• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Getaway driver arrested for murder.

marplots said:
You'd think so, but the home invaders decided to risk their lives for a little loot. We are left going with their own depreciated value for their own short lives. Was it suicide by burglary? I don't know. Maybe.
Click to expand...

For all I know, Rodriguez sent the three in there intending for them to be killed. Premeditated murder.
 
Metullus said:
Well, for one thing, this is not television.

If someone breaks into my home and threatens me with violence I owe them no consideration whatever.

Do you have any reason to believe that the homeowner's son was not acting in self-defense other than your infatuation with the perpetrators? Moreover, is it your contention that it is not possible to be both fearful and angry at the same time?

Defending oneself from assailants in one's home is not even close to walking around acting like Charles Bronson.
Click to expand...

You can replace the laptop, or the tv. What are they going to steal that the police cannot trace later?
 
Vixen said:
You can replace the laptop, or the tv. What are they going to steal that the police cannot trace later?
Click to expand...

Well, they could stab you in the throat with their knife, for starters. How are you not getting this? The guy is not a magical mind reader. He had no way of knowing the intentions of these home invaders--and for that matter, neither have you. For all you know they fully planned to kill anybody they found inside. You're operating purely on hindsight, which is a luxury this guy didn't have. So he did the sensible thing and acted to defend himself against the worst.
 
Vixen said:
You can replace the laptop, or the tv. What are they going to steal that the police cannot trace later?
Click to expand...
How, pray, am I to know that they mean me and mine no harm? There are three of them to one of me. They don't need to bring weapons if they are only planning on stealing stuff.

If they are breaking into my home while I am there, it is up to them to convince me that they mean me no harm. I am not obliged to give them the benefit of any doubt, nor should I be so obliged.
 
I wonder if they thought the house was unoccupied, or what. The father and son were inside sleeping - in the middle of the day.
 
Vixen said:
It's a tragedy all round. For the 23-year old who killed the three 17-year olds and the family and friends of the teenagers. The 21-year old obviously has a conscience, as she turned herself in and gave a full confession.

That's life without parole.

Four young lives ruined.
Click to expand...

Five. The shooter isn't going to escape trauma free.
 
Vixen said:
It's a tragedy all round. For the 23-year old who killed the three 17-year olds and the family and friends of the teenagers. The 21-year old obviously has a conscience, as she turned herself in and gave a full confession.

That's life without parole.

Four young lives ruined.
Click to expand...

Because the four of them made an extremely poor decision.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well, they could stab you in the throat with their knife, for starters. How are you not getting this? The guy is not a magical mind reader. He had no way of knowing the intentions of these home invaders--and for that matter, neither have you. For all you know they fully planned to kill anybody they found inside. You're operating purely on hindsight, which is a luxury this guy didn't have. So he did the sensible thing and acted to defend himself against the worst.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go with troll. If not - wow too bad. :eye-poppi Not even worth arguing with.

ETA: If the intruders were unarmed it would make no difference to me, sans any odd extenuating circumstances. 3 guys in my house? If the bad guys aren't running out the door the moment I see them I will assume the worst.
 
Last edited:
I keep a selection of knives on my kitchen counter. That way, if you break in unarmed, you can choose something you like before I shoot you.
 
arthwollipot said:
From what I'm understanding, this person can be charged and convicted of murder even though they did not actually murder anyone. Is that right? Does this mean that accessory charges don't even exist?

When I was learning basic law in high school, driving a getaway car was the definitive example of an accessory. As in, "What does accessory mean?" "The getaway car driver is an accessory. They didn't take part in the crime itself, but they knew about it and facilitated it." A distinction was also drawn between an accessory before the crime, who had knowledge prior to the crime being committed, and an accessory after the crime, who did not.

For example, if the getaway driver had been a participant in the plan to murder someone from the beginning, they would be an accessory before. If they had no idea what was going to happen until after the actual murderer came out and said "Okay, you gotta take me away from here because I just murdered someone", they would be an accessory after.

From what I'm being told here, if the person was a participant in the plan to murder someone from the beginning, they they are a murderer because they had the intent to have the person end up murdered, regardless of whether they actually pulled the trigger or not. This would mean that what I described above as an accessory after would not be a murderer, because they did not have the intent. Is that right?

My knowledge of law is limited, and what I learned in Australia may be different from what the law is in America. Heck, what the law is in America may be different from what the law is in another part of America, so I think my confusion is understandable. I would have thought that murder was a federal crime though, and would be treated consistently.
Click to expand...

I realize that when you posted this you were think that it was the homeowner who got killed, but I’ll address it anyway.

Murder is usually a state crime. Murder is only a federal crime if it is a government official (elected/appointed official, law enforcement officer or their immediate family), intended to influence a court case (judge, court officer, juror, witness, victim), in connection with certain other federal crimes (bank robbery, rape, child molestation/rape, drug trafficking), on a ship, through the mail (send a bomb or poison), solicitation for murder, by a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a prisoner thereof, or in some cases where the murder is committed on federal land or involves crossing state borders.

The laws for murder vary from state to state. In some states a person is guilty of murder if they order a murder or involved in any part of the planning or execution of the murder. This usually falls under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws originally designed to take down the leaders of organized crime. This is why Charles Manson was convicted of murder by the State of California even though he didn’t actually kill any of the victims.

In those states a person would be guilty of conspiracy if they helped plan a murder but it got busted up before it happened. They would be guilty of accessory if they helped cover up a murder after it was committed.

In a state with a RICO type law, the person would be guilty of accessory if they helped plan the murder or helped conceal it. That is, their participation was before or after the crime, but they didn’t actually participate in the crime.

A getaway driver would be an “accomplice”. In some states an accomplice would be guilty of aiding and abetting. In other states, the person would also be guilty of the murder.

In some states a person is guilty of murder if a person is killed while they are committing a crime. That is what we have here for first degree murder in Oklahoma:

A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances or synthetic controlled substances, trafficking in illegal drugs, or manufacturing or attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance.
Click to expand...

Note that malice is not a condition here. This usually applies to someone getting killed by the criminals: two guys hold up a liquor store and one guy ends up shooting the cashier; they are both guilty of murder. But note that it says “or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results” during the crimes listed. The homeowner took the life of a human being and the crime of burglary resulted in the death of a human being, so the driver is charged with first degree murder.

It seems a bit odd to me. But there have been cases where the police have shot one suspect in a crime and then charged the other with murder as a result of that person’s death.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
From what I'm understanding, this person can be charged and convicted of murder even though they did not actually murder anyone. Is that right? Does this mean that accessory charges don't even exist?
Click to expand...
There was a thread when these were the JREF forums, circa 2008 or 2009 IIRC, wherein it was discussed regarding a case in Houston that, since the driver was an accomplice, he was liable for the murder charge of the guy who did the shooting. That thread went for some pages. I know you were on the JREF forums then, so you may be able to recall how deeply we dissected the rules on that.

As this is Oklahoma, not sure how close or far from Texas law they are, but I'll propose that they are similar.
 
Darth Rotor said:
There was a thread when these were the JREF forums, circa 2008 or 2009 IIRC, wherein it was discussed regarding a case in Houston that, since the driver was an accomplice, he was liable for the murder charge of the guy who did the shooting. That thread went for some pages. I know you were on the JREF forums then, so you may be able to recall how deeply we dissected the rules on that.

As this is Oklahoma, not sure how close or far from Texas law they are, but I'll propose that they are similar.
Click to expand...
This is the thread - a Matteo Martini classic.
 
Vixen said:
If say, all they showed him was a knife, then why not just shoot him in the hand? Give them a chance to get out. One fled to the lawn and died there.

If the homeowner's son shot them in anger, rather than self-defence, then he should be charged with manslaughter.

People can't walk around acting like Charles Bronson vigilantes.
Click to expand...
It's actually quite hard to shoot someone in the hand, which is small and can move pretty quickly. It can be done, but it takes a degree of skill and precision that most regular folks just don't have.

TragicMonkey said:
Remind me how many guns the Yorkshire Ripper used? Was it zero? It was zero. In fact if memory serves his first two victims were killed with rocks. Which you'd find to be innocent objects, because many people carry rocks with them.
Click to expand...
If the murder rate in the UK was in any way comparable to the murder rate in the USA, then you might have a point. Since it isn't, you don't.

Metullus said:
This is the thread - a Matteo Martini classic.
Click to expand...
I did a quick search to see if I had posted in that thread, and I didn't. I don't recall it. Anyway, I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss a thing a second time, ten years later.
 
Vixen said:
If say, all they showed him was a knife, then why not just shoot him in the hand?
.
Click to expand...

I think you are being disturbingly bloodthirsty there. Why couldn't he just shoot the blade of the knife, shattering it?

Vixen said:
People can't walk around acting like Charles Bronson vigilantes.
Click to expand...

Especially not in their own homes.
 
Lemme see...these guys show with weapons and in the middle of the day. seems like they had a target to me, they just didn't foresee the outside help with the AR-15.

This whole thing stinks like a bad drug deal...at least to me.
 
Jules Galen said:
Lemme see...these guys show with weapons and in the middle of the day. seems like they had a target to me, they just didn't foresee the outside help with the AR-15.

This whole thing stinks like a bad drug deal...at least to me.
Click to expand...

I suspect that her three stooges did not have the ability to forsee anything.

Bad drug deal makes no sense at all. given the deceased wouldn't rule it out, but it is illogical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom