Getaway driver arrested for murder.

[3point14]

What definition of murder are you using? The laws being used in this case have been clearly stated in this thread, why are you hung up on this point?

I'm, not hung up on it. No-one answered the first time and I'm intrigued.


If there was a murder, there has to be a murderer. Is it the case, therefore, that the homeowner committed murder and is pardoned for it?

Or was there no murder at all? In which case how can one be an accessory to a crime that never happened?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm, not hung up on it. No-one answered the first time and I'm intrigued.


If there was a murder, there has to be a murderer. Is it the case, therefore, that the homeowner committed murder and is pardoned for it?

Or was there no murder at all? In which case how can one be an accessory to a crime that never happened?

Why? The charge is felony murder essentially. The name of the charge isn't necessarily that important. For example in NY it is not rape if it is anal sex and not vaginal sex. So can you call anal rape rape?

Felony murder does not require the death to me an act of murder as an act of self defense will cover it just as well as in this case.

So there is no murder just felony murder.

 

[marplots]

I'm still unsure if a murder actually happened.

Here's part of the entry on murder from a legal reference:
The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

Some of the uses are more esoteric than others.

In this case, I can make sense of the charge if I first think of the getaway driver as being part of a conspiracy to commit a crime where the outcome, while not specifically foreseen, does include a "dangerous indifference for human life."

 

[William Parcher]

If there was a murder, there has to be a murderer. Is it the case, therefore, that the homeowner committed murder and is pardoned for it?

Or was there no murder at all? In which case how can one be an accessory to a crime that never happened?

The homeowner didn't shoot - it was his son that did that.

The son shot the guys in self defense which is justifiable homicide, not murder. The woman gets charged for murder.

 

[marplots]

If there was a murder, there has to be a murderer. Is it the case, therefore, that the homeowner committed murder and is pardoned for it?

No, the homeowner didn't commit murder, he/she participated in the lawful killing under self defense rules (Castle doctrine).

Or was there no murder at all? In which case how can one be an accessory to a crime that never happened?

There was a murder(s). The death of the burglars was contingent on the crime being committed - resulted from the crime - so participants in that crime are guilty of causing the murder.

There are a few things going on here. There is the homicide(s) and the crime of murder. If I throw you into my tiger's cage, the tiger kills you, but I have committed murder. If I convince you to help me rob the bank, the bank guard kills you, but I murdered you. In both cases, the killing is lawful - not illegal (tigers are above the law!), but in both cases there was a murder and a murderer.

Does that sort it out?

 

[3point14]

The homeowner didn't shoot - it was his son that did that.

The son shot the guys in self defense which is justifiable homicide, not murder. The woman gets charged for murder.

Thank you (and Marplots), it makes much more sense now.


I really don't like where the line is on these things in the US. I much prefer the UK variant where one must act proportionally, but hey, it's not my country.

 

[marplots]

Thank you (and Marplots), it makes much more sense now.


I really don't like where the line is on these things in the US. I much prefer the UK variant where one must act proportionally, but hey, it's not my country.

The question was a good one and the legal principles are interesting. If you have the time to listen to the oral arguments in the Supreme Court Case from 1982 (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/81-5321), they are fascinating. You get to hear the thinking behind the rulings and a real struggle to come to a fair answer to a difficult question.

Plus, I think it's wonderful that with a mouse click or two I can hear oral arguments before the US Supreme Court from 30 years ago. Amazing!

 

[theprestige]

I'm, not hung up on it. No-one answered the first time and I'm intrigued.


If there was a murder, there has to be a murderer. Is it the case, therefore, that the homeowner committed murder and is pardoned for it?

Or was there no murder at all? In which case how can one be an accessory to a crime that never happened?

She's not being charged as an accessory to someone else's murder charge. She's being charged with the murder itself. The state is saying that she is the murderer.

 

[theprestige]

Thank you (and Marplots), it makes much more sense now.


I really don't like where the line is on these things in the US. I much prefer the UK variant where one must act proportionally, but hey, it's not my country.

The line in the UK is naive wishful thinking. There's no "proportional" reaction to someone brandishing a knife at you, other than deadly threat=deadly response.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

It was not stated, however, as an ironclad rule, but a recognition that each situation has its complexities. I gave two good examples, both of which would have allowed me the luxury of making an "ultimate determination," and in these cases killing the perpetrator(s) would have been either tragically mistaken but justified, or entirely amenable to manipulation of fact to justify unnecessary violence.

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.

I'm sorry, how is it not the death penalty? Justification for its application is what can be discussed, and as stated, I am not in possession of the facts in order to make such a determination. At any rate, to atheists, death is the end of all existence, the ultimate punishment. As such, I'd suggest its use be as limited as possible in favor of other measures.

To answer another poster's objection, yes, "celebrating." This is what "had it coming" means in such a context: the situational and contextual is abstracted away via attribution bias (must've been horrible people and not mistaken youths, hard core, yeah, plug 'em).

 

[John Jones]

Logical fallacy = the non sequitur.

Sure you should be allowed to defend yourself and your family with appropriate force.

But you can't just kill someone just because they broke in. You have to show it was justified.

That's how it is in the UK, anyway.

Oklahoma isn't part of the UK.

 

[theprestige]

I'm sorry, how is it not the death penalty? Justification for its application is what can be discussed, and as stated, I am not in possession of the facts in order to make such a determination. At any rate, to atheists, death is the end of all existence, the ultimate punishment. As such, I'd suggest its use be as limited as possible in favor of other measures.

To answer another poster's objection, yes, "celebrating." This is what "had it coming" means in such a context: the situational and contextual is abstracted away via attribution bias (must've been horrible people and not mistaken youths, hard core, yeah, plug 'em).

Typically when we talk about the death penalty, we talk about the use of force by the state to end someone's life in retribution for the crimes they have committed. This may be the act of a tyrant who is above the law, or it may follow from due process in a democracy where the state governs by the consent of the governed. In neither case is it the same as death arising from an act of self defense. Blurring the definition creates a moral quandary where none previously existed.

If you wish to challenge the morality of using deadly force in self defense, do so plainly, not by appeal to loaded terms lifted from other contexts.

And yes, "celebrating". Killing is psychologically stressful, not only to the killer but also to everyone else who witnesses or learns of it. It is important for the health of individuals and societies to have some way of allowing grace to those who kill justifiably. There must be some form of celebration of deserved death, otherwise those that bring it would go mad. It would be immoral to condemn the soldier for the killing they do on our behalf. It would be inhumane to deny the homeowner who kills in self defense the satisfaction of believing he did the right thing.

 

[Darat]

The line in the UK is naive wishful thinking. There's no "proportional" reaction to someone brandishing a knife at you, other than deadly threat=deadly response.

Nope, it is a well established real life principle which works very well.

You seem to be forgetting in the UK it is very, very unlikely that the householder would own a gun and be able to get it and the ammunition out of the safes and be ready to use it when someone brandished a knife at the householder. However if the householder had a cricket bat and used that to attack the criminal and the criminal died as a result of that I am certain that would be viewed as "proportionate" force.

 

[William Parcher]

Here's a question: What if something different and weird happened. Let's say the son instead held the intruders at gunpoint and took away their weapons. Then he ordered them to disrobe, bend over, and raped each of them. He then called the police and they came to arrest the burglars. Upon learning of the rapes they also arrest the rapist son.

Does the getaway driver get charged with three counts of rape?

 

[Darat]

Here's a question: What if something different and weird happened. Let's say the son instead held the intruders at gunpoint and took away their weapons. Then he ordered them to disrobe, bend over, and raped each of them. He then called the police and they came to arrest the burglars. Upon learning of the rapes they also arrest the rapist son.

Does the getaway driver get charged with three counts of rape?

WTF? What the flip does this have to do with this story?

 

[theprestige]

Here's a question: What if something different and weird happened. Let's say the son instead held the intruders at gunpoint and took away their weapons. Then he ordered them to disrobe, bend over, and raped each of them. He then called the police and they came to arrest the burglars. Upon learning of the rapes they also arrest the rapist son.

Does the getaway driver get charged with three counts of rape?

Yes, because the Law is a 1950s cartoon robot, devoid of context or nuance. And also we are all idiots.

 

[William Parcher]

WTF? What the flip does this have to do with this story?

Use your brain, Darat.

I'm asking this: If the son commits a crime against the intruders, will the getaway driver be charged with that crime?

 

[Resume]

To answer another poster's objection, yes, "celebrating." This is what "had it coming" means in such a context: the situational and contextual is abstracted away via attribution bias (must've been horrible people and not mistaken youths, hard core, yeah, plug 'em).

Stupid people die doing stupid things every day. Every hour, probably. We then make fun of them, give them a "Darwin Award" etc.

"Hole mah beer an' watch this'n!"

Then, they're dead. Part of this is whistling in the graveyard, remembering our own stupid stunts, I guess. The celebration part in this instance is that the intended victim didn't get dead, just the stupid ones. It's too bad these three were too stupid to realize that busting into an occupied residence in OK, where you can open carry without a permit, will probably end badly.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Use your brain, Darat.

I'm asking this: If the son commits a crime against the intruders, will the getaway driver be charged with that crime?

Your hypothetical is inapt because the homeowner's son in this case did not commit a crime. Self defense is not a crime. He's not being charged with homicide, justifiable or not. So the question of what 'other' crimes he could commit and pass along responsibility for does not apply.

 

[Giz]

I'm sorry, how is it not the death penalty? Justification for its application is what can be discussed, and as stated, I am not in possession of the facts in order to make such a determination. At any rate, to atheists, death is the end of all existence, the ultimate punishment. As such, I'd suggest its use be as limited as possible in favor of other measures.

Because self-defense is not about punishing the offender. It is about the victim being entitled to use force to defend themselves. What happens to the offender may be more or less than their just deserts, it’s irrelevant. Prosecution and determination of a fitting punishment is an entirely different thing.