No Charges for Teen Widow Who Used Deadly Force Against Intruder

[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.

[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]

Well technically he wouldn't be a murderer until he was convicted of murder wouldn't he?

[christiangirl]

I think he would be a murderer if he murdered someone. I mean, is a thief not a thief if he is never caught and convicted of theft?

Oh snap, we just got philosophical up in here!

ETA: LOL Seriously, so are you using "murder" only as a legal term and not literally to mean "having killed someone?" I just looked it up and saw there's a difference. #googleismyfriend

[FHwku]

i'm glad she shot one before they hurt her and her baby. tangent:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

(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...

...where were the police?

probably the same place they were when a 16-year-old girl married a man 40 years her senior. or when he knocked her up the next year.
gross:

"i'm here for the gangbang."

[IrishLake]

I read something somewhere that he wasn't the biological father to her child. That he knew he was dying, and married her so that someone (a young teen mom) would benefit from his death. I'll try to find it.

I'm sure the age of consent comes into play. Icky, yes. But legal, yes. No different than the Courtney Stodden chick and her creepy ass actor husband.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

That may well be the case. I don't know. I know I have seen it applied this way, but how many states would do so, I don't know.