Getaway driver arrested for murder.

[Cylinder]

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?

First, there's no statutory framework (at leat that I am aware of) for that posit so no. It's also difficult -- for me at least -- to envision a fact set where the defender raping an intruder would be objectively reasonable (ie necessary, immediate and proportional.)

A more realistic scenario would be the intruder forces one victim to sexually assault another. In that case (with the understanding that this would be a fringe set of facts and outcomes could vary wildly according to statutory interpretation) the person actually performing the rape would have the benefit of the justification of compulsion (well-established), the intruders who are actively compelling the victim could be guilty of rape under the theory that they used the victim as the penetrating object (or whatever statutory element applied) and the accomplice could be seen to have aided, abetted the commission or criminally aided or abetted after the fact for assisting in evading capture, according to the level of participation and knowledge.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm with you, but the law in the US seems to work differently and a fleeing criminal can be shot in the back with immunity, if I recall correctly. i think there's case law that tallies with this (I may be wrong, I often am).

I'm wondering - not of you, but of anyone that knows about this stuff - what the law is in this instance.

The simplest answer is the vast majority of US states, the law presumes that the use of deadly force in certain instances of occupied things (homes, vehicles, properties etc...) is reasonable in certain instances and that the state must prove that from the person claiming justification in that instance acted unreasonably for that justification to be forfeited. The mechanism by which that occupant forfeited justification is overwhelmingly fact-dependent and it is vastly more important, IMO, that the natural right of an righteous occupant to self defense be preserved than to protect predators from possible over zealousness on the part of an occupant.

In other words, if the person plainly acted unreasonably it will be easy to prove. If the case is marginal, preserve the rights in less marginal cases.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I also think it's funny, every time "Forrest Gump" comes on TV, Forrest says he was named after him. "He was some kind of hero." Yeah, one of the most infamous racists ever. Tom Hanks actually does look similar.

 

[fuelair]

Why wouldn't it? She was there all the time they were loading the car she was in with the getaway driver.

On what grounds would this be considered an innocent bystander?

Where would she go? Does she have a phone? Does she know anyone in the area? Unless she admits to knowing what they had planned and she went along for the lols, she should come out ok..........