Yep, that is precisely the point I was trying to make. :rolleyes:
Has anyone provided a cite yet to count the news reports given so far?
Yes.
The idea is that when a group of people engage in a dangerous and criminal act, they are collectively responsible for the consequences of the act - including the deaths of any members of the group.
I’m claiming that during the chaotic situation of a burglary when the homeowner is home, once you start shooting some shots may end up in a person’s back. Some shots may spin the target, the target could begin to flee but the decision to shoot has already been made, the target could be retreating to a less exposed position and be preparing to counter attack. The point is, being shot in the back is not conclusive to say the person was not a threat at the time of being shot.
Uhh, okay.
The same? No. It’s the same principle, but with a difference in degree. I’d add that driving through a school zone at seventy miles per hour isn’t the same as driving through at a hundred miles per hour, and that neither is the same as firing bullets at someone’s feet to make them dance. But they’re all reprehensible, and the same kind of reprehensible, though not the same degree – and if any of 'em kill someone in so doing, they’re right there with the arsonist or the burglar or et cetera through the alphabet of felonies that led to foreseeable outcomes of varying probability.
Time spent second guessing the intent of a gang of youths that has clearly entered your home to rob you is often time that you do not have. And since there is no clear way to determine accurately if they have a weapon, or intentions for harm upon your person the Law is correct to give the benefit of the doubt to a victim of a felony instead of those committing it.
The legal standard where i live is reasonable force when defending your property, and all necessary force when you feel there is a threat to your person (which includes shooting). The case law interprets this very broadly.
You are probably more likely to be brought up on charges around here, which would more than likely be subsequently dropped, although the victim from the OP was brought in for questioning by the police, which I think is a reasonable amount of due diligence.
I honestly think you might be having trouble imagining how terrified you might be if you were you put in a similar situation, and how compromised some of your reasoning faculties might be. When it’s a split second decision, and you either pull the trigger or you don’t, because someone has decided to violate you, I find it very hard to fault somebody who pulls the trigger to keep themselves and their family safe. In fact it seems to be the more moral, and more ethical choice.
And if your accomplice gets caught in the burning building once you’ve both started the fire?
Same: reckless homicide, manslaughter, or second-degree murder, depending on the statutes of that jurisdiction. It’s not murder without the intent to murder.
That’s fine for classic self-defense, because it has to cover all the myriad situations in which one person feels threatened by another. Self-defense in the home is different, because by definition one party has committed an unlawful, aggressive act, and the other has not.
Well, no, I think I read upthread that they had taken a knife when inside the house, so now they are coming out of the house armed. Still easily forseeable that serious injury/death is a possible outcome.
I don’t generally disagree with you about much, but I do about this. I don’t know monkey kung fu or have any other martial skills.
“There were 4 criminals who had broken into my house with unknown intentions” is enough for me to start shooting people (if I had a gun, which I don’t). I’m never been in combat, I’m not John Casey, I’m taking whatever advantage I can get, right now. If I shoot or kill one or more, I’ll live to regret it, which is better than possibly not living in whatever manner of death they might have had in mind for me.
Where did the information about the knife stolen from the kitchen and found in the closet come from?
The homeowner went onto explain how he surrendered himself from the house and was treated as a suspect initially, just as prior officer testimony stated, and began telling an account of what he found the next when he returned to his home.
“I noticed a knife was missing from my knife set, and I was missing my wallet,” said the homeowner. During concluding arguments the prosecution tied the knife found by the homeowner’s neighbor to the one missing from his knife block, and linked a wallet discovered by the homeowner in the closet with the wallet which had disappeared from his kitchen the day of the burglary.
Apparently the knife was found outside the house, not in the closet. Not sure which link this quote is originally from, but apparently before #87. So, if testimony is to be believed, at least one of the suspects exited the house armed with a knife.
I don’t object to the Castle Doctrine. I am also against the death penalty.
I do object to felony murder charges. If burglary is considered an act likely to lead to fatal results, it should be subject to severe sentences, regardless of the random factor of whether a death actually occurs by the direct action of other people. Increasing the penalty based on something the felon could not control doesn’t make sense to me.
On police shooting people in the back: Some departments do have a policy allowing officers to shoot at a fleeing felon, on the theory that felons are dangerous enough you should go that far to apprehend them. It varies by agency and jurisdiction, like many other enforcement policies.
This makes a lot more sense than adding on, almost arbitrarily, a felony murder charge. Not only would such a change avoid the arbitrary aspects of felony murder charges, I suspect that potential burglars would be more likely to be aware of a general ‘stiffness’ in sentences for burglary than they would the possibility of a felony murder charge.
But, to be clear, although I feel that increasing the penalty for burglary across the board may be better than the option of a felony murder charge, the best approach is simply to abolish the latter.
I agree, Karl. There should be a charge of burglary if that’s what they did, and if they do something to cause a death, a charge of murder.
I think felony murder laws come from a cultural need to find a perpetrator for every bad thing that happens and to punish that guy. I, on the other hand, accept that some bad things happen that don’t have a person to blame for it.
I think our justice system should seek justice, and to improve society. Constant cries to increase prison sentences doesn’t accomplish this. In fact, it often has the opposite result, of starting with a person with poor judgment and no evil intent, and creating a very pissed-off and nasty human being.
We over-incarcerate in the US. In a lot of cases, I think heavy fines and community service would do a lot more to reduce crime. Not that I don’t think burglars should do time; just that they don’t need to do quite so much to discourage reoffense.
I think the sentence is unjust.
I believe the intent of the law is to harshly penalize those who, in their commitment of a crime, cause the death of an innocent. I can agree that if they had never committed the crime in the first place, the innocent would be unharmed, so the criminals should bear the brunt of the punishment
However, in this case, the one who died was one of the criminal’s gang. To me, that circumstances of the death lends the criminal offense to be more akin to suicide than murder. Here was not an innocent that died, but an active participant in the crime. In fact, if you want to look at it another way, because the homeowner was justified in killing him, and would not be prosecuted, the other members of the gang technically wouldn’t be facing the same charges the homeowner would. The sentence is for murder, not self-defense, and self-defense is what happened
What about the ongoing suffering (presumed) of the victim? He’s haunted by the life he took. Should the perps not pay for that to some extent?
A wounding and a death, followed by a prison sentence for burglary, wasn’t enough? Maybe he should take the family of the juvenile he killed to civil court and sue them for mental anguish.
So, you’re counting the wounding and the death as positives for the victim? That’s not exactly my point…