• 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.

I love felony murder laws

mistercrabby

mistercrabby

Senior member
Unless the teen that was shot was particularly younger than others, I don't really understand it in this context. I understand that home invaders should be made aware that death is a valid consequence for their crimes, but as a band or not they still likely possessed the ability to take the risks of the crime itself. This kind of law is best applied to cases where bystanders are killed.

EDIT: And that's not to say that I particularly sympathize with them. If the homeowner chased the other three down in a rage and shot them all in the backs, I wouldn't have any moral objection.
 
Hey sobbing families of "victims", how many millions of people don't invade the homes of others? How many millions don't gang up to increase their chances for an attempted home invasion? Go cry us a freaking ocean.
 
Slick, this is actually a common application of felony murder. Essentially, when during the commission of a felony someone dies, the perp is responsible.
 
Blake Layman, Anthony Sharp, Levi Sparks, Danzele Johnson, and Jose Quiroz broke into an Elkhart home in October of 2012. The homeowner opened fire, killing Johnson. The teens are charged under an Indiana Law that holds people committing a felony responsible if a murder occurs during the crime.
Click to expand...

Interesting law. I'm sure it was intended to apply to the perpetrators of the crime if a murder occurred, but if the law was sufficiently vague in that regard, the prosecutors were able to wiggle it around enough to make it apply to the homeowner defending himself and killing one of the perpetrators instead. Regardless, since they were all there together on the break in and attempted robbery, so they were all responsible for the murder of one of their thug comrades by being there.

I have a feeling if this felony law has not been prosecuted in this way before, this case could be challenged and go all the way to the SCOTUS at some point for a ruling based mostly on the wording of the felony law behind this case. And I can think of some scenarios where this law might be overly broad and maybe should not apply but could be made to fit the situation.
 
mistercrabby said:
Slick, this is actually a common application of felony murder. Essentially, when during the commission of a felony someone dies, the perp is responsible.
Click to expand...

Yea, I know, but it varies from state to state, and I'm not going to wade through their states specific wording of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for them going to jail for their thug stupidity and I'm not making excuses for them at all. I would just be disappointed to hear this case is overturned or something at some point and they are set free while awaiting a new trial due to time already served or some legal crap defense lawyers always pull.
 
StrangerGuy said:
Hey sobbing families of "victims", how many millions of people don't invade the homes of others? How many millions don't gang up to increase their chances for an attempted home invasion? Go cry us a freaking ocean.
Click to expand...

I think the thug families get so upset mostly because they lost a good source of stolen free stuff and money that the kiddos were constantly bringing home and providing the parents with.

That's why there's so many juvenile delinquent thug criminals out there. They know with petty stuff like shoplifting, car and home break ins they might never even get caught, and if they do, it's only a slap on the wrist, and 9 times out of 10 they will get released right back to the parents again. Especially if it's a first or second offense. And they also know, when they finally hit 18 or 21 depending on the state, that when they get busted, they are now in the adult system and they will start to lock them up for a while.

This is why I feel the states need to start cracking down HARD on juvenile offenders, I don't care what the crime is, and stop coddling them and pretending they can be rehabilitated. By the time most of them get caught as juveniles they have already committed multiple crimes, maybe 50 or a hundred in some cases or more, and there is no point in pretending to rehabilitate them or release them back to their parents at that point.

They need to start locking them up at 14 or 15 and show them exactly what it's going to be like at 18 or 21 if they continue on that criminal path. Obviously, they won't be with the adults locked up, and the sentences should be shorter than an adult sentence for theft as a juvenile, but you get the idea.
 
SlickSnake said:
Interesting law. I'm sure it was intended to apply to the perpetrators of the crime if a murder occurred, but if the law was sufficiently vague in that regard, the prosecutors were able to wiggle it around enough to make it apply to the homeowner defending himself and killing one of the perpetrators instead. Regardless, since they were all there together on the break in and attempted robbery, so they were all responsible for the murder of one of their thug comrades by being there.

I have a feeling if this felony law has not been prosecuted in this way before, this case could be challenged and go all the way to the SCOTUS at some point for a ruling based mostly on the wording of the felony law behind this case. And I can think of some scenarios where this law might be overly broad and maybe should not apply but could be made to fit the situation.
Click to expand...

No, it's been applied like this before. There is no requirement for the decedent to have had clean hands. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Hein is a famous example that had held up under appeal. There are many others.
 
I'm honestly not huge on pile-on type laws, e.g. if you're caught selling drugs you get 5 years, if you're caught selling drugs and you have a gun (and it was 100% unrelated to anything you were doing while caught selling drugs) you automatically get another 5 years. They feel unfair.

That said, thugs are gonna thug and we really as a society need to start taking these hoodlums off the streets earlier. Like one of the kids who beat that old man to death this week apparently was already convicted of some pretty damn serious crime recently. Why was he free?

US needs to let out most of its drug-related prisoners and get more serious on the violent ones.
 
So was the homeowner arrested for murder?
If it was justifiable homicide, there was no murder and no additional crime associated with the burglary, so the jury's just inventing laws here.
 
DominionSeraph said:
So was the homeowner arrested for murder?
If it was justifiable homicide, there was no murder and no additional crime associated with the burglary, so the jury's just inventing laws here.
Click to expand...

No, and no. You're going to have to minimize your Brony convention on YouTube to follow this though.

Homicide during the commission of a felony is murder under a common law concept called "felony murder".

The homeowner committed no crime and was not arrested.

The burglars were committing a felony. Even though the homeowner was innocent of murder, or any sort of homicide, the decedent's co-conspirators were guilty of murder due to their felony conviction for the burglary and the felony murder rule.

This even covers people not directly involved in the situation. For example, a getaway driver could be ensnared if that act was a felony in their praticular state.

The jury didn't "invent" anything. This concept is literally older than the US. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
 
I don't really like this law, but at the same time.. Eh, 4 less "thugs" on the street isn't a bad thing.

I just think that it should be individual charges. They broke in, charge them for that. That other kid knew what he was doing and knew the risks, so they shouldn't be charged for murder.
 
sourn said:
I don't really like this law, but at the same time.. Eh, 4 less "thugs" on the street isn't a bad thing.

I just think that it should be individual charges. They broke in, charge them for that. That other kid knew what he was doing and knew the risks, so they shouldn't be charged for murder.
Click to expand...

Its fine that you don't believe in Felony murder. A lot of people don't.

Campaign to change the laws in your state or federally. Because right now, regardless of how you feel about it, this is a right and proper application of the law.
 
I don't understand the history of this law or the intricacies of the law so I'm going to gnash my teeth and say I hate it.
 
Nintendesert said:
I don't understand the history of this law or the intricacies of the law so I'm going to gnash my teeth and say I hate it.
Click to expand...

Its a simple concept, one of the simplest because of its age. It's legalized absolute culpability.

If you commit a crime (felony) and someone dies as a result, you are guilty of murder. Period.

Now there are some legal tests and modifications to determine the appropriate sentence, and whether capital punishment is applicable, but the actual operative element of the rule is simple.
 
This is an end around for prosecutors to pad their stats. I am not a fan of these types of laws. These idiots tried to rob some guy, one of them was killed, and they get convicted of his murder. How did they murder him?
 
TerryMathews said:
Its a simple concept, one of the simplest because of its age. It's legalized absolute culpability.

If you commit a crime (felony) and someone dies as a result, you are guilty of murder. Period.

Now there are some legal tests and modifications to determine the appropriate sentence, and whether capital punishment is applicable, but the actual operative element of the rule is simple.
Click to expand...



I should have put sarcasm tags. 😛


I expect these laws were created to prevent a band of robbers from killing someone and simply blaming the other guy and each one pointing at the other so nobody is guilty of murder. I don't see anything wrong with people that conspire together, commit a felony together and are held responsible together when shit goes wrong.
 
That is exactly why. Otherwise they would all be able to argue reasonable doubt, and a fair jury would have to agree.
 
Lol, here in sunny south Africa, if you shoot and kill an intruder, you are charged with murder. Unless they have shot or stabbed you first, you can't do squat.
 
crack2483 said:
Lol, here in sunny south Africa, if you shoot and kill an intruder, you are charged with murder. Unless they have shot or stabbed you first, you can't do squat.
Click to expand...
A song about murdering white farmers is sung regularly at political rallies, go figure.
 
SlickSnake said:
I have a feeling if this felony law has not been prosecuted in this way before, this case could be challenged and go all the way to the SCOTUS at some point for a ruling based mostly on the wording of the felony law behind this case. And I can think of some scenarios where this law might be overly broad and maybe should not apply but could be made to fit the situation.
Click to expand...

Prosecutions like this aren't that common but they have happened before. There was a case in one of California's more conservative counties where a home invasion occurred and one of the two perps was shot and killed by the homeowner. The other perp was successfully prosecuted for murder. It's rare but not unprecedented.
 
Genx87 said:
This is an end around for prosecutors to pad their stats. I am not a fan of these types of laws. These idiots tried to rob some guy, one of them was killed, and they get convicted of his murder. How did they murder him?
Click to expand...

They committed a violent felony that showed a reckless indifference to human life and safety. Someone died as a result of their crime. Hence they are guilty of murder. You may not like it but it's a pretty old and accepted common law legal doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top