What immediate threat did the person crouching down and trying to drag his dying friend to safety in a closet present?
Which is fine - when the crime is murder.
As mentioned here - the homeowner didn’t commit a crime, so the death of the boys wasn’t murder. If it wasn’t a murder, how can they be held responsible for a murder.
For it “just” being a burglary vs a dangerous home invasion - wouldn’t that have to be decided on the facts of the case? Something that the courts are supposed to be setup to handle?
If it really was accepted to be the relativley lesser burglary vs something more sinister - then its overstepping the bounds just a tad…
Obviously there are. If, for example, he had raped one of these boys at gunpoint the conversation would be entirely different.
There is, I believe, a commonly accepted consensus that persons should be able to use force in self defense, especially in their own homes, and especially when they are outnumbered.
The situation is tragic, for a lot of different reasons, but when somebody dies in the commission of a felony it does seem fair, to me, to place the blame, and associated punishment, on those committing the crime and their accomplices.
The reason the felony murder rule exists is to prevent someone from arguing that while admittedly they planned to burglarize the home, they never intended for anyone to get hurt or killed.
The law puts everyone on notice that when you burglarize, it’s very foreseeable that someone will get hurt or killed, even though that’s not your supposed intent: when you sneak into someone’s home intending to commit a felony therein, it’s obvious that a death is a substantially likely outcome, and that death is chargeable to you.
I think burglary is one of the most premeditated and dangerous of all crimes. None one breaks into someone else’s house by accident or under the heat of passion. Everyone knows it’s wrong, and everyone knows that homeowners are sometimes armed. This is one crime where harsh sentences might actually work as a deterrent. I think the penalties should be much higher, including for “first offenders.”
In addition, many people are convicted of felony murder who have not killed anyone, even in cases where it was one of their co-criminals who got killed. Given all of that, my sense of justice would be served if they got somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 years in this case. (I would have given them five years if there was no shooting at all.)
Maybe it’s my libertarian core of personal responsibility talking, but that strikes me as unjust as well (though less so, since the person killed wasn’t one of the felons). A person should be responsible for their own actions, not those of others.
Can you not see value in punishing a homicide that a person caused unknowingly or unintentionally more severely if it was in furtherance of a dangerous felony? Like my example: an intruder accidentally kills a homeowner, instead of manslaughter it becomes murder. I’d say that serves justice, you?
Clearly the judge saw fit, after hearing what evidence was available to him, to conclude that the home owner did not act unreasonably. If you have further evidence you should present it.
I have no problem with serving time for crimes committed, but I do have problems with what this law does. Convict them for burglary and, if it can be proved, intent to harm, but if that killing was justifiable homicide then it should not also be ruled murder. There is punishment enough for what they actually did, in my opinion.
Is there a link to any evidence or testimony pertaining to that part of the case?
This made me go check, and as it happens Indiana has the Castle Doctrine. Relevant portion:
So, based on that, I was mistaken: if there’s an unlawful entry of the person’s dwelling in progress, there does not have to be an immediate threat, apparently, the use of force just must be reasonable (so, pleasure-slavery is probably still out).
Would you mind explaining, if you know, the basis of the argument that:
Stripping away (even from my OP) to reveal the essence of the case:
A group of teens received 50 years in prison for burglary.
Inappropriate. Unfair. Not justice.
When you put your accomplices in harms way by committing a felony with them it logically follows that you should then assume some of the responsibility for what happens to your accomplices during the course of events.
As I said previously, it’s possible that this punishment is too harsh, but it seems clear that they were responsible for his death. The whole system should be re-worked to focus on rehabilitation, instead of punishment, in my opinion, but that is a topic for another thread.
In the context of this situation, and the current legal paradigm, and in my own humble personal opinion, the rendered judgement is close enough to justice. Maybe less years would be closer, but that wouldn’t follow from the relevant statute.
It doesn’t serve society as well as it could, but that’s more of a problem of the concept of retributive justice, as apposed to an issue of fairness.
You forgot to add “Somebody dies”
Now it’s justice. Or at least justice-er.
In CA - if someone breaks into your home, there is a presumption of a threat. So to justify using deadly force outside your home, you have to demonstrate the threat, in your home the mere fact that they broke in is justification enough.
The homeowner didn’t commit a crime, but the group of four did. It was felony murder, committed by the group of four. Each participated in the action that resulted in the death of one of the robbers. Your statement that it wasn’t murder is false.
You forgot to add “ruled a justifiable homicide”.
Okay, let me rephrase it:
You’re 16-years-old, screwing off with your friends. “Hey, man. See that house? There’s no one home. Let’s take a peek”. You enter the house with your whole life ahead of you. You have no clue that you’re not gonna leave until you’re 71.
When I think of the stuff I did when I was 16, 17 . . . I didn’t “break” into places, but I sure as hell trespassed. I used, and sold, drugs. I was stupid. “All” 16-year-olds are. So, even had a “one size fits all” law such as this one been in effect back then, I doubt I would have done differently. And, today, I’d be counting down my remaining time . . . only 13 years left!
There but for the grace of god.
By the way, if you want to go the “they got what they deserved” route, let’s not forget to factor in the killing of one and the injuring of the other while he was attempting to save the life of his friend instead of either attacking the homeowner or running away. Was that act of what could only be labeled bravery factored into his sentence, or do you feel the proper thing to do at that time was to dump his friend and run away? Surrendering certainly wasn’t an option at that time-the homeowner apparently had a license to kill.
I applaud these type of laws, the legislators that pass them, and the prosecutors that have the courage to apply them. I also applaud the home owner for being ready to defend his family and his home. Bravo and hearty back slaps all around!
Once the perpetrators realized that the home was occupied were they given a chance to run off or surrender, or did the homeowner just start shooting? If there was no warning, what should they have done when discovered?
I don’t fault him for shooting home invaders, but I’m not sure if I’d slap him on the back for shooting the one that was helping a fallen comrade (if that’s what actually happened). But in the heat of confrontation, I might not blame him either. Tragic, and completely the fault of the invaders… but shooting a kid while he’s helping his wounded friend is not laudable, in my opinion.