• 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.

Aepervius said:
The most puzzling aspect of that story to me has always been the fact that when you commit a crime, and somebody kill your accomplice you are under penalty of first degree murder. A quirk of the US system as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

It's not just a US thing. It's present in many legal systems, including the UK's. There was a famous case involving it back in the death penalty days, but I forget the name of it. I think he got the death penalty because he was one of several people committing a robbery and one of his partners shot and killed a cop. Anybody remember that one?
 
Ranb said:
As far as the home invasion victim (the shooter) is concerned, Oklahoma law seems to be protecting him unless there is other evidence that shows the shooter was not acting in defense of himself.
Click to expand...

Home invaders should expect to get shot dead. If someone breaks down my door, I'm not going to ask them whether they just want to steal my TV or rape my wife. I'll respond with deadly force if I can, and deal with the consequences later.
 
Vixen said:
No, all they had was a knife and some brass knuckle dusters, according to early reports. In the USA if your accomplices in a felony die, for whatever reason in the course of the crime (usually burglary or robbery) you can be charged with their first degree murder.

Apparently, this state has a 'Make My Day' law, which means you can shoot any intruder to smithereens with impunity.
Click to expand...

They inherited that from English common law, applies in the UK as well.
 
theprestige said:
The felony didn't result in a homicide. The shooter isn't being charged.

It seems the driver is being charged with the separate crime of "getting her friends killed by taking part in their home invasion, i.e., murdering them".
Click to expand...

That seems weird to me; more of a deterrent law than one that really makes sense. The driver is accessory to the crime of home invasion, and I guess triple manslaughter could be the charge because his actions led to three deaths, but it's not like he drove them there in order to get them killed.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's not just a US thing. It's present in many legal systems, including the UK's. There was a famous case involving it back in the death penalty days, but I forget the name of it. I think he got the death penalty because he was one of several people committing a robbery and one of his partners shot and killed a cop. Anybody remember that one?
Click to expand...

Derek Bentley, the last man to be executed for murder in Britain. It wasn't quite that simple; he was convicted because he was judged to have encouraged Christopher Craig, who fired the shot, by shouting "Let him have it, Chris." It was that statement that was used to establish common enterprise rather than just the fact that they were accomplices in the robbery.

Dave
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
It's not just a US thing. It's present in many legal systems, including the UK's. There was a famous case involving it back in the death penalty days, but I forget the name of it. I think he got the death penalty because he was one of several people committing a robbery and one of his partners shot and killed a cop. Anybody remember that one?
Click to expand...

Derek Bentley?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case
 
Vixen said:
A young life is more important than grandma's silver candlesticks. Come on. Leave the crime solving to the police. Claim on your insurance.
Click to expand...

They invaded an occupied home in the middle of the day. I think it's fair to assume they had violent plans in mind, especially from the perspective of the occupant.
 
smartcooky said:
I hold up a bank with a partner and...

► partner shoots and kills a bank guard, or

► partner is shot and killed by a bank guard, or

► in a shootout, the bank guard accidentally kills another bank employee or customer.

...then AIUI, I can be charged with felony murder in the death of any of these individuals, right?
Click to expand...

Right, as far as I know. You're charged for murder if *anyone* is killed while you and your partner are in commission of the felony.

If you and your partner escapes, and someone dies while your partner is being captured by police days later...I think this does not apply, although I'm no expert. But a prosecutor could still go for it.

The logical basis appears to be that if I had not been holding up the bank, these people would still be alive.
Click to expand...

I'd call it "legal" rather than "logical", but that's part of it. Really, it's more emotional than logical - a lot of people would just want to see you punished.
 
Last edited:
Looking into it more, it seems that England repealed the felony murder law a while ago, and australia still has it.

"England and Wales, Northern Ireland - The rule was abolished in England and Wales by section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957, and in Northern Ireland by section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966; but its effect is preserved by the application of the Common Law principle of "Joint Enterprise". In England and Wales, the definition of murder requires only an intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, rather than specific intent to kill; the effect is the same as that of the felony murder rule applied to crimes of personal violence, though not to all felonies."

"Australia[edit]
§ 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)[15] provides the statutory definition of ‘constructive murder’. The act or omission causing death must be ‘done in an attempt to commit or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years’.[16] The rationale is to discourage acts of felony which are dangerous to human life.

Ryan[17] clarifies the elements of constructive murder. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (1) a base offence with 25 years’ imprisonment or more; and that (2) the act causing death occurred in attempt, during, or immediately after this base offence. This means that the prosecution must prove both the actus reus and mens rea of this base offence. Munro[18] confirmed that the mens rea of the act causing death is not required to prove constructive murder. For example, the accused may commit an act causing death in the course of robbery or armed robbery without any intention to kill, to inflict grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#Australia

But in detail it seems that this could well be a charge still in either nation with the seeming facts of this case.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This isn't the movies. You can't just shoot limbs and expect to hit anything. Even trained professionals have trouble hitting the torso. The guy's lucky to have killed all three.

Four young lives ruined.
Click to expand...

By their own actions. Good riddance.
 
The felony-murder rule is pretty common in the US. Where disputes arise isn't in charging and convicting of first degree murder, but imposing the death penalty for the rule.

Here's an interesting 1982 Supreme Court decision where the getaway driver ended up convicted of murder and sentenced to death: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/81-5321
 
Camillus said:
Even in the UK you are entitled to engage an intruder if they break into your house. You don't need to make them a cup of tea and ask their intentions before you start. You must demonstrate (after the event) that you used reasonable force, but if a UK gun owner shot a knife wielding intruder and his accomplices after they kicked in the door I'd bet dollars to donuts that he (or she) would not be charged.
Click to expand...

Good post. Proportionality of the response seems to work pretty well in civilised jurisdictions.
 
I had a neighborhood kid (tall, 17 years old) walk into my downstairs bedroom after midnight one night, which had a door to the outside. He panicked and ran when I turned on the light. He yet lives, and has grandchildren.

I caught two Romanian thieves breaking into my restaurant one night from a light shaft, hammering through wall masonry. I could have waited until they popped in to off them and made any sort of claim to self defense.

In any situation, it's a situation, not a template. It is perfectly possible, with the information given so far in this case, that there was (1) no or (2) every possibility of avoiding killing these three young men. I'm not the one to judge that. What I will say, however, is that rote celebration of application of the death penalty is pretty damn sick, especially for an atheist, who knows that it is the most final of all finalities.
 
Apparently, two individuals were in the home, the shooter and another person. If the criminals were aware of this, then this is a classic "home invasion".... An armed robbery of a residence.

The intent is to terrorize the residents into giving up whatever valuables are present... Most of these crimes are drug-related.

The robbers... Three in this case, and armed with a knife and brass knuckles... Would seem to indicate that this was their intent rather than a stealthy "burglary" of an unoccupied home.

Often, such crimes result in the torture and murder of the victims....

If the female driver indeed planned this crime, and knew the residents were likely to be home...Then she deserves whatever she gets. Evidently she did not know the residents would be armed.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
It is perfectly possible, with the information given so far in this case, that there was (1) no or (2) every possibility of avoiding killing these three young men. I'm not the one to judge that.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty high bar you set there, and you're asking victims of home invasion to consider other possibilities before they resort to violence to defend their homes and their lives. I'm not willing to put that burden on them. The mere fact of a home invasion is enough to suspect bodily harm is coming to you or your family, and that's justification for lethal force, in my opinion. If you don't want that to happen to you, don't break into people's homes.

What I will say, however, is that rote celebration of application of the death penalty is pretty damn sick, especially for an atheist, who knows that it is the most final of all finalities.
Click to expand...

What does atheism have to do with it? The death penalty never had anything to do with sending people to the afterlife. It's more about vengeance, deterrence or other issues. But this isn't what we're talking about. Self-defense isn't a death penalty in any way, shape or form, and I find your use of this term to characterise the victim's defense of his life and home to be quite distasteful.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I had a neighborhood kid (tall, 17 years old) walk into my downstairs bedroom after midnight one night, which had a door to the outside. He panicked and ran when I turned on the light. He yet lives, and has grandchildren.

I caught two Romanian thieves breaking into my restaurant one night from a light shaft, hammering through wall masonry. I could have waited until they popped in to off them and made any sort of claim to self defense.

In any situation, it's a situation, not a template. It is perfectly possible, with the information given so far in this case, that there was (1) no or (2) every possibility of avoiding killing these three young men. I'm not the one to judge that. What I will say, however, is that rote celebration of application of the death penalty is pretty damn sick, especially for an atheist, who knows that it is the most final of all finalities.
Click to expand...



Who is celebrating?
 
3point14 said:
I'm still unsure if a murder actually happened.
Click to expand...

Which of the people involved are you looking at? Are you looking at the "driver"? The prosecutor is charging her with murder, as she appears to have really been the ringleader and instigator of the home invasion, and therefore responsible for the deaths of her accomplices. Was it actually murder, though? I think the courts will have to decide.

Are you looking at the resident who shot her accomplices? He hasn't been charged with anything. Is there an unindicted murder there? Apparently the police and the prosecutor don't think there is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom