Okay this seems to be an over reach

[13Gigatons]

I'm really on the fence on this one....I guess they created conditions where their buddy got shot but seems they will continue to stretch the law beyond this...where will it end.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/illinois-5-teens-murder-charge-burglary/index.html



Update: added picture to show the location, it looks pretty remote. No street lights and not a suburb. Having a gun to protect yourself way out there would be a good idea.

 

[Captante]

While I understand your concern and feel that 1st degree murder is over-reaching in severity, I would have zero issues with something like 2ed degree manslaughter.

 

[sandorski]

Over reach.

 

[Wuzup101]

While I understand your concern and feel that 1st degree murder is over-reaching in severity, I would have zero issues with something like 2ed degree manslaughter.

Yeah murder 1 might be a bit of an over-reach... but they were all involved in armed robery... I do agree that they should share some responsibility for what happened.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Charges like this seem like a fairly common practice in the US.

 

[BoomerD]

Good.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm really on the fence on this one....I guess they created conditions where their buddy got shot but seems they will continue to stretch the law beyond this...where will it end.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/illinois-5-teens-murder-charge-burglary/index.html

"When Lake County authorities responded to the scene of the shooting, they located the offenders' hunting knife on the driveway," noted Nerheim.​

Armed home invasion? No sympathy.

Surprised they didn't make it inside first, before the homeowner noticed. Were they trying to draw him out?

 

[Ken g6]

It's basically the felony murder rule. The only odd part is whose hand pulled the trigger.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's basically the felony murder rule. The only odd part is whose hand pulled the trigger.

I tend to agree, however, the rule is too simplistic to account for the strangeness of the situation. I would like to see some alternative penalty and I expect that is what will happen. Attornies will plea this down to something like first degree manslaughter or whatever the IL. equivalent is.

But all are equally responsible for the death of the group member in a willful criminal act that could have ended the life of the homeowner and they knew what they were doing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm really on the fence on this one....I guess they created conditions where their buddy got shot but seems they will continue to stretch the law beyond this...where will it end.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/illinois-5-teens-murder-charge-burglary/index.html

Moved from OT.

Perknose
Forum Director

This is the law in many states. If you take part in a crime, in which a victim / innocent person has to use lethal force to stop that crime and/or defend themselves, accomplices are implicated in that death for creating that situation in the first place. When someone break's into another person's home, they've shown that they do not care for the homeowner's rights and the homeowner doesn't necessarily have time to give out a questionnaire to see if they just want to take valuables or if they want to take valuables, rape women, maybe leave no witnesses. GOOD SHOOT, law applied appropriately. I get that some of these people are minors, but the story states they already have significant criminal histories (they came to the house in a stolen car, in fact), get them all off the street.

A gun just solved a lot of future crime, but the stats won't reflect that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Just wondering, for every "black teens were fundraising" situation I wonder how many situations like the OP exist? Any guess on that ratio? If we want fewer situations like the fundraising thread, I think we need to make for fewer of these stories too. And you can take it to the bank that we will not achieve that as long as African Americans on the whole are buying into liberal Democrat bullshit about how they're victims, the system is against them, don't try and rely on the government, the police are the enemy, etc. etc.

 

[JSt0rm]

Just wondering, for every "black teens were fundraising" situation I wonder how many situations like the OP exist? Any guess on that ratio? If we want fewer situations like the fundraising thread, I think we need to make for fewer of these stories too. And you can take it to the bank that we will not achieve that as long as African Americans on the whole are buying into liberal Democrat bullshit about how they're victims, the system is against them, don't try and rely on the government, the police are the enemy, etc. etc.

You are wondering what the ratio of fundraisers to home invasions is? You will not be happy when you find out.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Just wondering, for every "black teens were fundraising" situation I wonder how many situations like the OP exist? Any guess on that ratio? If we want fewer situations like the fundraising thread, I think we need to make for fewer of these stories too. And you can take it to the bank that we will not achieve that as long as African Americans on the whole are buying into liberal Democrat bullshit about how they're victims, the system is against them, don't try and rely on the government, the police are the enemy, etc. etc.

DUHVERT, SHIELDS ON MAXIMUM POWER.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is the law in many states. If you take part in a crime, in which a victim / innocent person has to use lethal force to stop that crime and/or defend themselves, accomplices are implicated in that death for creating that situation in the first place. When someone break's into another person's home, they've shown that they do not care for the homeowner's rights and the homeowner doesn't necessarily have time to give out a questionnaire to see if they just want to take valuables or if they want to take valuables, rape women, maybe leave no witnesses. GOOD SHOOT, law applied appropriately. I get that some of these people are minors, but the story states they already have significant criminal histories (they came to the house in a stolen car, in fact), get them all off the street.

A gun just solved a lot of future crime, but the stats won't reflect that.

While some may argue for a defenseless homeowner, so far that has not been the case and I would not be among them if they show up. Unlike you I would never go "good shoot" because there is no such thing. Appropriate under the circumstances? I would say so but having to shoot is never "good".

There is no questionnaire but the various laws may or may not have some form of "duty to retreat". "I'm scared so I'll shoot and I know I'll get away with it" laws? Nope. The use deadly force needs to pass a "reasonable and prudent" standard and if you need an explanation of that is I can provide one.

In my state I have a duty to retreat but that also means that I could reasonably do so safely, again as determined by a reasonableness standard in context. Let's say that I am confronted with a person or persons who display threatening behavior and I have reason to believe that there is potential for escalation. I cannot get in that person's face and provoke then shoot without consequence. I would have mishandled the situation and am responsible for my actions. Words are not grounds for killing.

But

If I can "retreat", which legally means disengage to avoid deadly force? Then I must do so. I just leave. If however that person pursues and attempts to physically attack then there MAY be grounds for lethal force. MAY is emphasized because if it's some 9 year old throwing a tantrum, killing is not warranted as that person can be subdued without deadly force. That applies to others as well and takes into consideration the physical condition of the one being attacked. A 330 lb linebacker facing an unarmed elderly woman would not pass a reasonable test in most situations. On the other hand if the situation was reversed no one would expect ( despite protestations to the contrary) that she not use whatever means are necessary to protect herself that she has on her person. Unfortunately, right-wing violence is real and substantial and despite exceptions on the other side is mostly from your lot. That means people who should be able to use weapons in self-defense will be penalized once you are out. That will be a consequence of the collective lack of responsibility exercised by those who you support as a matter of cause and effect.

 

[Moonbeam]

If we are going to have laws like that they should be taught in schools with students signing that they comprehend they do the time for the crime. Along with that it should also be taught that every person who wants to work honestly will be guaranteed a job with a living wage.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Just wondering, for every "black teens were fundraising" situation I wonder how many situations like the OP exist? Any guess on that ratio? If we want fewer situations like the fundraising thread, I think we need to make for fewer of these stories too. And you can take it to the bank that we will not achieve that as long as African Americans on the whole are buying into liberal Democrat bullshit about how they're victims, the system is against them, don't try and rely on the government, the police are the enemy, etc. etc.

#fuckofftroll

 

[esquared]

DUHVERT, SHIELDS ON MAXIMUM POWER.

He's playing the russian influencer campaign.
Three D's
Divert, Deflect, Dems (blame)
StPetersburgSlow is a traitor.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are wondering what the ratio of fundraisers to home invasions is? You will not be happy when you find out.

While some may argue for a defenseless homeowner, so far that has not been the case and I would not be among them if they show up. Unlike you I would never go "good shoot" because there is no such thing. Appropriate under the circumstances? I would say so but having to shoot is never "good".

There is no questionnaire but the various laws may or may not have some form of "duty to retreat". "I'm scared so I'll shoot and I know I'll get away with it" laws? Nope. The use deadly force needs to pass a "reasonable and prudent" standard and if you need an explanation of that is I can provide one.

In my state I have a duty to retreat but that also means that I could reasonably do so safely, again as determined by a reasonableness standard in context. Let's say that I am confronted with a person or persons who display threatening behavior and I have reason to believe that there is potential for escalation. I cannot get in that person's face and provoke then shoot without consequence. I would have mishandled the situation and am responsible for my actions. Words are not grounds for killing.

But

If I can "retreat", which legally means disengage to avoid deadly force? Then I must do so. I just leave. If however that person pursues and attempts to physically attack then there MAY be grounds for lethal force. MAY is emphasized because if it's some 9 year old throwing a tantrum, killing is not warranted as that person can be subdued without deadly force. That applies to others as well and takes into consideration the physical condition of the one being attacked. A 330 lb linebacker facing an unarmed elderly woman would not pass a reasonable test in most situations. On the other hand if the situation was reversed no one would expect ( despite protestations to the contrary) that she not use whatever means are necessary to protect herself that she has on her person. Unfortunately, right-wing violence is real and substantial and despite exceptions on the other side is mostly from your lot. That means people who should be able to use weapons in self-defense will be penalized once you are out. That will be a consequence of the collective lack of responsibility exercised by those who you support as a matter of cause and effect.

Nope, this was a group of young people with a long criminal record. This was indeed, a GOOD SHOOT. Got these people off the street before they could get to their next victim. Don't want to get shot for breaking into someone's home? Quite easy, don't break into someone's home. Of course the stats will never be able to show how many potentially violent crimes in the future have just been stopped.

 

[SlowSpyder]

He's playing the russian influencer campaign.
Three D's
Divert, Deflect, Dems (blame)
StPetersburgSlow is a traitor.

You live in the fantasy world that they've built for you.

 

[Vic]

Open and shut felony murder. Not an overreach.

 

[Vic]

Just wondering, for every "black teens were fundraising" situation I wonder how many situations like the OP exist? Any guess on that ratio? If we want fewer situations like the fundraising thread, I think we need to make for fewer of these stories too. And you can take it to the bank that we will not achieve that as long as African Americans on the whole are buying into liberal Democrat bullshit about how they're victims, the system is against them, don't try and rely on the government, the police are the enemy, etc. etc.

Oh hey, look at who injected race into the discussion! Hardly surprising given that you try to make every discussion about your racism.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Open and shut felony murder. Not an overreach.

Aren't you a lawyer, or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[Vic]

Aren't you a lawyer, or am I thinking of someone else?

You're thinking of someone else.

 

[Vic]

Nope, this was a group of young people with a long criminal record. This was indeed, a GOOD SHOOT. Got these people off the street before they could get to their next victim. Don't want to get shot for breaking into someone's home? Quite easy, don't break into someone's home. Of course the stats will never be able to show how many potentially violent crimes in the future have just been stopped.

No matter how you look at it, a 14 year old boy is dead. Even if it had to be done, that's nothing to celebrate. Ever.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Oh hey, look at who injected race into the discussion! Hardly surprising given that you try to make every discussion about your racism.

I wasn't disparaging any race, these are very contrasting stories. But, to be honest, I don't know the race of these kids, they only had one picture and that kid was African American, I made an assumption based on that. That probably wasn't fair of me and I recognize that. But the point I'm making is that I think minorities are involved in crimes more often, and as long as liberals continue to offer minorities the path of least resistance with a removal of personal responsibility, things won't be getting better for those demographics. Liberals have done great harm to minorities.