You are correct- “just” a permanent crippling brain injury. Still, that injury was not only caused outside the home while the perps were running, but after one of them lay helpless.
John Oliver has a great episode on that one too! don’t know how much has changed (2021) about it since.
The kids were committing burglary. They did not commit murder. They did not try to commit murder. There is no evidence that they intended to hurt let alone kill anyone. Were they even armed?
Castle laws make sense to me. When someone breaks into your home, calling 911 is too slow even when you’re in town: whatever bad shit that happens will happen before the cops arrive. I don’t blame the homeowner for being armed and shooting one of the kids, and fortunately neither does the law.
But charging the other kids with murder as if they’d killed the kid themselves just makes no sense at all. There was no murder committed, just self-defense on the part of the homeowner. Because the homeowner legitimately defended himself, the kids are murderers? If just one kid had broken in, and he had been shot and killed by the homeowner, it wouldn’t have been a murder. But because the kid had accomplices, the accomplices ‘murdered’ him? What bullshit.
ETA: If it had just been the one kid that had broken in, and I’d loaned him a crowbar that he’d used to pry his way in, would I have committed felony murder? Sure sounds like it.
Problem is, when you wake up and someone is already in your house, you aren’t going to be particularly good at figuring out what they’re there for, or sorting your way through this bit of logic, correct though it may be.
Did they knowingly, intentionally and willfully commit a felony? And did someone die due to the felony, who would not have died without it being committed? Thus the felony led to a death.
That’s the “logic”, alright. And quite frankly, I’d be afraid to live in a country that applied that kind of “logic” to the justice system, where almost anyone could get life without parole through the most tenuous connection to a crime. As already said, it’s clearly unconstitutional or otherwise abolished in civilized countries. In Canada, it would be prohibited by Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and states that the government cannot take these rights away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This means that any law that infringes on these rights must be fair, non-arbitrary, and not overbroad or disproportionate. It also protects certain aspects of a person’s liberty, such as the right to make fundamental personal decisions, engage in common occupations, and worship according to one’s conscience.
Get better damn soon.
You left out a couple of instances of ‘indirectly.’
I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here.
I’m saying that actually knowing how often burglars are armed with intent to hurt or kill in your area, should influence your decision much more than horror stories from the Internet or the 6 O’Clock News.
No it didn’t, at least the felony committed by the people being sent to prison for murder did not. The felony committed by the guy who got shot led to his death, but he’s not being charged. The burglary committed by the others was not in anyway a cause of the death. This law makes “doing something illegal and dangerous with someone” the same as “murdering someone”. That’s a travesty of justice.
It might be a little less of a travesty if the prosecution has to prove the accused was an instigator of the felony and it would not have happened without them. But they don’t have to prove anything of the sort
Just to be clear, I was talking about a hypothetical, general ‘you,’ and not in any way myself, when I said “when you wake up” etc. I have never owned a firearm, and expect to live the rest of my life without feeling the need to acquire one.
But how many people typically “actually know…how often burglars are armed with intent to hurt or kill in your area”? And when the sound of an intruder wakes a homeowner up in the middle of the night, how does he know that that person is there to commit burglary, rather than, say, rape his teenage daughter? “Yeah, lemme get out my calculator and figure out which is more likely,” says the half-awake homeowner.
ETA: That square is supposed to be a pair of brackets, the standard notation indicating that part of a quote (in this case, ‘ing’) was omitted. Apparently that doesn’t work here.
They should spend more time finding the answers to those questions then they do acquiring the gun. Btw, “half asleep” is the worst time of all to pick up a gun
Yeah, it turns it into an interactive check box, which is kinda neat!
I edited your post to change it into ellipses, though.
You left out the possibility that it actually is your teenaged daughter, I noticed.
Thanks! Hope you don’t mind that I deleted the first closing quote so that the whole quote is inside the quotation marks.
Moderating:
You’re getting uncomfortably close to engaging in a personal attack. However passionately you feel on this topic, dial back the venom, please.
No worries!
I meant “a” teenaged daughter, of course, trying to keep it as impersonal as I know the person I was responding to was.
That’s not obvious from what you wrote. Again, please be mindful of how you’re coming across.