# John Oliver Nov 9/25 on "felony murder" **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 10, 2025, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745 "2025-11-10T21:07:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/61 "2025-11-11T17:12:03Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > It’s massive travesty of justice to convict someone of murder when all they did was commit burglary. It’s not like home invasion burglary is punishable by a stern talking to and a written warning in the US I don’t think the felony murder rule should always apply - for example, if it isn’t murder when the homeowner shoots one of the people who broke into the house then it shouldn’t be felony murder for the other housebreakers. And certainly if I lend my brother my car which he uses ro commit a crime , I shouldn’t be guilty of felony murder if I didn’t know his plans when I lent him the car. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t apply if a group of people break into the house, everyone knows that some of the group has firearms and someone shoots the owner - everyone knew it was a possibility that someone would get shot. Or if my brother told me he needed my car to go kill his ex. There’s a whole spectrum of possibilities and just becasue I shouldn’t be convicted of murder because I lent my brother a car without knowing his plans doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be convicted if my participation was a short step from being a conspiracy to commit murder . ( If I’m the getway driver for the bank robbery , I’m clearly part of a conspiracy to rob a bank and it’s certainly foreseeable that someone will be murdered in the course of the robbery) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/62 "2025-11-11T17:21:14Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Roughly. The American legal system is of course not one legal system but a whole bunch of legal systems in a trench coat. For the most part their interpretation of self defense matches the one in the UK and Canada. Not if the law of self-defence includes a “stand your ground” clause. That fundamentally alters the meaning and scope of self-defence. Canadian criminal law does not explicitly include a duty to retreat, but the law of self-defence requires the courts to consider what options the person claiming self-defence had, other than deadly force, which can include an inquiry whether the person could have got out of the situation, even in their own home. Section 34(2) fo the Criminal Code provides: > [@](#): > > **No defence** > (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors: > > - (a) the nature of the force or threat; > - (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; > - (c) the person’s role in the incident; > - (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; > - (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident; > - (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat; > - (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident; > - (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and > - (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful. The most recent Supreme Court case considering this section is _R v Khill_, where the accused shot and killed someone who was breaking into his truck in the driveway of his house. The accused was acquitted at trial but the Court of Appeal set it aside, because the judge did not instruct the jury on the issue of the accused’s “role in the incident”. SCC confirmed the decision of the CA and ordered a new trial. That seems to be a different result than cases decided under US “stand your ground” laws that I have seen in the media and on the SDMB. > **[R. v. Khill - SCC Cases](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19020/index.do)** ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/63 "2025-11-11T17:29:44Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Not if the law of self-defence includes a “stand your ground” clause. That fundamentally alters the meaning and scope of self-defence Not for cases like the OP. The right to stand your ground _in your home_ is from English common law. Again the term “castle doctrine” comes from the phrase “an Englishman’s home is his castle” (which in turn is paraphrasing of a speech by Pitt the Elder) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/64 "2025-11-11T17:31:42Z")
I should also mention that the meaning of “castle doctrine” strikes me as having a different emphasis in English and Canadian law than it does in the US. Anglo-Canadian law tends to refer to the castle doctrine as relating to questions of entry by peace officers into a private dwelling house, and the need for a search warrant or other legal justification, such as hot pursuit. Castle doctrine is mentioned as a restriction on government powers, not so much in self-defence sitautions. One of the earliest summaries was William Pitt in the House of Commons, prior to becoming prime minister: > The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter! ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/65 "2025-11-11T17:33:52Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The right to stand your ground _in your home_ is from English common law. Cite, please. That’s not my understanding, as mentioned in the post above. Where is “stand your ground” included in English self-defence law? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/66 "2025-11-11T17:34:41Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I don’t think the felony murder rule should always apply Then you don’t believe in the felony murder rule! That’s how laws work. If you don’t think the law should apply in most of the cases that are covered under the text of the law, then you don’t believe in the law. There is no requirement for the prosecution to show the accused planned or was the instigator of the events that led to the death. If you have a law that says littering should be punishable by amputation of the hand, with no exceptions. It’s not a valid thing to say “well I believe in the hand amputation littering rule, but only for people who have murdered puppies”. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/67 "2025-11-11T17:38:29Z")
‘‘Semayne’s Case’’ does establish that deadly force can be used in the defence of a dwelling house, but I don’t think it amounted to a “stand your ground” approach with no consideration of other factors. I’m off work today (Remembrance Day) but have a source of English law I can check tomorrow on this point, when I’m back in the office. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/68 "2025-11-11T17:40:28Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Cite, please [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law): > The [Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Aid,_Sentencing_and_Punishment_of_Offenders_Act_2012) inserted a new section 76(6A) into the [Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008). This provision clarifies that there is no duty to retreat Again the term “stand your ground law” refers to laws that extend that right to any circumstances, not just someone using self defense in their own home. So you have no duty to retreat if you start a fight with someone in the street. Which is absolutely bs, but has no relevance to the OP as it was in the home ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/69 "2025-11-11T17:41:18Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Then you don’t believe in the felony murder rule! That’s correct. I don’t. Criminal law is based on mens rea. For crimes such as murder, subjective mens rea of likelihood of death is required, at least in the criminal law system I work with, as well as in England & Wales. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/70 "2025-11-11T17:47:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Anglo-Canadian law tends to refer to the castle doctrine as relating to questions of entry by peace officers into a private dwelling house But that was extended to mean a right to exclude anyone from their home, by reasonable force if necessary, in english common law before that usage was used in America. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/71 "2025-11-11T17:48:56Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > This provision clarifies that there is no duty to retreat No absolute duty to retreat, but option of retreat is a factor to consider, as enacted by s. 148(3) of that act: > “(6A) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3), a possibility that D could have retreated is to be considered (so far as relevant) as a factor to be taken into account, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat.” Which strikes me as similar in approach to the Canadian law cited above, and is not the same as “stand your ground”. Nor is s. 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which is being amended, specifically aimed at a dwelling house. It refers to the common law of defence of property, but that is not specifically dwelling places. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/72 "2025-11-11T17:50:15Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But that was extended to mean a right to exclude anyone from their home, by reasonable force if necessary, in english common law before that usage was used in America. No. It has never meant that. If it did, there could never be a search warrant issued for dwelling places. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/73 "2025-11-11T17:50:59Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > One of the earliest summaries was William Pitt in the House of Commons, prior to becoming prime minister: > > > The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter! As restated by Homer Simpson: > If I didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/74 "2025-11-11T17:52:32Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Uh yeah, probably because fixing it after the fact, something that’s in no way assured, Once a sentence is commuted, it is assured. > [@griffin1977](#): > > You know what a right thing to do with people who break into homes? Charge them with burglary. After they kill torture or kill someone? And you need to catch them first. > [@Chronos](#): > > And if they are also armed with a firearm and eager to use it, then showing a gun is a way to end up dead. Yes, which is why I said it is a risk. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > I think the people who think “oh the people in your home with unknown intentions, you have to put yourself in danger to make sure you don’t hurt someone who may or may not want to hurt you” are insane. Have you ever been in a dangerous situation with someone with unknown intentions who has created a very threatening situation towards you? You seem to think you, upon being woken up in the middle of the night by someone breaking into your house, can easily tell the difference between kids who just want to steal your shit and someone who wants to kill you and your family. Right. > [@eschereal](#): > > Not so much “_oh my god, did they take_ ” but “_some assholes were in here going through my stuff_.” > > I can attest to the depths of awful emotion that _in absentia_ burglary gives breath to – the idea of encountering the burglars in the act must be much worse. You enter my home without permission, that is a major violation, comparable to physical assault, and if you are not running away _ **right now** _, all bets are off. > > You can go ahead and say “_it is just stuff, it can be replaced_,” but until you have experienced that kind of personal-space-violation, you have no room to talk. Something many people miss- the sense of violation, _the fact you are no longer safe in your own home._ Many victims experience PTSD, insomnia, a sense of helplessness. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Obviously those do not fit “my philosophy” and don’t meet any of the criteria I described in the thread. Right- none of those were home invasions. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/75 "2025-11-11T17:52:32Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Then you don’t believe in the felony murder rule! Which felony murder rule? There are more than 50 different jusridictions in the US. I’m sure I agree with some but not others. Here’s the one for NYS > and, in the > course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight > therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death > of a person other than one of the participants;\> except that in any > prosecution under this subdivision, in which the defendant was not the > only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense > that the defendant: > > (a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, > command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and > > (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or > substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury > and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding > persons; and > > (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was > armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and > > (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant > intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious > physical injury; So if one of the burglars shoots the homeowner , but the accomplice wasn’t armed, didn’t have reason to believe the other participant was armed, and didn’t have reason to beelive the other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious injury, that person has an affirmative defense. I’m fine with that - it means it doesn’t apply to the person who loans their car not knowing what it will be used for as that person didn’t participate in the underlying offense. It doesn’t apply if the burglary victim kills another one of the burglars. It means if the person can convince the jury that he wasn’t armed, that he didn’t know anyone else was armed and that he had no reason to expect someone to engage in conduct likely to cause death or serious injury , the person is not guilty of murder. But the person who decides to commit a crime when they are armed, and they know that other particpants are armed and who has reason to believe that someone will engage in conduct likely to casue death or serious injury - that person is guilty of felony murder. Of course, you don’t have to agree, but it’s not the case that felony murder always includes the situation where the homeowner shoots the burglar and the other burglar gets convicted of murder or someone unwittingly lends their car. And if the law is written to allow that, my opinion is that it’s a problem with how the law was written, not necessarily the concept. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/76 "2025-11-11T17:55:04Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > No absolute duty to retreat, Which is what is meant by “stand your ground”. Under English law (as in most of the US) you have the right stand your ground when in a threatening situation l, only _in your home_. The American “stand your ground laws” extend that right to anywhere. But in the home both the citizens the UK and the US have the right to stand their ground and no duty to retreat ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/77 "2025-11-11T17:58:09Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The American “stand your ground laws” extend that right to anywhere This is incorrect. A few states maybe, but not in America as a whole. California, the most populous state, for example, has no “stand your ground” law. CA, like GB does not have a “duty to retreat” law which is different. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/78 "2025-11-11T18:04:49Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > So if one of the burglars shoots the homeowner , but the accomplice wasn’t armed, didn’t have reason to believe the other participant was armed, and didn’t have reason to beelive the other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious injury, that person has an affirmative defense The **and** here is the kicker. So it still extends the definition of murder to mean take part in a dangerous activity with someone. I don’t know how NY juries tend to interpret this, but I would definitely say breaking into someone’s house (in America) is conduct likely to result in death or serious injury. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/79 "2025-11-11T18:06:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > A few states maybe, Yup I pointed that out above… ---
**Author:** ![Zoobi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/13edae/32.png) [@Zoobi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoobi)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2025, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745/80 "2025-11-11T18:09:50Z")
So are we thinking the husband below should get charged with felony murder for the killing of his wife? > **[House cleaner, mother of 4, fatally shot in Indiana after showing up at the...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cleaning-woman-fatally-shot-indiana-showing-wrong-address-rcna242352)** > > Maria Florinda Rios Perez, a 32-year-old immigrant from Guatemala, died in her husband's arms, her brother said. I am sure the homeowner was fearful for his life and his family’s life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-oliver-nov-9-25-on-felony-murder/1024745.md?page=5)