No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder

[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.