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)
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:
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.
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)
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!
Cite, please. That’s not my understanding, as mentioned in the post above. Where is “stand your ground” included in English self-defence law?
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”.
‘‘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.
Here:
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 inserted a new section 76(6A) into the 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
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.
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 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.
No. It has never meant that. If it did, there could never be a search warrant issued for dwelling places.
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!
Once a sentence is commuted, it is assured.
After they kill torture or kill someone? And you need to catch them first.
Yes, which is why I said it is a risk.
Right.
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.
Right- none of those were home invasions.
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.
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
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.
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.
Yup I pointed that out above…
So are we thinking the husband below should get charged with felony murder for the killing of his wife?
I am sure the homeowner was fearful for his life and his family’s life.