No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder

[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!!!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It is not uncommon.

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!

So if I understand what you are saying, the logic is that this death wouldn't have happened if they didn't decide to break in? And because of that, it is considered a consequence of that decision to break, thus holding him responsible? Meh IDK if I agree with that logic but I think I understand it

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

So if I understand what you are saying, the logic is that this death wouldn't have happened if they didn't decide to break in? And because of that, it is considered a consequence of that decision to break, thus holding him responsible?

Pretty much. This guy intended to break and commit robbery, therefore he is deemed to have intended any consequence that might fliow from the commission of that felony.

FWIW, the basic idea is centuries old -- like maybe about seven or eight centuries. Don't know if that makes you feel any better about it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Pretty much. This guy intended to break and commit robbery, therefore he is deemed to have intended any consequence that might fliow from the commission of that felony.

FWIW, the basic idea is centuries old -- like maybe about seven or eight centuries. Don't know if that makes you feel any better about it.

The theory of felony murder arising from the death of an accomplice is something I understand to be a minority view, or at least that's what the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' members who dissented from the earlier cases on the subject stated.