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

[thraashman]

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.

The idea is that if you didn't commit a felony crime, then that person would still be alive. Another example would be if instead of one of the accomplices being shot, what if the fear and shock of having home invaders caused the home owner to go into cardiac arrest and die? Even though they didn't intend to hurt the home owner, they're be responsible for his death.

 

[WelshBloke]

Laws like this seem to have the most impact on those breaking the law...ie committing felonies.

Well you aren't breaking the law up until that point where someone makes a poorly written law that just happens to get twisted to include your activities in it.

 

[nickqt]

Ultimately, felony murder laws are designed to make people think twice about felonies.

Personally, I think that any type of "violent" crime (and entering someone's home regardless of whether they are home or not is definitely "violent") that has a felony murder law attached to it is ok.

What allows for abuse is when you have felony crimes that are non-violent where someone gets killed for whatever reason (cop killing a co-criminal for example) with the killing then transferring to the other co-criminals. For example, a group of 4 people committing a felony in the growth/sale/distribution of cannabis, who are raided with a cop killing a criminal during the raid, etc. This is where you can see really bad legal outcomes in comparison to the crimes committed and the criminal intent.

Step inside someone else's house and get shot, don't be surprised. Do it with a couple of friends and one gets shot, don't be surprised when you get charged with murder. I can see the killing getting transferred to the criminals, since the inherent criminal activity was violent to begin with, and everyone pretty much assumed risk together in the criminal planning and activity.

 

[WelshBloke]

Ultimately, felony murder laws are designed to make people think twice about felonies.

So why not just increase the maximum sentence for those crimes?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well you aren't breaking the law up until that point where someone makes a poorly written law that just happens to get twisted to include your activities in it.

Yeah, if you say so.

None the less all the going round and round per the ATP&N modus operandi will have zero effect on this case nor the laws used to convict these four.

 

[nickqt]

So why not just increase the maximum sentence for those crimes?

Ask state governments that enact these laws why, not me.

I can explain why felony murder rules don't bother me in regard to inherently violent crimes, yet I freely admit that the rule can be abused if used in non-violent crimes where the criminals themselves were not violent in their actions, such as the scenario I mentioned.

The best thing that we could do would be to go through laws and correct rules like this that have "good intentions" but can be abused in particular cases. Of course, most state governments are too busy figuring out ways to hand over more state resources to people with money and power to bother fixing laws like this. It's like getting overly upset with politics and the state of the world. I only have so much caring I can give before I'd just go mad.

A million things need to be fixed in the world, so make a top 25 list and advocate passionately for those. The felony murder rule doesn't make my top 25.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yeah, if you say so.

You think that they will specifically exempt you from any badly written laws?

Yeah, if you say so.

None the less all the going round and round per the ATP&N modus operandi will have zero effect on this case nor the laws used to convict these four.

I don't think anyone was expecting any law makers to be reading this forum and have a sudden change of heart and start writing rigorous, robust, well written laws that are tightly focused in scope. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't discuss it here though.

 

[dank69]

The idea is that if you didn't commit a felony crime, then that person would still be alive. Another example would be if instead of one of the accomplices being shot, what if the fear and shock of having home invaders caused the home owner to go into cardiac arrest and die? Even though they didn't intend to hurt the home owner, they're be responsible for his death.

Doesn't a charge murder require intent to kill? I could maybe agree manslaughter, maybe, but murder seems completely unjustifiable.

 

[thraashman]

Doesn't a charge murder require intent to kill? I could maybe agree manslaughter, maybe, but murder seems completely unjustifiable.

I think that depends on the interpretation of each state. I know that the death penalty in the case of felony murder is by rule supposed to only apply when someone is a major participant and shows indifference to life and stuff like that. It is a weird law. It would make more sense to have a penalty similar to 2nd degree murder rather than 1st, but it looks like most states treat it as 1st degree.

 

[nickqt]

Doesn't a charge murder require intent to kill? I could maybe agree manslaughter, maybe, but murder seems completely unjustifiable.

A murder charge has whatever language the legislature wrote into the statute that makes murder.

Felony murder laws are specific statutes written by the legislature. They specify that during the commission of a felony crime, all of the criminals/defendants are responsible for any and all crimes/results of that crime.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Agreed. The law & those who support it do a double back flip into cranio-rectal insertion.

A legit charge of murder vs manslaughter hinges on intent. The perps obviously did not intend to kill their now dead accomplice.

 

[dank69]

A murder charge has whatever language the legislature wrote into the statute that makes murder.

Felony murder laws are specific statutes written by the legislature. They specify that during the commission of a felony crime, all of the criminals/defendants are responsible for any and all crimes/results of that crime.

I just think it is strange. Logically inconsistent to a layman like me.

 

[cabri]

Agreed. The law & those who support it do a double back flip into cranio-rectal insertion.

A legit charge of murder vs manslaughter hinges on intent. The perps obviously did not intend to kill their now dead accomplice.

The home owner intended on defending himself with deadly force.

 

[dank69]

The home owner intended on defending himself with deadly force.

That's fine, but the homeowner didn't commit murder. The crime of murder doesn't seem to have been committed by anyone in this case.

 

[Attic]

They committed a robbery, their sentence should reflect that, they didn't commit murder.

This makes the most sense to me. It appears insane to convict the folks of murder.

Actually looks like it would take a real asshole to defend and perpetuate what happened here.


We have a selective justice system not a just one.

 

[nickqt]

I just think it is strange. Logically inconsistent to a layman like me.

Well, it is defined by a legislature, so it isn't necessarily inherently logical.

The best way I could try to explain it is through analogy. Let's say you and a friend decide to steal from your neighbor. You and your friend go into his garage and start grabbing tools, and then the neighbor walks in and starts screaming and threatening you. Then your friend takes a wrench and smashes your neighbor on the head, killing him.

It's probably easier to understand your friend's guilt being applied to you since you were both the criminal, unlike the scenario in this thread, but basically, a felony murder rule allows for any crime or result of a crime to apply to any of the criminals who committed the crime.

 

[dank69]

Well, it is defined by a legislature, so it isn't necessarily inherently logical.

The best way I could try to explain it is through analogy. Let's say you and a friend decide to steal from your neighbor. You and your friend go into his garage and start grabbing tools, and then the neighbor walks in and starts screaming and threatening you. Then your friend takes a wrench and smashes your neighbor on the head, killing him.

It's probably easier to understand your friend's guilt being applied to you since you were both the criminal, unlike the scenario in this thread, but basically, a felony murder rule allows for any crime or result of a crime to apply to any of the criminals who committed the crime.

No, I understand that completely. I just don't see where actual murder was committed. Maybe I am confusing the terms murder and felony murder rule?

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, it is defined by a legislature, so it isn't necessarily inherently logical.

The best way I could try to explain it is through analogy. Let's say you and a friend decide to steal from your neighbor. You and your friend go into his garage and start grabbing tools, and then the neighbor walks in and starts screaming and threatening you. Then your friend takes a wrench and smashes your neighbor on the head, killing him.

It's probably easier to understand your friend's guilt being applied to you since you were both the criminal, unlike the scenario in this thread, but basically, a felony murder rule allows for any crime or result of a crime to apply to any of the criminals who committed the crime.

Please. No murder was committed. It was justifiable homicide by the homeowner. It's like charging a group of jaywalkers with murder when one of their number is killed in traffic.

 

[smackababy]

Please. No murder was committed. It was justifiable homicide by the homeowner. It's like charging a group of jaywalkers with murder when one of their number is killed in traffic.

If jaywalking was a felony, it would be just like that. You guys keep getting caught up on this term "murder". You are ignoring that it is simply called "felony murder". It has nothing to do with normal murder. It is simply legislation placing full responsibility of any deaths that occur during the commission of a felony.


I have no problem with this. They got off lucky. The homeowner should have shot more of them.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That's fine, but the homeowner didn't commit murder. The crime of murder doesn't seem to have been committed by anyone in this case.

You're just arguing semantics. If you're worried about the true, black and white definition of the word "murder" you're not grasping the intent of the law. Remove the word "murder" and call it "ancillary homicide" or "culpability for death" and make the penalties the same and would you still have your panties in a bunch?

This law is old, established, accepted and well-understood. Any deaths that take place during a felony can be charged as murders to the perps because the deaths are on them. Stray bullet = murder because without the felony there's no shot. Getaway car involved in a fatal accident = murder because without the felony there's no getaway. Co-Perp falls on stairs between kitchen and beroom = murder because without the home invasion they would not have been on the stairs.

EVERY death connected to a crime is the responsibility of the criminals. That's simple, that's reasonable and that's fair.

 

[Jaskalas]

At the rate our fed gov is growing, jaywalking will be a felony soon enough.

I gotta side with Jhhnn on this one. There was no murder.

You're just arguing semantics.

Those would be important in an argument against a cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[smackababy]

At the rate our fed gov is growing, jaywalking will be a felony soon enough.

I gotta side with Jhhnn on this one. There was no murder.

No, there was no murder. There was a felony murder, which is entirely different than murder.

 

[Jhhnn]

If jaywalking was a felony, it would be just like that. You guys keep getting caught up on this term "murder". You are ignoring that it is simply called "felony murder". It has nothing to do with normal murder. It is simply legislation placing full responsibility of any deaths that occur during the commission of a felony.


I have no problem with this. They got off lucky. The homeowner should have shot more of them.

The crime in question is defined as a felony by the prosecutor, obviously, given that lesser misdemeanor charges could have been & often are applied to break-ins.

So what happened is capricious application of the law to a statute based on circular reasoning- penultimate expression of authoritarianism.

 

[dank69]

You're just arguing semantics. If you're worried about the true, black and white definition of the word "murder" you're not grasping the intent of the law. Remove the word "murder" and call it "ancillary homicide" or "culpability for death" and make the penalties the same and would you still have your panties in a bunch?

This law is old, established, accepted and well-understood. Any deaths that take place during a felony can be charged as murders to the perps because the deaths are on them. Stray bullet = murder because without the felony there's no shot. Getaway car involved in a fatal accident = murder because without the felony there's no getaway. Co-Perp falls on stairs between kitchen and beroom = murder because without the home invasion they would not have been on the stairs.

EVERY death connected to a crime is the responsibility of the criminals. That's simple, that's reasonable and that's fair.

That makes more sense than the way it was explained before. Before, someone said the perps are guilty of all crimes committed during the incident. Saying they are responsible for all deaths resulting from the crime, and we call those deaths "felony murder," makes more sense to me.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The crime in question is defined as a felony by the prosecutor, obviously, given that lesser misdemeanor charges could have been & often are applied to break-ins.

So what happened is capricious application of the law to a statute based on circular reasoning- penultimate expression of authoritarianism.

You can't possibly be that stupid. Show me a single instance of a break-in with a death connected to it that is charged as a misdemeanor.