Sounds like a good shoot. A lot of people don't know, but pounding on someone's car while they're in it justifies deadly force under the Castle Doctrine. Apparently these goons also brought a knife to the gunfight.

I think Martin Luther King would be proud to see the day when a black man could legally defend himself against white men with deadly force.

Pity that this is turned into a race thing and not that a man defended himself...

 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor

Actually Dr. King was a big proponent of gunplay, noting in his autobiography that he preferred to settle his differences through duels.

The more you know.

Great post, Nebor.

Also, Dr. King cheated his way to a doctoral thesis. He plagiarized the bulk of the work he presented during his defense, since he was too busy acting as stunt-astronaut in the filming of the United States' fake moon landings in a secret studio housed in Petaluma, CA.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?

Logic and justice turned into law. Here's how I see it:

People (especially on a macro level like society) need someone to be responsible for everything that happens...someone to be at fault. This has led to some very bad tendancies: criminals suing the victims, society suing the victims, etc. The beauty of the felony murder law isn't that it exacts a punishment from a criminal, it's that it makes him/her responsible for everything that happens, which is as it should be. It's only a start, and it's too specific yet. The law should simply read that when any person(s) commit any crime they themselves accept full responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens as a result of their choice to act against societal and individual sanctity. The murder charges are just one aspect of that, but they're a good start.

This would protect victims, punish criminals, and give society the scapegoat that they seem to need in order to function.

The law is wrong because it holds people responsible for the actions of others. Let's look at two crime comparisons:

1 - Solo crime

Two separate men rob two separate convenience stores armed with guns (completely separate incidents). As both men are leaving the store, they fire a shot at the shopkeeper. One man finds his mark and kills the shopkeeper. The other misses and and the shopkeeper is unharmed. One man will be charged with murder, and the other will be charged with attempted murder. Under English Common Law, attempted murder is treated the same as murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is the same.

2 - Group crime

Again, two separate convenience store robberies. In both robberies, one man grabs the cash while his buddy holds up the shopkeeper. In both robberies, the gunman takes a shot at the shopkeeper as they are making their escape. In one robbery the gunman shot kills the shopkeeper, in the other robbery, the shot misses completely. One cashgrabber would be charged with armed robbery, the other would be charged with both armed robbery and felony murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is DIFFERENT.

 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?

Logic and justice turned into law. Here's how I see it:

People (especially on a macro level like society) need someone to be responsible for everything that happens...someone to be at fault. This has led to some very bad tendancies: criminals suing the victims, society suing the victims, etc. The beauty of the felony murder law isn't that it exacts a punishment from a criminal, it's that it makes him/her responsible for everything that happens, which is as it should be. It's only a start, and it's too specific yet. The law should simply read that when any person(s) commit any crime they themselves accept full responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens as a result of their choice to act against societal and individual sanctity. The murder charges are just one aspect of that, but they're a good start.

This would protect victims, punish criminals, and give society the scapegoat that they seem to need in order to function.

The law is wrong because it holds people responsible for the actions of others. Let's look at two crime comparisons:

1 - Solo crime

Two separate men rob two separate convenience stores armed with guns (completely separate incidents). As both men are leaving the store, they fire a shot at the shopkeeper. One man finds his mark and kills the shopkeeper. The other misses and and the shopkeeper is unharmed. One man will be charged with murder, and the other will be charged with attempted murder. Under English Common Law, attempted murder is treated the same as murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is the same.

2 - Group crime

Again, two separate convenience store robberies. In both robberies, one man grabs the cash while his buddy holds up the shopkeeper. In both robberies, the gunman takes a shot at the shopkeeper as they are making their escape. In one robbery the gunman shot kills the shopkeeper, in the other robbery, the shot misses completely. One cashgrabber would be charged with armed robbery, the other would be charged with both armed robbery and felony murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is DIFFERENT.

Tough. If they hadn't been a part of the crime, the crime would not have gone down as it did, and therefore all subsequent events would have changed. Not saying there would or wouldn't end up being a death, but the point is that the act of committing a crime at all caused everything that came after it. They are therefore all equally responsible for what happens as a result.

If you go to a basketball game does a team win or does an individual player? How about in a war between two countries...does one country win, or are individuals picked out as winner and loser? You start a business with a buddy, it goes bankrupt...are only one of you liable or both (assuming it's an equal partnership)? I could go on but it's always the same...if you want to only be responsible for your own actions in life you act as an individual...the moment you toss in with others then you're accepting to be judged as a whole and no longer individually.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?

Logic and justice turned into law. Here's how I see it:

People (especially on a macro level like society) need someone to be responsible for everything that happens...someone to be at fault. This has led to some very bad tendancies: criminals suing the victims, society suing the victims, etc. The beauty of the felony murder law isn't that it exacts a punishment from a criminal, it's that it makes him/her responsible for everything that happens, which is as it should be. It's only a start, and it's too specific yet. The law should simply read that when any person(s) commit any crime they themselves accept full responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens as a result of their choice to act against societal and individual sanctity. The murder charges are just one aspect of that, but they're a good start.

This would protect victims, punish criminals, and give society the scapegoat that they seem to need in order to function.

The law is wrong because it holds people responsible for the actions of others. Let's look at two crime comparisons:

1 - Solo crime

Two separate men rob two separate convenience stores armed with guns (completely separate incidents). As both men are leaving the store, they fire a shot at the shopkeeper. One man finds his mark and kills the shopkeeper. The other misses and and the shopkeeper is unharmed. One man will be charged with murder, and the other will be charged with attempted murder. Under English Common Law, attempted murder is treated the same as murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is the same.

2 - Group crime

Again, two separate convenience store robberies. In both robberies, one man grabs the cash while his buddy holds up the shopkeeper. In both robberies, the gunman takes a shot at the shopkeeper as they are making their escape. In one robbery the gunman shot kills the shopkeeper, in the other robbery, the shot misses completely. One cashgrabber would be charged with armed robbery, the other would be charged with both armed robbery and felony murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is DIFFERENT.

Tough. If they hadn't been a part of the crime, the crime would not have gone down as it did, and therefore all subsequent events would have changed. Not saying there would or wouldn't end up being a death, but the point is that the act of committing a crime at all caused everything that came after it. They are therefore all equally responsible for what happens as a result.

If you go to a basketball game does a team win or does an individual player? How about in a war between two countries...does one country win, or are individuals picked out as winner and loser? You start a business with a buddy, it goes bankrupt...are only one of you liable or both (assuming it's an equal partnership)? I could go on but it's always the same...if you want to only be responsible for your own actions in life you act as an individual...the moment you toss in with others then you're accepting to be judged as a whole and no longer individually.

I agree, it's tough. But our laws aren't supposed to be "tough", they're supposed to be "fair". I don't get the basketball analogy or any of the others. They don't work. I completely agree that when there is conspiracy to commit murder, all should be charged reguardless of the trigger man. The war analogy is excellent. Some soldiers decided to abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib, did every soldier in the Army get charged? Did George Bush get charged? The Soldiers wouldn't have been there if he hadn't ordered them in. You should be responsible for your own actions and motives, not those of others.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?


In this case I have to agree. I don't blame the man for defending himself but murder didn't appear to be the perp's intent. Were they even armed with anything?

This is more like a zero tolerance law then a law that has anything to do with justice.

I doubt their intent was to just give the man a good tongue lashing.

http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/349532.html

With one wielding a knife, two men pounded on Hygens Labidou's roofing truck and shouted racial epithets, authorities said.

''N-----, get out of the truck!'' they allegedly snarled, according to a copy of a 911 tape
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Blackjack200,

Conspiracy is the key word. You include all members of the conspiracy in the full crime until such a point that someone makes an OVERT act to leave the conspiracy (IE tells them he's out and leaves the company of the conspirators) AND makes a reasonable attempt to defeat it (IE call the police or tell someone to call the police).

That's about as simple as conspiracy 101 goes.

A little more in-depth is that the conspiracy cannot include someone that was not knowledgeable about the crime, UNLESS a reasonable and prudent person would known better, given the circumstances.

 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
maluckey, if that's the case then in my second example (Group Crime) one of the cash grabbers should be charged with attempted murder then, right? Is that the case? The attempted murder would be part of the full crime, and the cash grabber would be a conspirator. If this is the case then I'd have to rethink my position.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Skoorb
charged with murder during the commission of a crime. Even though he didn't pull the trigger, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Man, now that is a stupid $**king law. I attack you with my friend, you kill my friend and _I_ get charged with murder? Retarded.

I think it's brilliant. The responsibility lies in who starts a confrontation, not in who ends it.

Kindergarten policy upheld as a law?

Logic and justice turned into law. Here's how I see it:

People (especially on a macro level like society) need someone to be responsible for everything that happens...someone to be at fault. This has led to some very bad tendancies: criminals suing the victims, society suing the victims, etc. The beauty of the felony murder law isn't that it exacts a punishment from a criminal, it's that it makes him/her responsible for everything that happens, which is as it should be. It's only a start, and it's too specific yet. The law should simply read that when any person(s) commit any crime they themselves accept full responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens as a result of their choice to act against societal and individual sanctity. The murder charges are just one aspect of that, but they're a good start.

This would protect victims, punish criminals, and give society the scapegoat that they seem to need in order to function.

The law is wrong because it holds people responsible for the actions of others. Let's look at two crime comparisons:

1 - Solo crime

Two separate men rob two separate convenience stores armed with guns (completely separate incidents). As both men are leaving the store, they fire a shot at the shopkeeper. One man finds his mark and kills the shopkeeper. The other misses and and the shopkeeper is unharmed. One man will be charged with murder, and the other will be charged with attempted murder. Under English Common Law, attempted murder is treated the same as murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is the same.

2 - Group crime

Again, two separate convenience store robberies. In both robberies, one man grabs the cash while his buddy holds up the shopkeeper. In both robberies, the gunman takes a shot at the shopkeeper as they are making their escape. In one robbery the gunman shot kills the shopkeeper, in the other robbery, the shot misses completely. One cashgrabber would be charged with armed robbery, the other would be charged with both armed robbery and felony murder.

Both criminals had the same intent, the two crimes had different outcomes, but the punishment is DIFFERENT.

Tough. If they hadn't been a part of the crime, the crime would not have gone down as it did, and therefore all subsequent events would have changed. Not saying there would or wouldn't end up being a death, but the point is that the act of committing a crime at all caused everything that came after it. They are therefore all equally responsible for what happens as a result.

If you go to a basketball game does a team win or does an individual player? How about in a war between two countries...does one country win, or are individuals picked out as winner and loser? You start a business with a buddy, it goes bankrupt...are only one of you liable or both (assuming it's an equal partnership)? I could go on but it's always the same...if you want to only be responsible for your own actions in life you act as an individual...the moment you toss in with others then you're accepting to be judged as a whole and no longer individually.

You should be responsible for your own actions and motives, not those of others.



This is my only issue with your view point here. I find it flawed IMHO. If a leader of a mafia family or gang orders a hit should they not be responsible for the deaths involved because of their orders? Using your statement and logic a person ordering an act of violence would not be charged with the crime of murder or any crime it seems. I'll spare you the Bin Laden and 9/11 reference.