John Oliver’s investigative reports are always worthwhile, but rarely have I seen anything this shocking. Definitely another black eye for the US justice system.
“Felony murder” is a strange term that denotes a crime where someone is killed in the course of the commission of another felony, such as robbery. Sounds reasonable on the face of it, except that people have been charged and convicted of felony murder who had virtually no connection to the crime and in some cases weren’t even there. It’s a much easier conviction to obtain than a straight murder charge, but carries the same penalties.
One example Oliver gave was a man who let a roommate borrow his car, which he drove to commit a robbery in which someone was killed. The car owner, who knew nothing of what was to happen, was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life without parole.
In another incredible example of American justice turned on its head, a group of teens broke into a house to burglarize it, believing no one was home. The owner was upstairs asleep; hearing the noise, he grabbed his gun, went downstairs, and shot and killed one of the teens. The other teens were all charged with felony murder and convicted, and I think sentenced to 50 years. The actual killer, due to perverted “stand your ground” laws in some states, suffered no consequences whatsoever.
Oliver also mentions that virtually all countries that had similar laws in the past have long since abolished them. Except the US.
This is a quick read from The Guardian which includes a video, or you can probably find a YouTube video of the whole show.
Unless you are missing something in the details, I don’t see what is wrong with this. Why should the homeowner suffer any consequences for shooting a burglar who had actually broken in and was there with the actual purpose to rob him. This isn’t “I saw a Black man outside my home and shot at him.” The teens committed the felony, and someone was killed because they committed that felony. And it was a group who broke in. In the middle of the night.
Maybe don’t break into homes.
I thought you were going to say that “justice turned on it’s head” was the homeowner being guilty of shooting an intruder!
The teens who broke into a house to rob it? They got what they deserved. Don’t rob houses. Especially in the USA where there are permissive gun and castle defense laws.
I don’t like to have to think about “stand your ground”. Those backwoods states are just that in the backwoods. Very rural. We have no other recourse.
A sheriffs deputy may be half way across the county, after they figure what county I’m in, they might get here with-in the hour. Lotsa death could happen in that hour.
The one time I had to use force to back down a stranger it worked well. I didn’t have to shoot/kill the intruder, in the instant it took me to get the gun out of the safe, I thought; “I’m here alone with 4 kids, various pets(none brave enough to take on a robber). Yes, If I have to keep this person from hurting my kids, I will shoot”
It’s a hard decision to make, but yeah I’ll “stand my ground”, if needed.
You sound a little like the sheriff who tried to defend this archaic and barbaric law by saying something like, “maybe just don’t commit the crime”. What crime did the guy commit who lent his car to his roommate?
Back to the teen burglars. In civilized countries a homeowner who shoots a burglar would almost certainly be charged with manslaughter due to the use of unnecessarily excessive force, unless he could show that his life was in imminent danger. Proportionality is – or should be – a key legal principle. “Stand your ground” laws are fucking insane. They’ve been linked to as much as an 11% increase in homicides, or roughly 700 preventable deaths per year. A kid breaking into your house to steal something does not deserve the death penalty, nor should a homeowner be entitled to execute it. I’m astonished at the inability to perceive a difference between “doing something bad” and “deserving death”.
But this is getting off topic. The point relevant to the topic is not that the homeowner got off scot-free despite using excessive force, but that the other teens were judged guilty of the murder.
Yeah, I mean it is a Terrible thing to have happen, but it is not a crime to defend your home.
Was there a cite on this? I have doubts.
and the cite you provided says this-
As an example, he spoke about a man who lent his roommate his car keys and after the car was then used for a burglary in which someone died, he was given life in prison without parole for the crime of felony murder.
The con never makes the claim he didnt know about the lpan, but Oliver does make that claim. And oddly, the show doesnt name him, but names most of the other examples. So, for example- the con not only knew about the crime, but had been a partner several times in the past, with a conviction record- then it makes sense.
France and England have kinda similar laws, England repealed it’s “duty to retreat” laws in 1967. France allows “reasonable force”. Not as strong as some states “stand your ground laws”, but I think that having the “duty to retreat” is even more silly- some crooks come into my house to rob it, I should not have the requirement to run away. And we know that in some home invasion cases the felons get very violent, and sometimes kill or torture. It’s a tough call.
Anyone involved in a crime that results in murder is also guilty of felony murder. The getaway driver just sitting in the car and the others shoot and kill the shop owner, felony murder. Didn’t shoot anyone but was present when someone else did, felony murder. Tried to stop them during the robbey, felony murder. Many criminals find this out too late. The US legal system makes no distinction between pulling the actual trigger and just being part of the crime.
And why listen to John Oliver about US law anyway?
In Ohio, at least, you can lawfully use lethal force against an intruder when you’re inside your home. It’s called Castle Doctrine, and it doesn’t matter if the intruder thought no one was home.
IMHO it should depend on the circumstances. There’s a huge difference between being the getaway driver in a bank robbery gone bad vs. two friends doing drugs, one of them dying because they accidentally overdosed, and then the other one getting charged with felony murder. I say throw the book at the former, and at worst charge the latter with something that would get them sentenced to mandatory drug counseling with no prison time.
But since you insist, him saying “I swear I didn’t know what he was going to do,” is not the same as proving he did not know what his friend was going to do.
But it’s absolutely insane that you think if a group of criminals break into my home in the middle of the night, I should do nothing but run and hide and hope they don’t decide to attack me.
On August 3, 2004, Holle was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, after giving police statements that indicated he knew about the planned burglary…. On June 24, 2015, Governor Rick Scott commuted Holle’s sentence from life imprisonment to 25 years in prison and 10 years of probation.
That’s not a fair statement of reasonable law. Under criminal law in other countries, for instance, there is an actual obligation of the homeowner to de-escalate and back down if reasonably possible while law enforcement arrives, and to use force only as justified. Otherwise you could be taking the life of some young kid who should know better than to break in to steal stuff, but isn’t mature enough to know better. That’s not only insane, it’s barbaric. It belongs in the 12th century, not the 21st.
What the everlovin’ fuck?? You have just made a case for never lending anything anything because you cannot prove, before it happens, that the item will not then be used in the commission of a crime.
From a New York Times article on the Ryan Holle case. In short, he had no idea they were serious about stealing that safe. And 25 years in prison is still a really harsh sentence.
Mr. Holle had no criminal record. He had lent his car to Mr. Allen, a housemate, countless times before.
“All he did was go say, ‘Use the car,’ ” Mr. Allen said of Mr. Holle in a pretrial deposition. “I mean, nobody really knew that girl was going to get killed. It was not in the plans to go kill somebody, you know.”
But Mr. Holle did testify that he had been told it might be necessary to “knock out” Jessica Snyder. Mr. Holle is 25 now, a tall, lean and lively man with a rueful sense of humor, alert brown eyes and an unusually deep voice. In a spare office at the prison here, he said that he had not taken the talk of a burglary seriously.
“I honestly thought they were going to get food,” he said of the men who used his car, all of whom had attended the nightlong party at Mr. Holle’s house, as had Jessica Snyder.
“When they actually mentioned what was going on, I thought it was a joke,” Mr. Holle added, referring to the plan to steal the Snyders’ safe. “I thought they were just playing around. I was just very naïve. Plus from being drinking that night, I just didn’t understand what was going on.”
I don’t remember if he left it out, but the statement that the Holle knew nothing of the plan was my own assumption and was (apparently, maybe) wrong. Still, the injustice is incredible and completely out of proportion to Holle’s involvement in the crime. From the same article:
Since his release from prison, Holle has partnered with another inmate, Doug Gilding, who wrote a felony murder reform bill entitled the Ryan Holle Reform Act. Gilding’s case involved circumstances similar to Holle’s, in which he was at home asleep when the crime occurred and was sentenced to life without parole under Florida’s felony murder rule.
Upon reading about Holle’s commutation, Gilding, who has been in prison for almost 30 years now, was inspired to write a reform bill that would change Florida’s felony murder law by capping the amount of time in prison for individuals who were not the actual killer or a major participant in the crime.
So far, the bill has received limited support. With Holle now released from prison, advocates hope that he will be able to engage legislators on the issue of Florida’s felony murder law, which currently allows individuals who did not kill anyone or were not present during the crime to receive life sentences.