Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[Lonewulf]

And that's likely what he'll wind up pleading down to.

Heh.... set the bar as high as humanly possible, so that setting it a level or two lower seems better in comparison?

Clever.

 

[Drudgewire]

I do agree a murder charge is extreme. The spirit of the law was for armed robbery or home invasions where there was legitimate risk of bodily harm to the intended victim. That doesn't really apply here.

You'll have to pardon me if I don't lose any sleep over it though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Eh, I just prefer for the law to work as it's supposed to, or it can mess up somewhere else... the more slack you give it, the more they'll tug at the leash.

 

[Drudgewire]

Eh, I just prefer for the law to work as it's supposed to, or it can mess up somewhere else... the more slack you give it, the more they'll tug at the leash.

I do agree with that. The upside is it's the kind of case he probably won't have any trouble getting good legal representation over because there are likely to be very good defense lawyers lining up to challenge it for that very reason.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I will admit, though, you make a case that's harder to argue against than most people in this thread.

Yes, that was the best analysis yet, but personally, I can't see how the dead woman could've been both lawfully killed and murdered.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Meh, I still think it's stretching. Would you really call it "attempted suicide" or "suicide" if he was alone and tried to escape?

No, but I wouldn't call a DUI "attempted suicide" either, even though DUI can result in someone else getting killed. That's the entire point of manslaughter and negligent homicide charges -- when someone's reckless/malicious actions result in a death, even if that wasn't the intent. And that's exactly why I said it shouldn't be murder -- there was no intent to kill, but a death was the direct result of his actions.

And how can you prove that she didn't tell him to flee the scene?

If they actually tried the case on that basis, it would be up to the defense to prove that. I'm still not sure if that would matter much -- ultimately, he stepped on the gas. It might mitigate things, but I don't know that it would change the nature of the case.

To me it wouldn't be different than if someone knowingly got into a car with a drunk driver, and got killed. The drunk driver may have been egged on, but ultimately, he is responsible and should be charged for the death.

 

[Brainster]

The focus on the deterrent effect is off the mark in my mind. There is a retributive nature to justice that cannot be ignored. By participating in a robbery that resulted in the loss of life of his girlfriend, the man accused of murder has deprived society of the positive contributions she might have made, just the same as if she were the daughter of the man whose car he was stealing and not his accomplice.

Society does not assume that she was irredeemable just because she made a mistake at age 20; her life has value, and the taking of that life must be accounted for if it is in anyway a blame-worthy situation. In this case, the blame clearly lies with the boyfriend and not the property owner.

 

[Lonewulf]

The focus on the deterrent effect is off the mark in my mind. There is a retributive nature to justice that cannot be ignored. By participating in a robbery that resulted in the loss of life of his girlfriend, the man accused of murder has deprived society of the positive contributions she might have made, just the same as if she were the daughter of the man whose car he was stealing and not his accomplice.

Society does not assume that she was irredeemable just because she made a mistake at age 20; her life has value, and the taking of that life must be accounted for if it is in anyway a blame-worthy situation. In this case, the blame clearly lies with the boyfriend and not the property owner.

Why doesn't this logic apply to him as well as her? If the positions were reversed, would she be going to jail for murder as well? In which case, how does one make a "positive contribution" inside of a jail cell for a very very long time for murder II? Not to mention the HUGE social stigma that comes with murder in general (far worse than, say, theft)

 

[Drudgewire]

Why doesn't this logic apply to him as well as her? If the positions were reversed, would she be going to jail for murder as well? In which case, how does one make a "positive contribution" inside of a jail cell for a very very long time for murder II?

It's a good question. Another is would he still be charged with murder if she had been the one driving?

I'm pretty sure the point of the law isn't to punish anyone for depriving society of the positive contributions one of the criminals might have contributed, regardless of their age and/or gender.

 

[I less than three logic]

I tried to point this out several posts ago, but I think one could make the argument that because he was driving the car, he caused her death. The owner confronted them with a gun. Instead of stopping and surrendering, he tried to take off. That is what prompted the owner to shoot. As the driver, his actions were therefore what caused her death.

I think in either case, murder is extreme. I think you could argue for manslaughter or negligent homicide though.

I think this scenario would be more apt if the owner had shot at the vehicle because he thought he was going to be run over. In which case, I think he would have shot at the driver seat. However, in the photo in the article you can clearly see he shot at the passenger seat and didn't shoot at the driver's. In his affidavit he said he saw the passenger's arm out the window and thought that person had a gun. So even if the driver had stopped I'm not sure that would have necessarily prevented the shooting because the owner wasn't shooting to stop the vehicle. He shot to prevent the passenger from shooting him.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think this scenario would be more apt if the owner had shot at the vehicle because he thought he was going to be run over. In which case, I think he would have shot at the driver seat. However, in the photo in the article you can clearly see he shot at the passenger seat and didn't shoot at the driver's. In his affidavit he said he saw the passenger's arm out the window and thought that person had a gun. So even if the driver had stopped I'm not sure that would have necessarily prevented the shooting because the owner wasn't shooting to stop the vehicle. He shot to prevent the passenger from shooting him.

Ah yeah, that does cinch it, doesn't it?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I think this scenario would be more apt if the owner had shot at the vehicle because he thought he was going to be run over. In which case, I think he would have shot at the driver seat. However, in the photo in the article you can clearly see he shot at the passenger seat and didn't shoot at the driver's. In his affidavit he said he saw the passenger's arm out the window and thought that person had a gun. So even if the driver had stopped I'm not sure that would have necessarily prevented the shooting because the owner wasn't shooting to stop the vehicle. He shot to prevent the passenger from shooting him.

That's not how I read the article. He mentions the gun, then the article says this:

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

"Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle," the affidavit stated.

That his shots hit the passenger side may simply be the result of where he was standing, his aim, etc. I read this as, if the vehicle hadn't moved towards him, he wouldn't have shot.

Obviously, it's hard to tell without knowing exactly what he said. If he simply shot because he thought the passenger was armed, then I agree, I don't know you can pin that on the driver. That's not how I read the article, though.

 

[I less than three logic]

That's not how I read the article. He mentions the gun, then the article says this:



That his shots hit the passenger side may simply be the result of where he was standing, his aim, etc. I read this as, if the vehicle hadn't moved towards him, he wouldn't have shot.

Obviously, it's hard to tell without knowing exactly what he said. If he simply shot because he thought the passenger was armed, then I agree, I don't know you can pin that on the driver. That's not how I read the article, though.

Perhaps you're correct. I didn't remember the article saying the vehicle stopped in front of him and then started going at him again, so I may have misread it the first time. I can see how that might have provoked the owner into shooting when he might not have otherwise.

 

[Drudgewire]

Perhaps you're correct. I didn't remember the article saying the vehicle stopped in front of him and then started going at him again, so I may have misread it the first time. I can see how that might have provoked the owner into shooting when he might not have otherwise.

If that's the case I understand the charges a little more. Like I said, the law is supposed to apply in cases of violent crime. If they're looking at this as the driver trying to use the vehicle as a weapon, then this all makes more sense.

 

[Lonewulf]

If that's the case I understand the charges a little more. Like I said, the law is supposed to apply in cases of violent crime. If they're looking at this as the driver trying to use the vehicle as a weapon, then this all makes more sense.

Even if he was using the vehicle as a weapon, she wasn't the target, so convicting him for murdering her is a little backwards.

And if it was manslaughter for putting her in the position in the first place, then it doesn't really matter either way.

 

[Drudgewire]

Even if he was using the vehicle as a weapon, she wasn't the target, so convicting him for murdering her is a little backwards.

Backwards or not, it's the law in many places besides Florida.

 

[Ranb]

I doubt his words will expose him to much more liability than his actions did. He's already exposed to a second-degree murder charge and his girlfriend is dead, so I doubt that a civil lawsuit is going to bother him much.

I meant the shooter, not the thief.

Ranb

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I can see why others have said that a murder charge is unfair. I disagree, but I see what they're saying.

Do those who feel that it's unfair feel that a robber whose firearm accidentally discharges should be charged with murder if someone is killed?

 

[Lonewulf]

I can see why others have said that a murder charge is unfair. I disagree, but I see what they're saying.

Do those who feel that it's unfair feel that a robber whose firearm accidentally discharges should be charged with murder if someone is killed?

I don't really see pointing a loaded firearm at someone and driving a car that someone gets shot in as equivalent...

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I don't really see pointing a loaded firearm at someone and driving a car that someone gets shot in as equivalent...

They're not the same, but in neither case does the person charged with murder intend to kill anyone.