No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder

[DaffyKD]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

No, I read it. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The accomplice didn't pull the trigger, obviously. I would assume that investigators ruled out the possibility that the accomplice wasn't somehow forced to participate, but that's not known from the article.

The prosecutors are using the felony murder rule http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741

As long as there is a felony act in which a death occurs, you can be charged with that murder even though you had no intent to kill nor did you actually pull the trigger.

DaffyKD

[thetalady]

GOOD GIRL!!! Proud of her & her shooting skills. She could be a Texan, although we wouldn't bother to ask a 911 operator for permission to kill the bastards. I'm just sorry that she didn't get them both.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by DaffyKD

The prosecutors are using the felony murder rule http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741

As long as there is a felony act in which a death occurs, you can be charged with that murder even though you had no intent to kill nor did you actually pull the trigger.

DaffyKD

Thanks for the definition KD. It now "hangs together" as far as it goes, and technically answers my question.

Here's what gave thought to my earlier comment, however. How is it that criminal participants can do/commit the same crime, yet one or more often get lesser or more severe sentences than their co-criminals (and I undertstand people turning state's evidence on each other in exchange for lighter sentences.) Are their reasons, other than state's evidence, for this?

And, in your opinion, does the co-criminal in the OP likely carry the 1st degree charge becuase a death occurred?

Don't you just love the way I assumed you were an attorney?

[DaffyKD]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Thanks for the definition KD. It now "hangs together" as far as it goes, and technically answers my question.


And, in your opinion, does the co-criminal in the OP likely carry the 1st degree charge becuase a death occurred?

Don't you just love the way I assumed you were an attorney?

Unable to give opinion. Although I graduated from law school, I never passed the bar and thus am not an attorney.

DaffyKD

[christiangirl]

I agree with the girl's right to defend herself and her child (even though I don't like that someone died) but, while I understand the with the interpretation of this law, I disagree with it.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

A lot of the reasoning behind the rule has to do with foreseeability. If you burn a building down, you it is foreseeable that an occupant or firefighter may killed, even if you thought the building was empty and no one would fight the fire. So the intent comes in when you intend to commit the violent felony (arson, robbery, rape, kidnapping) where someone COULD get killed.

That is different than what happened here. A firefighter or occupant is an unwilling participant in the fire--the arsonist would have started that fire with no regard to their wills or wishes and would thus be responsible for the situation. The person who was shot in this scenario was (presumably) willingly and knowingly burglarizing the house with his accomplice. That is why it isn't logical to me that someone is responsible for his own actions yet someone else is responsible for his consequences.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

The person who was shot in this scenario was (presumably) willingly and knowingly burglarizing the house with his accomplice. That is why it isn't logical to me that someone is responsible for his own actions yet someone else is responsible for his consequences.

They were acting together, so they share responsibility for what happens.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

They were acting together, so they share responsibility for what happens.

Yep. Drugs kill in one way or another. Shame on him for trying to prey on an 18 year old newly single mom at the holiday season anyway. How low can you get?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

They were acting together, so they share responsibility for what happens.

I still disagree with that logic. It just isn't sensible to me but since I'm neither a criminal nor an OK resident, my support isn't important.

So what if he hadn't died -- would the accomplice have gotten lesser charges (assault witha dealt weapon or something similar)? If they had both been shot and injured, would they both have been charged because each was responsible for the other's injury? Serious question, I'm unfamiliar with this law so Idk how far it goes.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I still disagree with that logic. It just isn't sensible to me but since I'm neither a criminal nor an OK resident, my support isn't important.

Well, as far as I know, you could see the same result in any state.

So what if he hadn't died -- would the accomplice have gotten lesser charges (assault witha dealt weapon or something similar)? If they had both been shot and injured, would they both have been charged because each was responsible for the other's injury? Serious question, I'm unfamiliar with this law so Idk how far it goes.

As noted up-thread, he was charged with murder under the felony murder rule. So, while a general theory of transferred intent lies behind it, it only applies when someone is killed. And like I said earlier, in most states (as far as I know), only some felonies can serve to support the felony murder rule. It basically means that if you commit a felony (many states will specify which felonies), you can be charged with first degree murder if someone is killed during the commission of the felony. The usual rule for first degree murder -- that the person charged formed the specific intent to kill -- is suspended, and the intent to commit the underlying felony also serves as the necessary intent for purposes of first degree murder.