Getaway driver arrested for murder.

[Steve]

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?

I think I can answer this......NO

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, how is it not the death penalty?

The death penalty is a judicial ruling. Someone killing another in self-defense is not a penalty.

 

[Belz...]

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

The logic is that the driver got charged with the murder of the intruders, even though it was a legal killing in self-defense done by someone else. He's asking if another, wrongful action perpetrated by this someone else would also have been blamed on the driver.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Seems like you and I actually agree, and 3point14 is mistaken about where the UK draws the line.

What if a householder happened to have gun and ammunition ready to hand for some lawful purpose? Would their use against a knife-wielding invader then be viewed as "proportionate"?

What if the householder were elderly, or infirm, or otherwise physically disadvantaged? What if they were able to put a locked door between them and their assailant, and in the time taken for the assailant to break through they get their gun and use it? Would that be viewed as "proportionate"?

 

[theprestige]

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?

The logic is that the driver got charged with the murder of the intruders, even though it was a legal killing in self-defense done by someone else. He's asking if another, wrongful action perpetrated by this someone else would also have been blamed on the driver.

Here's how I would judge it: It's a question of choices. The person who chose to commit the crime bears the responsibility for the consequences of that crime. In this case, the shooter also made a choice, but that choice was a reasonable and appropriate response to the criminal choices made by the driver and her accomplices. Therefore, the driver bears the responsibility for the consequences of the shooter's choice, as a result of events that she chose to set in motion.

Note that killing in self-defense is not a crime.

Rape, on the other hand, is a crime. Rape is also not a reasonable or appropriate choice in response to the events she chose to set in motion. Therefore, she does not bear responsibility for it. Rather, the rapist bears responsibility.

I do not doubt that there exist in some jurisdictions loops or loopholes in the law that would lead to a different outcome, but this is the outcome I would judge, and it's the law that I would make. I bet it's probably also the law and the judgement in most jurisdictions, and I bet it's the gist of the legal arguments that would be made in court, if the question went to trial.

I would also seek disbarment for any prosecutor who sought to charge the driver with rape in such a case, and I would urge social scorn on any citizen who argued for such a charge.

 

[Beady]

When you're a criminal, death is an occupational hazard voluntarily assumed by the perpretrator, whether it is inflicted by the victim, the police or the courts. The chances of suffering from that hazard depend on several variables resulting from the rules of the applicable legal jurisdiction and the victim's outlook and advance preparations.

In other words, getting killed is what should be a calculated risk that the criminal usually doesn't consider.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Seems like you and I actually agree, and 3point14 is mistaken about where the UK draws the line.

What if a householder happened to have gun and ammunition ready to hand for some lawful purpose? Would their use against a knife-wielding invader then be viewed as "proportionate"?

What if the householder were elderly, or infirm, or otherwise physically disadvantaged? What if they were able to put a locked door between them and their assailant, and in the time taken for the assailant to break through they get their gun and use it? Would that be viewed as "proportionate"?

You know I'm not an expert on UK law, but I'll add that in anyway.

My understanding is that if they face likely bodily harm then deadly force could be used. So, in your examples shooting could be warranted.

The primary case for a home invasion victim being charged is mentioned above and it seems to rest on the fact that the invaders were clearly in retreat at the time of the shooting. The assumption being that their retreat reduced the likelihood of bodily harm to the resident.

So, applying that to your hypos: if you miss on the first shot and the invaders retreat, then you can't shoot them on their way out. Or if they retreat before you commence firing, then you can not shoot them on their way out.

It really isn't much different form the Castle Doctrine in most cases. Most people, even in Texas, don't follow their invaders out while shooting. Getting an invader to turn tail is successful self defense, or so I have been assured in many threads about how useful simple brandishing of a firearm can be. It can be different at the fringes, though. The US rule is clearly in favor of the resident while the UK rule does temper that a bit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

You can't finish them off if you only wound them and that ends the threat to you. It is not a penalty but a result of defending yourself.

Not all negative results to something are a punishment for it. If the shooter didn't stop when the threat was neutralized he could be charged with murder. But the goal of the defense is to neutralize the threat.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think I can answer this......NO

Possibly if say the guy had pulled a Byron David Smith, and finished them off with a handgun after they were down. The the act of self defense becomes murder and you still get felony murder on the driver.

 

[Belz...]

Here's how I would judge it: It's a question of choices. The person who chose to commit the crime bears the responsibility for the consequences of that crime. In this case, the shooter also made a choice, but that choice was a reasonable and appropriate response to the criminal choices made by the driver and her accomplices. Therefore, the driver bears the responsibility for the consequences of the shooter's choice, as a result of events that she chose to set in motion.

Note that killing in self-defense is not a crime.

Rape, on the other hand, is a crime. Rape is also not a reasonable or appropriate choice in response to the events she chose to set in motion. Therefore, she does not bear responsibility for it. Rather, the rapist bears responsibility.

That would be my call as well. I was just clarifying Bill's question for Darat.

 

[William Parcher]

We don't have the autopsy details of this incident but I did read that each intruder was shot once. Two dropped dead in the kitchen and the third ran outside but dropped dead in the driveway.

It is said that authorities have not charged the shooter but are still investigating. We don't know details of what was happening when the shots were fired. We don't know if the intruders were brandishing their weapons when shot. We don't know if they were shot in the back while attempting to flee. We are told that words were spoken before the shooting but we don't know who said what.

There is a lot that isn't being reported.

 

[theprestige]

We don't have the autopsy details of this incident but I did read that each intruder was shot once. Two dropped dead in the kitchen and the third ran outside but dropped dead in the driveway.

It is said that authorities have not charged the shooter but are still investigating. We don't know details of what was happening when the shots were fired. We don't know if the intruders were brandishing their weapons when shot. We don't know if they were shot in the back while attempting to flee. We are told that words were spoken before the shooting but we don't know who said what.

There is a lot that isn't being reported.

I guess our analyses will have to change in response to new information.

 

[Busta Capp]

Here in a Houston a few years ago a man and woman comitted a felony and evaded pursuit.
They were chased to a nearby apartment complex where the woman was captured, handcuffed and placed in the back of the police car, while the search continued for her accomplice.
He was located but refused to give up and pointed a gun at police.
He was killed.
She was charged with 1st degree murder ... While in custody no less.

It was a stretch, like this case is, but it is routine.

I have no love for either of these women, and there are literally dozens of charges I fully support them getting hit with and spending quite a bit of time in prison.

But neither was a cold blooded killer, and neither was actually responsible for an innocent person's murder.

I believe the charges against the woman in Houston here were lessened and hopefully she's still in prison, and I believe that is also where this will end up as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here in a Houston a few years ago a man and woman comitted a felony and evaded pursuit.
They were chased to a nearby apartment complex where the woman was captured, handcuffed and placed in the back of the police car, while the search continued for her accomplice.
He was located but refused to give up and pointed a gun at police.
He was killed.
She was charged with 1st degree murder ... While in custody no less.

It was a stretch, like this case is, but it is routine.

I have no love for either of these women, and there are literally dozens of charges I fully support them getting hit with and spending quite a bit of time in prison.

But neither was a cold blooded killer, and neither was actually responsible for an innocent person's murder.

I believe the charges against the woman in Houston here were lessened and hopefully she's still in prison, and I believe that is also where this will end up as well.

It sounds like you are against charging someone in general for the actions of their compatriots in criminal enterprise.

 

[bobdroege7]

I would hope the prosecutor is smart enough to charge her with more than just felony murder, just in case the jury doesn't convict on that charge.

If she is the ringleader and planned the event, you don't want her to walk.

 

[Matthew Best]

Here in a Houston a few years ago a man and woman comitted a felony and evaded pursuit.
They were chased to a nearby apartment complex where the woman was captured, handcuffed and placed in the back of the police car, while the search continued for her accomplice.
He was located but refused to give up and pointed a gun at police.
He was killed.
She was charged with 1st degree murder ... While in custody no less.

It was a stretch, like this case is, but it is routine.

I have no love for either of these women, and there are literally dozens of charges I fully support them getting hit with and spending quite a bit of time in prison.

But neither was a cold blooded killer, and neither was actually responsible for an innocent person's murder.

I believe the charges against the woman in Houston here were lessened and hopefully she's still in prison, and I believe that is also where this will end up as well.

The Derek Bentley case referred to earlier was similar in that he was in custody at the time off the shooting - although there was I think some discussion over what it meant to be "in custody". He'd been apprehended by a policeman at any rate.

 

[marplots]

I would hope the prosecutor is smart enough to charge her with more than just felony murder, just in case the jury doesn't convict on that charge.

If she is the ringleader and planned the event, you don't want her to walk.

The felony itself would be a lesser, included charge.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What always strikes me in these felony murder cases is how ineffective the felony murder laws are at doing what they intend to do. The typical reasoning behind them is to discourage those who may be ancillary to a crime from assisting with a crime that may turn deadly. If you know that you could go to jail for murder just because you were the getaway driver, then maybe you would decline to be the getaway driver, eh?

The problem is that normal law abiding folks have trouble even wrapping their head around the concept so I have a hard time believing that it is well known among common criminals. I mean, this lady probably turned herself in thinking she'd get a accomplice charge or something, maybe a few years in jail, but nothing too much since they didn't hurt the resident.

tl;dr - How much deterrent effect can a law have if most people don't understand how it can be applied?

 

[3point14]

What always strikes me in these felony murder cases is how ineffective the felony murder laws are at doing what they intend to do. The typical reasoning behind them is to discourage those who may be ancillary to a crime from assisting with a crime that may turn deadly. If you know that you could go to jail for murder just because you were the getaway driver, then maybe you would decline to be the getaway driver, eh?

The problem is that normal law abiding folks have trouble even wrapping their head around the concept so I have a hard time believing that it is well known among common criminals. I mean, this lady probably turned herself in thinking she'd get a accomplice charge or something, maybe a few years in jail, but nothing too much since they didn't hurt the resident.

tl;dr - How much deterrent effect can a law have if most people don't understand how it can be applied?

I think the figures bear out the argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent. - I am open to being corrected

I think there are circumstances where it could be a deterrent. I have often suggested that we add to the books the crime of "Abuse of the public trust while an elected official" which should carry the death penalty. I thin that might even actually deter people.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think the figures bear out the argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent. - I am open to being corrected

Agreed. I don't think that is even up for argument at this point. At least I haven't heard any death penalty proponents make that argument seriously for some time.

I think there are circumstances where it could be a deterrent.

Agreed. It will keep young law students and lawyers from driving the getaway car if their friends want to hold up a liquor store. But that seems like a very small impact overall.

I have often suggested that we add to the books the crime of "Abuse of the public trust while an elected official" which should carry the death penalty. I thin that might even actually deter people.

Deter them from running for public office, that is.