It sounded like the apartment, or its tenancy right, was joint property. In that case the fake burglars, staging a play at joint tenant’s request, may not have been committing a crime.
In Florida, could the fake burglar carry a real gun and “stand his ground” against the knife?
Is there an attachment for this? Does the bugle go attop the rifle, or does it clip underneath?
I hope her new boyfriend isn’t stupid enough to stick around.
Looks like the choice has been made for him. But then, if he wasn’t stupid he wouldn’t have gone along with such a plan in the first place.
Yeah, he’s already demonstrated that he’s not the most cautious thinker.
So was the husband scared?
This is common. A friend of mine threw a party in an abandoned barn. There was a campfire which got out of control and burned down the building. Firefighters let it burn down rather than fight the blaze. The next morning a Fire Dept person was inspecting the site and fell and sprained his ankle. My friend who threw the party was charged criminally for the injury and had to pay medical bills and restitution.
I forget the exact charge, but he was in and out of court for a while and basically every cent he earned from his part time job went towards legal bills and fines for a long time.
The underlying crime was premeditated. The death does not have to be. That is the whole point of the felony murder doctrine.
All crimes are cases for plea bargaining. Prosecutors always prefer to take it out if the hand of juries.
I think I saw something similar on the Punk’d season four outtakes, but with a lot more dead bodies.
No.
This seems to be a common misconception. Stand your ground only means you are not required to exhaust every possible alternative to avoid using deadly force in the prevention of a crime. i.e shooting an intruder even if you are able to flee out the back door.
It is NOT a license to hold three-way Tarrantinoeque Mexican standoffs. For example, if a mugger pulls out a gun and you pull out a knife, SYG does not immediately go into effect for the mugger or for a nearby bystander who is worried the weapons might be pointed at him.
There is. It’s called “felony murder”. It means you can be charged with murder in the case of committing a inherently dangerous felony, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. In this case, those felonies could include:
Breaking and entering
Simple assault
Assault with a dangerous weapon (doesn’t matter that the gun was fake)
Conspiracy
Criminal threatening
Extortion
They might be able to plea down to a lesser manslaughter charge.
Stand your ground laws only apply to your home or places you are legally entitled to be. You can’t break into someone’s house, shoot him, and say ‘I felt threatened’ as a defense. I understand you are saying the wife still had the right to access the house, but I’m thinking that guys staging a burglary on behalf of someone else can’t assert they had a legal right to be there.
…I don’t live in the United States. Neither does the rest of the world. Any attempt to introduce the Felony Murder rule in places where it didn’t exist would indeed be controversial. The fact that 46 states have codified felony murder is irrelevant.
These both had me LingOL.
Oh, he is.
Man, if I’d seen this story on Law & Order, I’d think it was as ridiculous and far-fetched as any of their other stories.
:rolleyes: Forgive the hell out of me for discussing a largely settled area of American law in the context of a crime committed in the United States.
Well, except for the fact that the actual crime happened in the US…so yeah, people might talk about US laws.
…not wanting to hijack the thread any further: but you made the statement “The felony murder doctrine is not particularly controversial.” Well it is. Even in the United States where it is codified in 46 States people think its a stupid idea. Even in this very thread people think that charging people for murder when they didn’t actually commit the murder is hard to understand. To claim that the felony murder doctrine is not particularly controversial is incorrect.
[QUOTE=3:20:59 or bust]
Well, except for the fact that the actual crime happened in the US…so yeah, people might talk about US laws.
[/QUOTE]
Friedo simply stated that felony murder doctrine is not particularly controversial. I simply pointed out that he was incorrect. The location of the crime is irrelevant to his statement.
Don’t be a Haighter.
According to the Wikipedia article, the rule used to exist in Canada, Ireland and the U.K. It was abolished in Canada as being unconstitutional, and in Ireland and the U.K. in 1964 by legislation.
I think it still exists where I live: according to Section 18 (1) (a) of the New South Wales Crimes Act:
(bolding mine)
So it does not seem to be limited to states of the U.S.
…I never claimed it was.