Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[linnea]

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.

[jaydub]

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.

[theinevitable]

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.

[linnea]

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.

[KeithHernandez]

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.

[Doc]

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.

[KeithHernandez]

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.

[AlohaDawg]

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.