• 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.

ELKHART 4 - Life sentences for a murder they didn't commit

TheSiege said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...me-murderers-without-killing-anyone/26027173/

Thoughts?

Cliffs of the article, 5 dudes invade a house with the intent to rob, none of them armed because they thought it was empty. The home owner killed one. Now all 4 are serving life sentences for murder.

This should be unconstitutional. They should be charged for the crime they committed. Not for some BS charge.
Click to expand...

Any deaths that arise during a felony are on the perps. I think that's completely reasonable. If you don't want to risk a life sentence for a robbery don't commit the robbery in the first place. Everybody wins.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Any deaths that arise during a felony are on the perps. I think that's completely reasonable. If you don't want to risk a life sentence for a robbery don't commit the robbery in the first place. Everybody wins.
Click to expand...

They committed a robbery, their sentence should reflect that, they didn't commit murder.
 
TheSiege said:
They committed a robbery, their sentence should reflect that, they didn't commit murder.
Click to expand...

The law and most people disagree with you. Their robbery was the cause of their fellow robber getting killed. Can't do the time don't do the crime. They came out light, they weren't killed by the home owner.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised that anyone is naïve enough to believe that a gang of four home invaders with a lookout were simply planning to "get some quick cash to buy weed" with no intent to harm anyone. Here's the real story:

Three probable cause affidavits, filed in open court Friday, reveal that Quiroz, 17, told police he and Blake Layman, 16, armed themselves with knives from the homeowner’s kitchen. He also told police that Anthony Sharp, 18, was carrying a .22 caliber handgun.
Click to expand...

That said, I do think it's silly to apply felony murder rules to the death of an accomplice, and I believe it can result in unjustly long prison sentences. But unlike so many "journalists," I'm not going to whitewash violent felons' crimes and present them as innocent victims just because I disagree with the severity of their punishment. And in this case, I don't disagree with the end result--five decades in prison is fair for an armed home invasion.
 
Well the fact remains, the guy wasn't murdered. For it to be murder, it would have to be an unlawful killing
 
TheSiege said:
Well the fact remains, the guy wasn't murdered. For it to be murder, it would have to be an unlawful killing
Click to expand...
Yeah that.

If a murder didn't take place (and I'm assuming that no one wants to argue that the homeowner murdered the robber) then how can the remaining robbers be charged for a crime that no one committed?
 
WelshBloke said:
Yeah that.

If a murder didn't take place (and I'm assuming that no one wants to argue that the homeowner murdered the robber) then how can the remaining robbers be charged for a crime that no one committed?
Click to expand...

A murder did take place, but the homeowner wasn't the one committing it. Based on the law, those who committed the felony that led to the guy getting killed are guilty of his murder.
 
WelshBloke said:
Yeah that.

If a murder didn't take place (and I'm assuming that no one wants to argue that the homeowner murdered the robber) then how can the remaining robbers be charged for a crime that no one committed?
Click to expand...

According to felony murder rules, the persons committing a felony are responsible for any deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Therefore they were held accountable for their friends death via the felony murder rules.
 
PokerGuy said:
A murder did take place, but the homeowner wasn't the one committing it. Based on the law, those who committed the felony that led to the guy getting killed are guilty of his murder.
Click to expand...


That law is ludicrous. Making up a law and then using that law to justify making up that law is a peculiar form of circular reasoning.


If one of the robbers killed the homeowner and all were charged with murder I could see the logic.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
According to felony murder rules, the persons committing a felony are responsible for any deaths that occur during the commission of the felony. Therefore they were held accountable for their friends death via the felony murder rules.
Click to expand...


You dont see the idiocy of the law?

Under that law their crime would have been lesser if they had beaten the homeowner to a pulp.
 
You may consider it a stupid law but felony murder rules are imposed by 46 states and has been ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS. These four will never see their convictions/sentences overturned.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
You may consider it a stupid law but felony murder rules are imposed by 46 states and has been ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS. These four will never see their convictions/sentences overturned.
Click to expand...

Its not me considering it stupid. In this case its a really stupid use of that law and the fact that it can be used in this case means its a poorly written law as well.
 
TheSiege said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...me-murderers-without-killing-anyone/26027173/

Thoughts?

Cliffs of the article, 5 dudes invade a house with the intent to rob, none of them armed because they thought it was empty. The home owner killed one. Now all 4 are serving life sentences for murder.

This should be unconstitutional. They should be charged for the crime they committed. Not for some BS charge.
Click to expand...
There were responsible for the death of a person in the commission of a felony

The law makes no distinct as to the victim must be.
 
WelshBloke said:
You dont see the idiocy of the law?

Under that law their crime would have been lesser if they had beaten the homeowner to a pulp.
Click to expand...

Oh there are lots of insane laws on the books. In some states you can be charged will felony murder if you kill a fetus without the mother's consent. That is a special kind of tard logic.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Not according to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Don't complain when you get a bunch of other ill conceived, badly written laws that impact you then.

Laws aren't made in a vacuum, start letting legislators get away with crap like this and it will come back to bite you in the arse.
 
What I dont get, is why they are responsible for the person who got killed. Was the person killed forced to take part in the robbery? If the person were forced, then I can see this charge. If the person was willing, then this does not work for me.

The homeowner had every right to kill the person, but I dont see how the others are responsible for his choice.
 
WelshBloke said:
Don't complain when you get a bunch of other ill conceived, badly written laws that impact you then.

Laws aren't made in a vacuum, start letting legislators get away with crap like this and it will come back to bite you in the arse.
Click to expand...

Laws like this seem to have the most impact on those breaking the law...ie committing felonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top