The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Doc on November 16, 2007, 06:59:38 am
-
So check this out (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/break_in_murder;_ylt=Mr. WonderfulCasUNs7CiwihVGhF29sRH2ocA).
This is bizzarely unjust to me. I'm not rooting for the defendant or anything, he tried to burgle this family and left some poor schmuck brain-damaged so he's clearly the real thing, but first degree murder without having to prove intent seems scarily illogical to me.
-
yeah, wow, no. no sense at all.
-
"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."
I call bullshit there. Someone breaks into my house, I have every right to defend it. I don't know about this whole charge-the-other-guy-with-their-murder thing, but whenever someone gets on their hoss about not defending your family when your house gets broken into, I start getting pissed.
-
I'm against widespread gun ownership but yeah I can't really fault the guy given that his step son got brain damaged, these guys obviously weren't playing around. I just can't twist my mind around charging a guy who probably narrowly avoided getting shot himself with first degree murder.
-
I mean, it seems to me that the other two guys got themselves into that situation, and got shot. Was he the ringleader? Why is he responsible for their decision? he is responsible for his own actions-- breaking in and assault.
-
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the wheelman in a bank crew is charged with murder if one of his associates kills a guard in the course of a robbery. A smart defense attorney would probably plead his offense down in return for testifying against his associates, though. This guys got no one to rat out, so he'll go down for all of them.
Assault, IIRC, is even the threat of violence. If coerce cooperation from someone else through threat of violence, that's assault. If you lay a hand on them to further that coercion, its battery. This goon should be thanking God he's not pushing up daisies with his cohorts.
-
I'm no lawyer...
Where is august on this one?
I see the validity of the argument that he was responsible for the deaths of his cohorts by bringing them (and himself) into a situation that might become dangerous, but I don't see the point of prosecuting him this way. The only thing I can think of is if the DA wants to make sure he stays in prison for life, and the maximum sentences for his other crimes wouldn't be sufficient to ensure that he never gets out. Seems to me that this is a trumped-up charge that takes advantage of the a loophole in the criminal justice system to inflict retribution on a man who is a different kind of criminal from what they make him out to be.
I think the race card was played here, but not by the defense. The words used by the father in the news story, "this black gang thought they would beat up on a white family," unnerved me. I seriously doubt that the three robbers cared whether the occupa
JMHO. Also, I've been watching too much Boston Legal, because I find myself thinking about how Alan Shore would argue this case.
-
A law holding dude responsible for the outcome of his direct actions is unfair? Tell that to the kid who can't feed himself or the shattered family that night left behind.
yes. it is fair to charge him for what he did-- assault the family, attempt to steal their stuff, beat up the kid. I just don't understand how in hell he is responsible for the decisions of the other two guys. They assaulted the kid and got shot. That seems pretty cut and dry cause-and-effect to me.
-
Alright I don't know about this, seems a bit giraffey, but who robs someone for pot? Especially in California?
When I was in San Francisco I saw two guys buy weed from a guy by Amoeba Records, then walk down the street and sell it to tourists by the McDonalds right by Golden Gate Park. In less the were robbing pot to sell, which makes this a completely different crime, I don't really understand or think that was the only reason.
-
I don't know. My understanding of the criminal justice system is mostly based around punishment of people based on things which they intentionally do. if he weren't the one swinging the bat, he is still part of a group of 3 guys who are assaulting and robbing this family. he broke into their house with the intent of assaulting and robbing them. he did not break into that house with the intent that his friends/accomplices would be shot. that may be simplistic or whatever, but... punishing someone for something that happened to someone else as a result of their own actions makes no sense to me based on that understanding.
-
Alright I don't know about this, seems a bit giraffey, but who robs someone for pot? Especially in California?
When I was in San Francisco I saw two guys buy weed from a guy by Amoeba Records, then walk down the street and sell it to tourists by the McDonalds right by Golden Gate Park. In less the were robbing pot to sell, which makes this a completely different crime, I don't really understand or think that was the only reason.
Ahh, gotta love the Haight. Speaking of which, are you still moving out here? I finally got my apartment in the city proper.
-
Alright I don't know about this, seems a bit giraffey, but who robs someone for pot? Especially in California?
When I was in San Francisco I saw two guys buy weed from a guy by Amoeba Records, then walk down the street and sell it to tourists by the McDonalds right by Golden Gate Park. In less the were robbing pot to sell, which makes this a completely different crime, I don't really understand or think that was the only reason.
I too, was wondering this, but I didn't want to be the naive guy who didn't know people rob for pot.
Asherdan, agreed. We aren't going to agree on this i guess.
-
I am saying that if you want free weed you can get it in 20 minutes tops by doing what those guys in my first post did. If you want money then you rob a drug dealer and sell his stash. Two completely different things.
Also, Inev, about the intentional thing, if I drive drunk with the purpose of getting home and unintentionally kill someone, etc. Not arguing, nor does it have any significance here but you know, just saying.
-
Ahh, gotta love the Haight. Speaking of which, are you still moving out here? I finally got my apartment in the city proper.
And yeah, I am coming out there, maybe in February ish, maybe in may or june, depending on these next few weeks and a long ass capstone paper I have no will to do.
-
Also, Inev, about the intentional thing, if I drive drunk with the purpose of getting home and unintentionally kill someone, etc. Not arguing, nor does it have any significance here but you know, just saying.
yeah, but the issue to me is that in that case you would be majorly fuck*ng up and killing an innocent passerby. In this case the other guys made their own decision, entirely separate from his.
-
Sorry, hoss. If you and your buddies think you're Man Enough to do an armed B&E, you'd better be prepared to man up and face some murder charges. I'm amazed that the homeowner wasn't crucified in the courts for protecting his home in a legal manner - although it sounds like some organizations and people are trying to demonize him and will probably try to sue him for the deaths of the men who broke into his home. I hope I'm never in his shoes, but I sure as hell hope that I will have a firearm if I'm ever put into his situation.
I also thought it was hilarious how the Mother Of The Year tried to foist off her son's role in the crime by using the "L" word.
-
yeah, but the issue to me is that in that case you would be majorly fuck*ng up and killing an innocent passerby. In this case the other guys made their own decision, entirely separate from his.
Well, no, probably in collusion with his. Had he said, "No dudes, lets go raid the pot farm out in the redwoods instead" this wouldn't have turned out this way. His criminal participation lead to their deaths.
-
This entire thing just seems entirely ass-backwards to me. Does murder not mean "killing" anymore? Because if I were to point out who killed someone in this case, it certainly wasn't the burglar. It was a man defending his family. There is no murder going on anywhere in this situation.
-
I am actually very glad that this thread was created. When I read the headline, I figured that the homeowner was getting crucified for the deaths of the criminals, and that made my blood pressure so zabbly that I couldn't even bring myself to read the article. I knew I would just get angry. Then I saw this thread, and read the damn article. Education. That's what we're all about here.
-
Alright, first of all I asked my dad, who is a lawyer (although not a criminal lawyer) and immediately he said yeah, thats felony murder, no question.
Also, here I was trying to make a better point about the drunk driving scenario but it wasn't good enough.
-
I'm still with Inev on this. If they had killed the kid, no question it would be murder. If they had charged him with manslaughter maybe I wouldn't feel so strongly, particularly if it turns out he was the ring-leader. It's just that the home owner (who I'm not finding fault with at all, he was protecting his family) was the one who killed the two other guys and to me murder, particularly first degree murder, implies intent and this guy didn't mean to kill anyone.
I guess this comes back to my feeling that law should be very cut and dried, this guy didn't kill or intend to kill anyone so I don't think he shouldn't be charged with murder.
Take him to town for brain damaging the kid, hell charge him with attempted murder or whatever you like for that one but charge him for what he actually did. The other two guys chose to break into the house with this genius and the homeowner was the one who decided to use deadly force to defend himself.
-
In the United States when you kill someone in the act of another felony it is called Felony Murder and is equivalent to 1st degree murder (from my understanding).
If x kills y on accident it is manslaughter, if x kills y in the heat of the moment it is 2nd degree and if x kills y with deliberation it is 1st degree. If x, before or after y is dead in any circumstance takes y's money or rapes y or whatever, it is Felony Murder, ie. 1st degree.
I am not saying this guy should be charged (I don't think he should, well for the deaths) but I can definitely see why they are what they are. Also, my dad, like I said, answered straightforward and immediately. I don't think he should be charged with the deaths in any way, but that is just my opinion and if you are going to charge him then the act of the other felony makes it 1st degree.
This could all be bullshit, but I think it is at least basically right.
-
In the US, we can sue someone for responsibility for a death. Like when OJ was acquitted of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, but was found responsible civilly.
This makes little sense either, in some ways - was he innocent or not? In the same manner, I think the logic of charging one of the co-criminals for responsibility for the death of another makes sense. It might make more sense if the charge was manslaughter since he certainly never set out with an intention to kill his friend. I don't have a major problem, though, with pinning some of the responsibility on him.