No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[NOTE: the following explanation will not necessarily be explicitly correct from a legal standpoint, but is intended to be illustrative instead]

CG, it might help to think about this in terms of "accessory to murder" ... many of us are familiar with that term from a variety of media or other sources. If you're part of a robbery and your accomplice shoots, say, the bank teller, you will also be charged with first degree murder, even if you had no idea the other guy had a gun, were in a different room, whatever.

Most of us agree with the underlying logic: you were there, you were acting in the same vein to commit the original crime, therefore you are responsible by extension for what happens.

The felony murder rule extends to any killing, though - not just one by the perpetrators of the original crime. We see it more often with accomplices, but it's basically the same thing, from a legal standpoint: once you start the train rolling, you are responsible for anything that happens on the tracks.

[christiangirl]

Thanks for the explanation, MC!

Originally Posted by KSig RC

CG, it might help to think about this in terms of "accessory to murder" ... many of us are familiar with that term from a variety of media or other sources. If you're part of a robbery and your accomplice shoots, say, the bank teller, you will also be charged with first degree murder, even if you had no idea the other guy had a gun, were in a different room, whatever.

Yes, it helps to further understand it. However, I disagree with this, too. A person sets out to commit robbery and commits only robbery yet is charged with a murder when he did not commit murder? Again, I understand why he would be called an accessory but that course of punishment just seems like such a...fallacy. Now, in the case of this...

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Once you start the train rolling, you are responsible for anything that happens on the tracks.

Responsible for what happens to those innocent bystanders who weren't aware? Yes. Responsible for what happens to the other one who set the train rolling? Well, he also started the train rolling so it's his own fault he was on the tracks when he knew full well there was a runaway train.

LOL I'm not trying to argue with you, promise. I just think differently.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Thanks for the explanation, MC!


Yes, it helps to further understand it. However, I disagree with this, too. A person sets out to commit robbery and commits only robbery yet is charged with a murder when he did not commit murder? Again, I understand why he would be called an accessory but that course of punishment just seems like such a...fallacy.

Unfortunately, it's the exact opposite of a fallacy - in fact, it's practically the only way it can be done.

First, it's nearly impossible to prove that a person set out to 'only' commit robbery - are there extensive notes beforehand? A mission statement for the crime? Some sort of compact saying "DO NOT SHOOT PEOPLE" that the other criminal violated?

Second, juries get to decide these matters, so it isn't as if the person is immediately locked away for life - they get a day in court. They'll be charged - and I'm sure you can see why.

Third, it would be incredibly difficult to write the law to work in any other fashion, and still be effective.

Now, in the case of this...

Responsible for what happens to those innocent bystanders who weren't aware? Yes. Responsible for what happens to the other one who set the train rolling? Well, he also started the train rolling so it's his own fault he was on the tracks when he knew full well there was a runaway train.

This applies to every (criminal) party involved though, does it not? How do you differentiate?

Put another way: you've basically said "the guy getting shot is responsible for getting himself shot." But the other guy did the exact same thing! Doesn't this mean he is ALSO responsible for getting the other guy shot?

That's the genesis of the rule, almost explicitly.