Is this 'justice'?

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

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?

Bleed.

Regards,
Shodan

[Human_Action]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

The traditional basis is that “kills” encompasses the criminal act which is the proximate cause for the death, like so: I have the specific intent to commit a burglary, which is such a violent act that it is naturally accompanied by a risk of death-by-homeowner, so that a co-conspirator’s getting shot by a homeowner is a naturally foreseeable consequence of my actions in conspiring to commit the burglary. Because I intentionally committed the burglary, and the foreseeable result of a death occurred, I “killed” my co-conspirator for the purposes of the statute.

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the reasoning, but it strikes me as being morally wrong: the intent to burgle a house is so different from the intent to kill, that allowing the former to be treated as the latter is unjust.

Also, given that the statute reads “kills another human being”, it seems to my layman’s eyes that it should run afoul of “void-for-vagueness”, because I don’t think an ordinary person could read that statute and conclude that they’d be guilty of murder if a co-robber was killed during a robbery.

@Bone

No. The criminal justice system must take a dispassionate view of events. If the only crime was robbery it does not follow that the penalty is death as administered by the state. I’m actually against the death penalty per se.

But for the homeowner in the heat of the moment without knowing the level of threat - dead robbers is a foreseeable outcome.

I’m confused, then. You said you’d consider it justice if all the robbers ended up dead. What does that mean?

[Human_Action]

@Czarcasm

By ruling the death a justifiable homicide, and convicting the others for robbing the bank. What’s so hard to understand?

Seconded. That way, you punish people for what they did.

[Czarcasm]

@Bone

But for the homeowner in the heat of the moment without knowing the level of threat - dead robbers is a foreseeable outcome.

Agreed. The punishment should be for the crime of robbery or burglary(depending on the evidence)-the possible death by homeowner should be assumed risk.

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Bleed.

Regards,
Shodan

When it comes to human beings dying, I just can’t be that trite and dismissive.

[Human_Action]

@Czarcasm

When it comes to human beings dying, I just can’t be that trite and dismissive.

Are you saying what the homeowner did should be illegal, or just noting that it’s a tragic outcome?

[Czarcasm]

@Human_Action

Are you saying what the homeowner did should be illegal, or just noting that it’s a tragic outcome?

The shootings were a tragic outcome, perhaps inevitable. The subsequent murder convictions of juveniles that were trying to escape with lives was a fucking travesty.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Human_Action

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the reasoning, but it strikes me as being morally wrong: the intent to burgle a house is so different from the intent to kill, that allowing the former to be treated as the latter is unjust.

Also, given that the statute reads “kills another human being”, it seems to my layman’s eyes that it should run afoul of “void-for-vagueness”, because I don’t think an ordinary person could read that statute and conclude that they’d be guilty of murder if a co-robber was killed during a robbery.

I’m definitely crossing over into speculation here, but I think it’s possible that either the statute was poorly written to accomplish its goal, or the statute was deliberately written not to authorize felony murder prosecution in this situation, but the courts favor the more traditional view and so they’re just pretending the statute was poorly worded.

It’s more common, in my experience, that a felony murder statute will leave more wiggle room than just saying “kills another human being.” From a quick google survey, Missouri’s says

another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.

Maine’s

the person or another participant in fact causes the death of a human being, and the death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such commission, attempt or flight.

and Florida’s

When a human being is killed

.

The situation described in this case would more easily fit into a common sense reading of any of these, even if Maine’s is still a bit unclear.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Human_Action

It’s not particularly American or just to punish someone for the actions of someone else, nor to put strict-liability crimes that ignore mens rea.

This was, I think, the point of the OP. If the home invaders had found two young women at home, and spent all night gang-raping them, but then left without killing them, they would’ve faced lighter sentences. Instead, these four happened to be confronted by a home-owner that was prepared to (and did) defend himself. Now they got harsher sentences. That does seem a bit … unlucky.

I support the laws because I’d support almost anything that would give home-invaders harsher sentences. There are probably better / fairer ways to accomplish that goal of mine, and if asked to replace the felony murder law with something like life in prison for all home invaders, I’d probably choose the latter. Since I don’t have that option, I’ll take whatever i can get, which in the case of Indiana is apparently a felony murder law.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

When it comes to human beings dying, I just can’t be that trite and dismissive.

You asked the question. Not my problem if you don’t like the answer.

Regards,
Shodan

[Northern_Piper]

@Human_Action

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the reasoning, but it strikes me as being morally wrong: the intent to burgle a house is so different from the intent to kill, that allowing the former to be treated as the latter is unjust.

If it’s any consolation to you, the Supreme Court of Canada used exactly that reasoning in striking down the Canadian equivalent of felony murder. Murder is a specific intent offence. If you don’t have the intent to murder, it’s unconstitutional to convict you of murder.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

The shootings were a tragic outcome, perhaps inevitable. The subsequent murder convictions of juveniles that were trying to escape with lives was a fucking travesty.

This doesn’t make any sense.

If the shootings were almost inevitable, then the four should reasonably have anticipated them. Yet they went ahead with the burglary anyway. People are usually considered responsible for the consequences of their actions, especially if those consequences are foreseeable.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

I support the laws because I’d support almost anything that would give home-invaders harsher sentences. There are probably better / fairer ways to accomplish that goal of mine, and if asked to replace the felony murder law with something like life in prison for all home invaders, I’d probably choose the latter. Since I don’t have that option, I’ll take whatever i can get, which in the case of Indiana is apparently a felony murder law.

Stiffen the penalty for burglary, but do not give the homeowner an added reason to kill an unarmed intruder. “If I hold them at the end of a gun until the cops get here, they’ll be convicted of robbery…but I kill one of them, the other one gets blamed for the murder!”

[Telemark]

@Czarcasm

By ruling the death a justifiable homicide, and convicting the others for robbing the bank. What’s so hard to understand?

And if the person shot by a ricocheting bullet was an innocent bystander, or during a police chase a pedestrian was killed? These are a direct foreseeable result of the decision to commit the initial crime. As long as the police are taking reasonable precautions then the blame falls completely on the robbers and they should be held responsible.

It’s a clearly foreseeable result of the decision to break into the house. They set a series of actions in motion and are the prime cause of the death. Our legal system rightly holds them responsible for the results of their actions.

I would certainly entertain a discussion about whether the length of their sentence furthers the cause of justice but that’s another subject. The death was caused by certain actions by certain actors. They deserve punishment for that.

[Human_Action]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

I’m definitely crossing over into speculation here, but I think it’s possible that either the statute was poorly written to accomplish its goal, or the statute was deliberately written not to authorize felony murder prosecution in this situation, but the courts favor the more traditional view and so they’re just pretending the statute was poorly worded.

It’s more common, in my experience, that a felony murder statute will leave more wiggle room than just saying “kills another human being.” From a quick google survey, Missouri’s says

Maine’s

and Florida’s

.

The situation described in this case would more easily fit into a common sense reading of any of these, even if Maine’s is still a bit unclear.

Shouldn’t a poorly-worded statute be struck down as vague and rewritten? In any case, I wish the men good luck with their appeals, and wonder if their counsel will pursue a void-for-vagueness angle.

@HurricaneDitka

This was, I think, the point of the OP. If the home invaders had found two young women at home, and spent all night gang-raping them, but then left without killing them, they would’ve faced lighter sentences. Instead, these four happened to be confronted by a home-owner that was prepared to (and did) defend himself. Now they got harsher sentences. That does seem a bit … unlucky.

I support the laws because I’d support almost anything that would give home-invaders harsher sentences. There are probably better / fairer ways to accomplish that goal of mine, and if asked to replace the felony murder law with something like life in prison for all home invaders, I’d probably choose the latter. Since I don’t have that option, I’ll take whatever i can get, which in the case of Indiana is apparently a felony murder law.

I’d make that trade as well, remove felony-murder in which the defendant isn’t the one who killed someone in exchange for a harsh minimum sentence for any home invasion. Thanks for explaining your thoughts on the matter.

@Northern Pipers

If it’s any consolation to you, the Supreme Court of Canada used exactly that reasoning in striking down the Canadian equivalent of felony murder. Murder is a specific intent offence. If you don’t have the intent to murder, it’s unconstitutional to convict you of murder.

Darn Canucks, making us look bad. I’m with them, there’s not some universal or generic criminal intent, just because one crime might lead to another, only intents to commit specific acts.

Just because I never resist an opportunity to brag on the Commonwealth, I’ll note that Kentucky removed felony-murder from the books in 1976 (went into effect in 1984) over mens rea concerns.

[Human_Action]

Oh, and kudos to the robbers for having a refreshingly multi-ethnic gang of criminals, with a mix of white, black, and Hispanic. We don’t see that much down here in Kentucky.

[Longshanks]

In this case it seems that the remaining 3 received harsh sentences, because they got themselves into a situation where 1 of their own lost their life. If they hadn’t broke into the home then their friend would not have died, so they indirectly caused the death of their friend and deserved to be punished for that as well as the breaking and entering.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Human_Action

How does the one prevent the other?

I recognize that it’s not a guaranteed prevention, but we would have 60,000 fewer home invaders running loose (there is a somewhat limited supply), and hopefully word would have gotten out to the remainder by then that it’s not wise.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

I recognize that it’s not a guaranteed prevention, but we would have 60,000 fewer home invaders running loose (there is a somewhat limited supply), and hopefully word would have gotten out to the remainder by then that it’s not wise.

I would have to admit that, as solutions go, that one is pretty effective.
You might even say it was final.

[Trinopus]

@Czarcasm

How can there be two different outcomes for the same death? . . .

Do you remember the bank robbery case in Texas? The guy who went into the bank and used a gun and killed someone got life in prison. The getaway driver, outside, who never touched a gun, was executed for murder. He was “complicit” in the crime, and had the misfortune of being tried separately from the actual gunman.

Also, y’know, Texas.