Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The fact that a case exists where the detterent didn't work doesn't bode well.

It's pretty irrelevant either way. I'm sure people who advocate the deterrence rationale for this law would never claim that it is going to stop all robberies.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm sorry, I'll have to agree with QuixoteCoyote on this one.

Yes, robbery is a high-risk behavior. But it isn't murder, or even attempted murder. Period.

If making something a high risk behavior automatically makes one guilty if someone dies, then by that argument, someone dying in a sky-diving accident should make everyone involved guilty of murder, by the same logic.

And even with deterrence factor, well, we could bring back chopping off the arms or hands of thieves. That's supposed to have a deterrence factor, right?

The "guilty party" is the shooter. In this case, the "guilty party" gets off, as he's justified in shooting her in self defense. But he's still the "guilty party", not her partner. Shuffling off the blame requires some mental gymnastics.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Is the man morally responsible for the woman's death? Probably.

Should he be legally responsible for her death? Probably not.

He didn't force her to take part in the robbery at gunpoint. She wasn't threatened or dragged along against her will. She chose to steal a car, even if it was his initiative.

And goodness knows what the situation was. What if it was her idea?

 

[WildCat]

Yes, robbery is a high-risk behavior. But it isn't murder, or even attempted murder. Period.

If making something a high risk behavior automatically makes one guilty if someone dies, then by that argument, someone dying in a sky-diving accident should make everyone involved guilty of murder, by the same logic.

Your claim that "making something a high risk behavior automatically makes one guilty if someone dies" is a strawman, because no one is claiming that.

The relevant issue is this particular high-risk behavior is also a felony.

 

[WildCat]

And goodness knows what the situation was. What if it was her idea?

She was in the passenger seat for one. And it's really irrelevant, because they were both commiting the crime.

 

[Lonewulf]

Your claim that "making something a high risk behavior automatically makes one guilty if someone dies" is a strawman, because no one is claiming that.

The relevant issue is this particular high-risk behavior is also a felony.

And that "felony" is not murder or attempted murder.

So you pointed out a "strawman" just to point out an irrelevant fact. Bravo.

 

[Lonewulf]

She was in the passenger seat for one. And it's really irrelevant, because they were both commiting the crime.

And how is that relevant? They're both committing the crime. They're both criminals. One dying doesn't make the other guilty of murder.

Saying that one is responsible for the other's life seems to suggest something other than two individual criminals complicit in the act.

 

[WildCat]

And that "felony" is not murder or attempted murder.

So you pointed out a "strawman" just to point out an irrelevant fact. Bravo.

Irrelevant? It's the reason, and the only reason, he is being charged with murder. Your post was, and still is, a strawman argument.

And how is that relevant? They're both committing the crime. They're both criminals. One dying doesn't make the other guilty of murder.

Actually, it does. In pretty much every state in the US.

Saying that one is responsible for the other's life seems to suggest something other than two individual criminals complicit in the act.

It does?

 

[Lonewulf]

Irrelevant? It's the reason, and the only reason, he is being charged with murder. Your post was, and still is, a strawman argument.

And?

There still isn't a good reason for doing it.

But yes, it's a "strawman". High risk behaviors only matter if they're a felony, regardless of any other facts of the case, no matter how little sense that actually makes. So different from what I was saying.

Actually, it does. In pretty much every state in the US.

Unjustly. These are new laws, as far as I knew. Was it always this way?

But some judge saying that someone is guilty of something does not make them guilty of something. Or else we wouldn't talk of false convictions of innocent people, now would we? Or are innocent people automatically "guilty" because they were convicted? Either way, he did not commit murder. Some judge or ridiculous law claiming that he did does not mean that he suddenly pulled the trigger. Sorry, but you can't convince me that 2+2=5.

But enough semantic games. You know what I meant, whether you pretend to or not. Or maybe you really are that silly.

It does?

So neither is responsible for their own actions? Yes or no.

If the two are responsible for their own actions, then why is one responsible for the life of the other, even if they did nothing to actually kill the other person? I'm really trying to stretch my imagination to encapsulate the logic here, and I just can't do it. The only argument that actually makes sense is "deterrence factor", and if that's the only real answer, then why not lop off thieves' hands? I figure that would be even more effective.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

She was in the passenger seat for one. And it's really irrelevant, because they were both committing the crime.

I'm speaking generally, about the implications of a law that would punish the accomplice or accomplices if the police or an owner kill a robber.

If a thief traps someone into becoming his accomplice and the accomplice dies, is injured or ends up in prison for years, that's one thing.

If they were both in it together and equally, that's another thing.

And who is to say how it really was? What if it was the other way around and the person most responsible for the crime is the one who is killed and his buddies are the ones punished?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If the two are responsible for their own actions, then why is one responsible for the life of the other, even if they did nothing to actually kill the other person?

I kind of agree with you, and I think 2nd Degree Murder is an awfully extreme charge in this case.

But it could be argued that as the driver, the man in this case did do something to cause his accomplice's death -- namely, when the armed owner confronted them, as the driver he was the one who could have either stopped the vehicle and gotten out and surrendered. Instead, he tried to take off, which prompted the owner to open fire, which caused the death of his girlfriend.

Obviously, the exact sequence of events would need to be argued in court. But I do think it is appropriate that he be charged with something for causing her death. IMO, Manslaughter or negligent homicide or some similar lesser charge would be appropriate in cases like these.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Whatever the moral rights and wrongs of the law as it relates to this particular situation, from a legal perspective, surely if the thief is prosecuted for murder, the shooter must be too? After all, if his actions were justified, she wasn't murdered.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Whatever the moral rights and wrongs of the law as it relates to this particular situation, from a legal perspective, surely if the thief is prosecuted for murder, the shooter must be too? After all, if his actions were justified, she wasn't murdered.

Her death was a result of actions that were unjustified. Not of the shooter who defended his life and his property; but of the robber.

 

[Lonewulf]

Her death was a result of actions that were unjustified. Not of the shooter who defended his life and his property; but of the robber.

Her death was based on her own decision to aid a robber. Or is personal responsibility gone now? I thought you guys were big on that stuff?

 

[Autolite]

Is it working?

Actually, yes! It's amazingly effective. The fear of punishment is the primary reason why I and so many others do not steal cars from folks. If there were no consequences detrimental to my well being, I'd have a yard full of fine vehicles belonging to other people.

If you find this difficult to understand, perhaps you might want to conduct research on how many cars where NOT stolen on the day of this particular incident...

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually, yes! It's amazingly effective. The fear of punishment is the primary reason why I and so many others do not steal cars from folks. If there were no consequences detrimental to my well being, I'd have a yard full of fine vehicles belonging to other people.

That says more about you than anything else.

This has changed my opinion of you, and not for the better.

But yes, if the only actual point is to increase deterrence above and beyond any other rational reason, once more, why don't we just cut thieves' hands off? That would be a hell of a deterrent, wouldn't it?

They did it before. It was very effective, wasn't it? Crime went down to almost nil, didn't it?

 

[Bikewer]

Complicity has always been a basic principal of law. If you are the "getaway" driver at a bank robbery, and the robbery goes sour and a customer killed, you are considered to be as guilty of the homicide as the fellow that did the shooting.

In this case, it's a bit of a stretch to my way of thinking. Still, presumably the surviving car thief was responsible for organizing the crime, and his girlfriend was killed as a result.

As to the justification for the shooting itself; this has been a contentious point. Many states would have taken the standpoint that this was a property crime, and the owner of the SUV was in no danger. Even if the car started in his direction, it might be held that he could have easily gotten out of the way.
This was the case with several officer-involved shootings that our department was involved in. Under one administration, two separate incidents resulted in officers being disciplined for shooting at drivers they felt were trying to run them down.
In another more recent case, where the officer killed two individuals who had put the vehicle in reverse, the court found the shooting justified....

I'm not aware of how the statute is worded in this case.

I believe most in the field think that the deterrent effect of these laws is minimal; criminals tend to be impulse-driven people, and rarely spend a great deal of time planning such crimes.

 

[Autolite]

But they're the ones who roll the die. They are perfectly free to never touch it in the first place.

This is a very interesting thread however I find it somewhat unsettling that so many folks seem to be completely oblivious to the simply logic of this concept...

 

[Autolite]

That says more about you than anything else.

BTW, what do you drive???

 

[quixotecoyote]

This is a very interesting thread however I find it somewhat unsettling that so many folks seem to be completely oblivious to the simply logic of this concept...

That's because the logic isn't there.

They chose to steal a car. Felony. Arrest them for car theft. Throw the book at them.

They chose to steal a car and one got shot. Felony. Arrest the survivor for car theft. Throw the book at him.

He did not murder anyone, therefore he should not be charged with murder. I find it somewhat unsettling that so many folks (including the lawmakers) seem to be completely oblivious to the simply logic of this concept.