Posts
2465
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NE, OH
US
Fantasy
262nd
AHRMA361
3/29/2017 6:00am
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…
http://www.fox23.com/news/three-killed-in-wagoner-county-shooting/50646…
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.
The Shop
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.
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.
Preparation is everything.
[Hat tip to ya, sir]
Not much to it really. Apologizes.
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...
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
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.
Pit Row
She'll be locked away for 2nd degree murder. You heard it here first.....
Wonder what she thought when the gunfire started and nobody came out to get away,lol.
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.
"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."
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.
Better call Jake at State Farm, or Farmers, they've seen it all.
Post a reply to: Meanwhile, in Broken Arrow OK...Pow Pow Pow