Meanwhile, in Broken Arrow OK...Pow Pow Pow

AHRMA361
Posts
2465
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NE, OH US
Fantasy
262nd
3/29/2017 6:00am
Guy with AR is 3 for 3 when masked thieves break down his door to rob the place. Their getaway driver charged with murder due to her involvement with the crime.


http://www.fox23.com/news/three-killed-in-wagoner-county-shooting/50646…
|
TXDirt
Posts
7384
Joined
7/29/2015
Location
Plano, TX US
3/29/2017 6:48am
Don't want none won't be none.
newmann
Posts
24444
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
3/29/2017 7:05am
Sounds like a good shoot so far. Brass knuckles, knife, rifle. Hmmmm. I'll pick the.....

That right there is why we have high capacity magazines. More and more we see multiple people doing the home invasions. There was a good home security video a few weeks back of some lady blasting the shit out of three or four thugs in her house. She scored some hits as well.
huck
Posts
17008
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mountain Home, AR US
3/29/2017 7:25am
#happyending
JRT812
Posts
2730
Joined
3/4/2014
Location
Cottontown, TN US
3/29/2017 7:37am
In my opinion the girl looked more like a criminal than the three boys who were killed. Tough lesson to learn....

The Shop

JAFO92
Posts
4245
Joined
3/21/2016
Location
BFE, TX US
3/29/2017 8:30am Edited Date/Time 3/29/2017 8:31am
newmann wrote:
Sounds like a good shoot so far. Brass knuckles, knife, rifle. Hmmmm. I'll pick the..... That right there is why we have high capacity magazines. More...
Sounds like a good shoot so far. Brass knuckles, knife, rifle. Hmmmm. I'll pick the.....

That right there is why we have high capacity magazines. More and more we see multiple people doing the home invasions. There was a good home security video a few weeks back of some lady blasting the shit out of three or four thugs in her house. She scored some hits as well.
That is the first thing the told us in the CHL class I took years ago, if you have an intruder and you have to use lethal force, just because that perp is on the floor doesnt mean you are safe. More often than not they work in groups or 3 or more, so retreat to a safe place (closet or small room with one door in so you can cover it) and get your 911 call going. Certainly do not go outside looking around, wait for law enforcement.
Mini Elsinore
Posts
1968
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Huntington Beach, CA US
3/29/2017 8:59am Edited Date/Time 3/29/2017 9:01am
Good shot!
kzizok
Posts
8392
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
AS US
Fantasy
1859th
3/29/2017 9:24am
Anybody remember me asking about my AR that disappeared?
Falcon
Posts
10034
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
Fantasy
765th
3/29/2017 10:12am
I'm not sure how they do it in OK, but I can't see the getaway driver getting convicted of murder. Manslaughter, maybe.

Am I wrong? I mean, I know here in California we'd be afraid to prosecute in case it offends somebody, but even in OK they must realize that she did not commit Murder 1.
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
3/29/2017 12:31pm
Falcon wrote:
I'm not sure how they do it in OK, but I can't see the getaway driver getting convicted of murder. Manslaughter, maybe. Am I wrong? I...
I'm not sure how they do it in OK, but I can't see the getaway driver getting convicted of murder. Manslaughter, maybe.

Am I wrong? I mean, I know here in California we'd be afraid to prosecute in case it offends somebody, but even in OK they must realize that she did not commit Murder 1.
Death during the Commission of a Felony
The felony murder rule elevates killings that occur during the commission of a felony to murders. Several limitations apply to this old and arguably unnecessary theory.

The felony murder rule elevates killings that occur during the commission of a felony to murders. Several limitations apply to this old and arguably unnecessary theory.Unintentional Death

The rule applies whether the felon kills intentionally, recklessly, or even accidentally; and even when the death was unforeseeable. For example, a robber whose gun discharges by mistake, killing a bystander, can be charged with felony murder. And, a killing by a codefendant can be attributed to the defendant, as when one of two robbers kills a victim, then is himself killed– the surviving partner can be charged with felony murder.

As these examples illustrate, a perpetrator can end-up charged with murder in the most attenuated circumstances. The problem here is that normally, first-degree murder requires that the prosecutor prove that the defendant intended the death and had a state of mind called “malice.” Broadly speaking, malice is evidence of a “depraved heart,” or an evil state of mind. Prosecutors get around the malice requirement by arguing that the intention that propelled the underlying felony constituted “implied malice.”

The Rationale Behind the Felony Murder Rule

Several theories attempt to justify the felony murder rule, though they find little support in legal scholarship. The most common one is to claim that the felony murder rule deters crime. This theory argues that if would-be felons realized that they’ll face murder charges if an accidental death happens during the offense, these folks will re-think their crime plans (or at least commit their offenses more carefully). The trouble is, reason doesn’t support this argument (how does one deter an unintended act?). And, no empirical data supports this argument.

Limits on the Rule: All Felonies?

As noted earlier, modern laws differentiate between inherently dangerous, serious felonies, and all others. First-degree murder applies to deaths occurring in the former group, second-degree to those in the latter.

Some courts identify “inherently dangerous” crimes by analyzing them in the abstract, and asking whether by their very nature, there’s a substantial likelihood that a killing will result. Other courts examine the facts of the individual cases before them, and decide on a case-by-case basis whether, given the circumstances and the defendant’s conduct, the death should be considered first- or second-degree murder.
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
3/29/2017 12:35pm Edited Date/Time 3/29/2017 12:35pm
The getaway driver was also the one who planned the burglary and knew the homeowner who shot them. She is gonna fry .Evil
Mini Elsinore
Posts
1968
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Huntington Beach, CA US
3/29/2017 2:49pm Edited Date/Time 3/29/2017 2:49pm
kzizok wrote:
Anybody remember me asking about my AR that disappeared?
Well, well....(said while stroking the beard).
Preparation is everything.
[Hat tip to ya, sir]
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
3/29/2017 4:18pm
kzizok wrote:
Anybody remember me asking about my AR that disappeared?
No, so what is the story?
IWreckALot
Posts
8676
Joined
3/12/2011
Location
Fort Worth, TX US
3/30/2017 11:07am
kzizok wrote:
Anybody remember me asking about my AR that disappeared?
Dammit. You have now left us all hanging twice.
kzizok
Posts
8392
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
AS US
Fantasy
1859th
3/30/2017 11:16am Edited Date/Time 3/30/2017 11:33am
Sorry. Forgot about this thread. I recently had an AR get stolen and posted asking advice/ideas how to follow up. Honestly, Im a little nervous about it. Then this happened, but it wasnt mine. I was posting about this being coincedental.

Not much to it really. Apologizes.
Falcon
Posts
10034
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
Fantasy
765th
3/30/2017 4:44pm
lostboy819 wrote:
The getaway driver was also the one who planned the burglary and knew the homeowner who shot them. She is gonna fry .Evil
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe....

My point was that it wasn't the burglars who perpetrated a murder. In fact, no murder was committed; it was self-defense inside one's home. The fact that she knew the homeowner makes it possible that she knew he would protect his home with deadly force... well, then if that flies, there's your "premeditated" part. So maybe...
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
3/30/2017 4:54pm Edited Date/Time 3/30/2017 5:00pm
Falcon wrote:
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe...
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe....

My point was that it wasn't the burglars who perpetrated a murder. In fact, no murder was committed; it was self-defense inside one's home. The fact that she knew the homeowner makes it possible that she knew he would protect his home with deadly force... well, then if that flies, there's your "premeditated" part. So maybe...
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing a felony and that sets her and the 3 burglars up for a murder charge if anyone is killed, even if its the burglars who die.
Piston Slap
Posts
1631
Joined
7/2/2013
Location
Stillwater, OK US
Fantasy
2361st
3/30/2017 7:02pm Edited Date/Time 3/31/2017 10:05am
Ed,

That is an Excellent description of the Felony Murder Rule.

If convicted, She will be technically guilty of the murder of her friends/burglers/co-conspirators
borg
Posts
5714
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
3/30/2017 7:03pm
Falcon wrote:
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe...
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe....

My point was that it wasn't the burglars who perpetrated a murder. In fact, no murder was committed; it was self-defense inside one's home. The fact that she knew the homeowner makes it possible that she knew he would protect his home with deadly force... well, then if that flies, there's your "premeditated" part. So maybe...
lostboy819 wrote:
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing...
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing a felony and that sets her and the 3 burglars up for a murder charge if anyone is killed, even if its the burglars who die.
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with.
Her being charged with murder makes zero fucking sense. BTW, I don't care what happens to her. It's just idiotic law.
Don't get me started on forfeiture laws.
kzizok
Posts
8392
Joined
10/19/2010
Location
AS US
Fantasy
1859th
3/30/2017 7:39pm
Isn't someone in here an attorney?
drmarkr
Posts
3211
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Tucson, AZ US
3/30/2017 8:03pm
*raises hand*

She'll be locked away for 2nd degree murder. You heard it here first.....

APLMAN99
Posts
10054
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
3/30/2017 9:32pm
Ed,

That is an Excellent description of the Felony Murder Rule.

If convicted, She will be technically guilty of the murder of her friends/burglers/co-conspirators
I think she's technically "charged". She'll probably be technically "guilty" after her trial or plea......
hillbilly
Posts
9080
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Afton, TN US
3/30/2017 9:43pm
Ed,

That is an Excellent description of the Felony Murder Rule.

If convicted, She will be technically guilty of the murder of her friends/burglers/co-conspirators
APLMAN99 wrote:
I think she's technically "charged". She'll probably be technically "guilty" after her trial or plea......
She isn't dead,so,she has that going for her i guess.

Wonder what she thought when the gunfire started and nobody came out to get away,lol.
TXDirt
Posts
7384
Joined
7/29/2015
Location
Plano, TX US
3/31/2017 1:47am
Falcon wrote:
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe...
That's different, then. I must have missed the part where she knew the homeowner. I'm still not convinced she'll go down for Murder 1. Manslaughter, maybe....

My point was that it wasn't the burglars who perpetrated a murder. In fact, no murder was committed; it was self-defense inside one's home. The fact that she knew the homeowner makes it possible that she knew he would protect his home with deadly force... well, then if that flies, there's your "premeditated" part. So maybe...
lostboy819 wrote:
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing...
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing a felony and that sets her and the 3 burglars up for a murder charge if anyone is killed, even if its the burglars who die.
borg wrote:
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with. Her being charged with murder makes zero...
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with.
Her being charged with murder makes zero fucking sense. BTW, I don't care what happens to her. It's just idiotic law.
Don't get me started on forfeiture laws.
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they don't get killed. It's about a connected chain of events.

I have no problem with this law. She is absolutely an accessory. She knows if you break into a house there is a chance of being killed. She drove them there anyways. Her decisions contributed to their deaths. You don't have to pull a trigger to kill someone. Decisions you make can cause death just as easily.
AHRMA361
Posts
2465
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NE, OH US
Fantasy
262nd
3/31/2017 5:24am
The law is basically another way to deter people from unlawful behavior.

"Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending. Deterrence is often contrasted with retributivism, which holds that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done."
borg
Posts
5714
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
3/31/2017 5:50am
lostboy819 wrote:
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing...
Clearly you do not understand the law, it would not matter even if she didn't know the home owners, her big problem was she was committing a felony and that sets her and the 3 burglars up for a murder charge if anyone is killed, even if its the burglars who die.
borg wrote:
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with. Her being charged with murder makes zero...
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with.
Her being charged with murder makes zero fucking sense. BTW, I don't care what happens to her. It's just idiotic law.
Don't get me started on forfeiture laws.
TXDirt wrote:
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they...
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they don't get killed. It's about a connected chain of events.

I have no problem with this law. She is absolutely an accessory. She knows if you break into a house there is a chance of being killed. She drove them there anyways. Her decisions contributed to their deaths. You don't have to pull a trigger to kill someone. Decisions you make can cause death just as easily.
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with the pusher and the pusher shoots him dead I am guilty of murder? Is my Brother, who loaned me 5 bucks for gas so I could take my Cousin down there also a murderer? Vague laws are moral hazard for prosecutors who looking to fatten up their resume.

TXDirt
Posts
7384
Joined
7/29/2015
Location
Plano, TX US
3/31/2017 6:32am
borg wrote:
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with. Her being charged with murder makes zero...
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with.
Her being charged with murder makes zero fucking sense. BTW, I don't care what happens to her. It's just idiotic law.
Don't get me started on forfeiture laws.
TXDirt wrote:
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they...
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they don't get killed. It's about a connected chain of events.

I have no problem with this law. She is absolutely an accessory. She knows if you break into a house there is a chance of being killed. She drove them there anyways. Her decisions contributed to their deaths. You don't have to pull a trigger to kill someone. Decisions you make can cause death just as easily.
borg wrote:
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with...
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with the pusher and the pusher shoots him dead I am guilty of murder? Is my Brother, who loaned me 5 bucks for gas so I could take my Cousin down there also a murderer? Vague laws are moral hazard for prosecutors who looking to fatten up their resume.

Buying pot does not come with the expectation that you could be killed. Breaking into a persons home comes with the expectation you may be killed. In your example you also do not have any prior knowledge that he was going to get into an argument with the dealer. See the difference?

If you drop him off and you wait in the car and you knew he was going to try and rob the dealer then there is an expectation he or the dealer could be killed. You also had prior knowledge he was going to rob the dealer. So therefore whatever happens you would be partly to blame.

It's more to do with prior knowledge of what is going to happen before it happens. She knew they were going to break into a home. She did nothing to prevent that. In fact in this case she was a contributing party to the break in. Anything that happens she is partly responsible for. Does not matter that it was the thief's in her party that were killed. Because she was a contributing party in this situation she can be charged with murder.

This gets a little bit interesting just for the fact that it was the people in her party that were killed.

But lets say in this case the thief's killed the family. Don't you think she should be charged with murder as well? She's driving the getaway car. She didn't pull the trigger but does that absolve her of the deaths?

In both cases I say NO.
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
3/31/2017 7:56am
borg wrote:
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with. Her being charged with murder makes zero...
lostboy is correct. However, this is the kind of nonsense that legislatures made up of lawyers, come up with.
Her being charged with murder makes zero fucking sense. BTW, I don't care what happens to her. It's just idiotic law.
Don't get me started on forfeiture laws.
TXDirt wrote:
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they...
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they don't get killed. It's about a connected chain of events.

I have no problem with this law. She is absolutely an accessory. She knows if you break into a house there is a chance of being killed. She drove them there anyways. Her decisions contributed to their deaths. You don't have to pull a trigger to kill someone. Decisions you make can cause death just as easily.
borg wrote:
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with...
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with the pusher and the pusher shoots him dead I am guilty of murder? Is my Brother, who loaned me 5 bucks for gas so I could take my Cousin down there also a murderer? Vague laws are moral hazard for prosecutors who looking to fatten up their resume.

Think before you post. Were you committing a felony at the time and was his death a direct result of your putting it all in motion ? NO so STFU . Now if you and him were going to the bad neighborhood to rob someone and he gets killed or kills someone, then YES you will be charged.
3/31/2017 8:37am
So who cleans up the mess? I imagine there would be gallons of blood everywhere.
Better call Jake at State Farm, or Farmers, they've seen it all.

MR. X
Posts
6917
Joined
6/24/2010
Location
North Tonawanda, NY US
3/31/2017 8:40am
hillbilly wrote:
She isn't dead,so,she has that going for her i guess.

Wonder what she thought when the gunfire started and nobody came out to get away,lol.
That's the part I don't understand , if 4 people knew the plan and 3 aren't talking,how did she get caught. She could technically make up any story she wanted.
borg
Posts
5714
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
3/31/2017 9:43am
TXDirt wrote:
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they...
Her actions were partially responsible, directly or indirectly, for their deaths. If she doesn't drive them there, they don't go inside. They don't go inside they don't get killed. It's about a connected chain of events.

I have no problem with this law. She is absolutely an accessory. She knows if you break into a house there is a chance of being killed. She drove them there anyways. Her decisions contributed to their deaths. You don't have to pull a trigger to kill someone. Decisions you make can cause death just as easily.
borg wrote:
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with...
So I drop my Cousin off in a bad neighborhood on my way to work to score some pot and he gets into an altercation with the pusher and the pusher shoots him dead I am guilty of murder? Is my Brother, who loaned me 5 bucks for gas so I could take my Cousin down there also a murderer? Vague laws are moral hazard for prosecutors who looking to fatten up their resume.

lostboy819 wrote:
Think before you post. Were you committing a felony at the time and was his death a direct result of your putting it all in motion...
Think before you post. Were you committing a felony at the time and was his death a direct result of your putting it all in motion ? NO so STFU . Now if you and him were going to the bad neighborhood to rob someone and he gets killed or kills someone, then YES you will be charged.
Make it cocaine. Now it's a felony, in a bad neighborhood and I was the wheel man in the purchase. Is that murder?

Post a reply to: Meanwhile, in Broken Arrow OK...Pow Pow Pow

The Latest