• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think this is right??? POLL!

D

Dufman

Golden Member
In my crim 400 class, we have to review case studies from past crimes, and analyze them. Here is the study that we had today, i think justice was NOT served.

Two guys walked into a bank with the intention of robbing it. Both of them were armed with high power hand guns. During the robbery, all hell breaks loose. An off duty police officer shoots, and kills one of the would be robbers, and wounds the other. The one robber who survived was charged with murdering his partner on the basis that he put his partner in harms way. Even though it was proved that the bullet that killed his friend did in fact come from the cops gun, the surviving robber was convicted of murder in the first degree, among other things and sentenced to life.

What do you think?


 
Sounds like BS to me.

But typical.

Was the hold up his idea, or his partners? In the end, that would IMO make a bit of difference.
 
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Sounds like BS to me. But typical. Was the hold up his idea, or his partners? In the end, that would IMO make a bit of difference.
Click to expand...

it is not B.S.

and the guy denied it was his idea, and there were no witnesses that heard either way.
 
Neither one should have walked into the bank armed and with the intention of robbing it. When they made that decision they took it upon themselves to gamble with their fate. They lost. Had they gone to a REAL job and not try to take the easy way out barring any of life's normal tragedies they would be sitting at home right now. I have no pity on either. Their actions also placed other innocent lives at stake.
 
This actually sounds right on, depending on which state it was in. California has laws like this. I have a family friend how was a CA for LA county for 30 years. He specialized in heart attack murders (I'll explain). California classifies six felonies, rape, robbery, assult (and three otheres that I can't remember), as so strenous for the victim that his he/she dies during the attack the attacker is guilty for first degree murder. The attacker is eligable for only three sentances, life with parol in 20 yrs, life without parol, or capital punishment.

Now I know that this wasn't what happened here I just wanted to showcase what can happen if someone commits a visious crime and someonw dies. Here is another interesting and more poinet case.

Lets say two guys A and B want to rob a liquor store. Guy A drives and B goes into the store with a gun and sticks up the Guy C behind the counter. Guy C is the owner and victim of three previous robberies and has decided to defend himself with a shotgun. While being stuk-up C distracts B just long enough so that C can pull out the shotgun and fire. C misses B but he hits and kills an innocent customer. According to california law B and A are guilty of first degree murder. This was an actual case tried by my friend.
 
I wouldn't hesitate to throw the book at him for trying to rob a bank, but charging him with 1st degree murder because his partner got shot by a guard seems pretty convoluted. Wouldn't it be more accurate to charge him with involuntary manslaughter or something? He is partly to blame for his partner's death, but he didn't pull the trigger himself.

::shrug::
 
Originally posted by: jst0ney
This actually sounds right on, depending on which state it was in. California has laws like this. I have a family friend how was a CA for LA county for 30 years. He specialized in heart attack murders (I'll explain). California classifies six felonies, rape, robbery, assult (and three otheres that I can't remember), as so strenous for the victim that his he/she dies during the attack the attacker is guilty for first degree murder. The attacker is eligable for only three sentances, life with parol in 20 yrs, life without parol, or capital punishment.

Now I know that this wasn't what happened here I just wanted to showcase what can happen if someone commits a visious crime and someonw dies. Here is another interesting and more poinet case.

Lets say two guys A and B want to rob a liquor store. Guy A drives and B goes into the store with a gun and sticks up the Guy C behind the counter. Guy C is the owner and victim of three previous robberies and has decided to defend himself with a shotgun. While being stuk-up C distracts B just long enough so that C can pull out the shotgun and fire. C misses B but he hits and kills an innocent customer. According to california law B and A are guilty of first degree murder. This was an actual case tried by my friend.
Click to expand...

whoa. its impressive what you can learn on ATOT sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top