No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder

[AlphaFrog]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...illed-intruder

I can't get the article excerpt to copy right, but basically an 18 year old widow (her husband was 58 and had just been buried that day - which I'm sure is it's own story) with a 3 month old baby used deadly force against an intruder which is permissable in OK. The intruder's accomplice is being charged with the muder. Where I think this story is goofy is that it said she had been on the line with the 911 operator for 20 minutes...where were the police?

[IrishLake]

The way it sounded to me was that she was in a very rural area. 20 minutes for a police or EMS response is not unheard of in some areas near where I live.

And good for her. Despite her odd situation with the husband, she was smart enough to keep a cool head about her during this whole thing and did the right thing.

[TonyB06]

The woman did what she felt necessary to do for her and her child's safety, but I'm not understanding why the accomplice was charged with first degree murder?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

The woman did what she felt necessary to do for her and her child's safety, but I'm not understanding why the accomplice was charged with first degree murder?

From the article:

Prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities, Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the gunshots.

"When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said.

[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.

[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

[christiangirl]

^^^I can appreciate the thought process but this is all beside my point. A man is being charged with a murder when he was not the murderer and I see flaw in that. I just stated an opinion on the topic at hand--you don't have to agree that the flaw is there and I'm really not trying to challenge you on it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

^^^I can appreciate the thought process but this is all beside my point. A man is being charged with a murder when he was not the murderer and I see flaw in that. I just stated an opinion on the topic at hand--you don't have to agree that the flaw is there and I'm really not trying to challenge you on it.

By saying "he was not the murderer" you kind of are challenging it

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

By saying "he was not the murderer" you kind of are challenging it

That is another debate.

[Psi U MC Vito]

I'm sorry but that sounds like a injustice to me. The other guy was in no way responsible for the other person being killed.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I'm sorry but that sounds like a injustice to me. The other guy was in no way responsible for the other person being killed.

He was involved with the robbery, so it's not as if he was an innocent bystander.

And this is not the first time I've heard of something like this happening.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

He was involved with the robbery, so it's not as if he was an innocent bystander.

And this is not the first time I've heard of something like this happening.

He wasn't an innocent bystander, but I believe in charging somebody for the crime they committed. I don't see how they can possibly justify interperating the statute like that. Then again, I am nowhere near qualified to commit on legal matters.

[KSUViolet06]

I've seen it applied that way before.

Bob and Ray rob a convenience store. Ray waits in the getaway car while Bob goes in to actually commit the robbery. Cashier shoots and kills Bob.

According to the law, Ray is responsible for Bob's death, as they were committing the crime together.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I have no argument with the felony murder rule, but I hadn't heard of it being applied in a case where the death was the death of an accomplice. Victim, bystander, cop, firefighter, yes, but not a fellow perpetrator. Maybe someone with more criminal experience than I have can tell me if this is usually the charge on these facts.

It is not uncommon.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

He wasn't an innocent bystander, but I believe in charging somebody for the crime they committed. I don't see how they can possibly justify interperating the statute like that.

It's not an unusual interpretation, though many states have some restrictions on which felonies can underlie the felony murder rule.

The general idea is this: if one forms the intent to commit a felony and carries out that felony, then one can be charged with any death that occurs as as a result from the commission of that felony. In other words, if you break into someone's house to commit robbery, you then have to accept the consequences if a death result from that crime, even if it's the death of your accomplice.

At least that's the general idea. Exactly how it works in Oklahoma, someone else would have to say. Paging Kevin!

[AlphaFrog]

Just read this story from several other sources and one of them called her the "Make My Day Mom". LOVE IT!!!