• 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.

Dr. Keith said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can use it for leverage after the arrest.

"I'm not going down for a murder I didn't commit!"
 
Dr. Keith said:
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?
Click to expand...
Is that the typical reasoning, though? The rest of your reasoning seems similarly spurious. There's always going to be a few edge cases. "Some men you just can't reach," and all that.

I suspect that most laws are like the nuking of Japan: there is a concatenation of reasons for it, each of which are good on their own, and all of which together are also good. Encourage surrender. Reduce morale. Defeat enemy forces. Dissuade Russia. Etc. Same thing here. If some are deterred, good. If our shared sense of justice is served, also good. If public safety is improved, also good. Etc. So what if it doesn't deter everyone? Deterrence was never the cornerstone of my philosophy anyway.

And how hard is to wrap your head around, 'if any of us kills someone, we all hang for it"?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
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?
Click to expand...

For me, I would know that breaking and entering is not only illegal, but wrong, and I wouldn't do it. That is enough deterrent for normal people.

This person drove three armed people to rob a house. That, to me, is a violent act on its own. The fact they could get shot in the process is also pretty obvious. That is plenty of deterrent.

We can assume that the intruders knew they could be hurt or killed, yet they went in anyways, even with that clear deterrent. Criminals are usually stupid. She didn't consult an attorney before turning herself in - stupid.

If I were to start a career of breaking and entering I would research any applicable laws first. Stupid people with an affinity toward violence deserve to be caught and locked up. I actually do not think she should be charged with murder though. That's stretching things - maybe not legally, but in my personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If say, all they showed him was a knife, then why not just shoot him in the hand?

.
Click to expand...

And everybody familiar with firearms laughs their heads off at the "shoot it out of their hand" nonsense. Even for a trained marksman, that is hard to do.
IMHO if the home invaders use violence of the threat of violence, then the gloves are off, and giving them "A Fair Chance" is stupid.
 
Last edited:
If you manage to shoot someone in the hand it's probably because you more than likely missed what you were actually aiming at.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did he kill in self defense, or is this assumed? Rest is strawman.
 
theprestige said:
Is that the typical reasoning, though?
Click to expand...

That is the most common justification I have heard for such get tough on crime measures. Increase the liability for getting caught and you will deter the criminals. I think the better way to prevent crime is to increase the likelihood of being caught. Increasing penalties is cheaper, though.

The rest of your reasoning seems similarly spurious. There's always going to be a few edge cases. "Some men you just can't reach," and all that.
Click to expand...

I think it has almost no deterrent effect because I don't think very many people understand that it exists or how it would apply to their actions. The opposite end of the spectrum from "some men you can't reach" and all that.

I suspect that most laws are like the nuking of Japan: there is a concatenation of reasons for it, each of which are good on their own, and all of which together are also good. Encourage surrender. Reduce morale. Defeat enemy forces. Dissuade Russia. Etc. Same thing here. If some are deterred, good. If our shared sense of justice is served, also good. If public safety is improved, also good. Etc. So what if it doesn't deter everyone? Deterrence was never the cornerstone of my philosophy anyway.
Click to expand...

If nearly none are deterred, many feel it is unjustly applied, and it has no impact on public safety, then is it still good?

And how hard is to wrap your head around, 'if any of us kills someone, we all hang for it"?
Click to expand...

Harder than that apparently. Re-read the first few pages of this thread.
 
mgidm86 said:
For me, I would know that breaking and entering is not only illegal, but wrong, and I wouldn't do it. That is enough deterrent for normal people.

This person drove three armed people to rob a house. That, to me, is a violent act on its own. The fact they could get shot in the process is also pretty obvious. That is plenty of deterrent.

We can assume that the intruders knew they could be hurt or killed, yet they went in anyways, even with that clear deterrent. Criminals are usually stupid. She didn't consult an attorney before turning herself in - stupid.

If I were to start a career of breaking and entering I would research any applicable laws first. Stupid people with an affinity toward violence deserve to be caught and locked up. I actually do not think she should be charged with murder though. That's stretching things - maybe not legally, but in my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

I believe most intelligent burglars knock on the door first, in case anybody's home.
 
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...

Bentley: 'Let him have it.'
 
AIUI There had been a spate of burglaries in the Broken Arrow region of Oklahoma while the homeowner was out. It was almost certainly Rodriguez and her gang IMV.

When she drove the three teens to the Wagonner home, the homeowner and his son were in bed, even though it was just after midday.

IOW they thought nobody was home. So whoever said it was an act of violence in itself to break in whilst the homeowner is there, so therefore they deserve to be shot, is just making an assumption that these teens wanted a face off and 'were there to torture and kill'.

What a strange violent country the USA is, where people have to sleep with AK assault rifles by their bedside.

But even then, do what the police do. Confront the intruders, point your AK at them and say: FREEZE! Put your hands on your head! TURN AROUND AND GET OUT OF MY HOUSE BY THE TIME I COUNT TO THREE!

Fire a few shots above their heads and watch how fast they get down that driveway. Note the registration number of the car, its make and colour.

Go back inside. Lock and bolt your door. CALL THE POLICE. Call your insurers, and a handyman to get your window fixed. Get a burglar alarm fitted.
 
Vixen said:
AIUI There had been a spate of burglaries in the Broken Arrow region of Oklahoma while the homeowner was out. It was almost certainly Rodriguez and her gang IMV.

When she drove the three teens to the Wagonner home, the homeowner and his son were in bed, even though it was just after midday.

IOW they thought nobody was home. So whoever said it was an act of violence in itself to break in whilst the homeowner is there, so therefore they deserve to be shot, is just making an assumption that these teens wanted a face off and 'were there to torture and kill'.

What a strange violent country the USA is, where people have to sleep with AK assault rifles by their bedside.

But even then, do what the police do. Confront the intruders, point your AK at them and say: FREEZE! Put your hands on your head! TURN AROUND AND GET OUT OF MY HOUSE BY THE TIME I COUNT TO THREE!

Fire a few shots above their heads and watch how fast they get down that driveway. Note the registration number of the car, its make and colour.

Go back inside. Lock and bolt your door. CALL THE POLICE. Call your insurers, and a handyman to get your window fixed. Get a burglar alarm fitted.
Click to expand...

You'd rather they break the law and possibly injure others? Instead of shooting three men in ski masks who broke in a door?
 
HenryLee said:
You'd rather they break the law and possibly injure others? Instead of shooting three men in ski masks who broke in a door?
Click to expand...

A couple of British tourists were shot dead in Florida a few years ago because they refused to hand over their wallets.

Seriously, when confronted with an armed mugger - just give 'em your money.

Don't try to be a hero.
 
Vixen said:
In it the operator exhorts Zachary Peters 'I need you to unload your gun and put it on the bed'. He is told to stop shooting.
Click to expand...

That's one way to read it. Not the correct way but it is one way.

Peters: "I'm still armed in the southeast corner of my house."

Dispatcher: "OK."

Dispatcher: "OK, sir, my deputy wants in, I need you to go ahead and un-arm yourself and put the gun away."

Peters: "OK. It'll be unloaded on my bed, I'll still be in my bedroom."

Dispatcher: "OK, the gun's going to be unloaded on his bed."
Click to expand...

And I can't find the dispatcher telling him to stop shooting anywhere in the transcript.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom