Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[Lonewulf]

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

But in one, he's pointing a deadly weapon right at someone, that is loaded with ammunition that can kill someone, and of which the entire purpose is to be able to do damage to or kill another being.

In the car, all he did was put his foot to the gas, and someone else in the vehicle (not in front of it) gets shot by an outside party.

I still don't think that the comparison works.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

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?

Yes. If a robber brings a loaded weapon with himself, then it's hard to argue that he didn't have intent to use it -- even if the specific act in which a person was shot was an accident. Moreover, the robber was the person who actually committed the homicide, and did so while committing another felony, which I believe usually fits the definition of 2nd Degree Murder.

I'm not a legal expert, but there is certainly a fundamental difference between the two scenarios. In the OP, the person didn't directly kill the victim. In your scenario, he did.

 

[jasonpatterson]

I don't like this law, it blurs the relationship between action and responsibility.

Say Al robs two liquor stores, accompanied first by Bob and then by Carl. The first robbery goes as planned and they run off with the till. In the second robbery, Carl freaks out and shoots the clerk before they run off.

If Al gets caught for the first robbery, he's charged as a robber. If he gets caught for the second robbery, he's charged as a robber and a murderer, even though his actions and motives are exactly the same as the first.

I don't like laws that tack on an "you got unlucky" penalty to the penalty for criminal actions and motives.

What's getting me about this case is the even wilder "logic" involved. Using your example, if Carl, the robber, was shot dead by the clerk in the second robbery, Al would be a murderer. This guy's girlfriend was driving him to a barn so that he could steal a car, she wasn't there innocently, she was part of the crime. How on Earth he is responsible for her behavior is beyond me. Now perhaps if we were talking about some poor sap being killed just walking down the street while the boyfriend was getting shot at, there would be some room to say that the wild shots fired by the farmer were due to the boyfriend's presence...

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Yes. If a robber brings a loaded weapon with himself, then it's hard to argue that he didn't have intent to use it -- even if the specific act in which a person was shot was an accident. Moreover, the robber was the person who actually committed the homicide, and did so while committing another felony, which I believe usually fits the definition of 2nd Degree Murder.

I'm not a legal expert, but there is certainly a fundamental difference between the two scenarios. In the OP, the person didn't directly kill the victim. In your scenario, he did.

Okay, in my scenario, what charges should the getaway driver face?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

I can easily see it. Let's simplify it down to that. suppose a man shoves a woman into a busy street, where she is immediately struck and killed by a passing car.

The driver of the car did not commit any crime. From his point of view, a pedestrian suddenly appear in his path, in a manner that left him with no possible way to avoid hitting her. Even though he was in control of the vehicle which caused the fatality, and in that sense, is the one who killed her; he bears no guilt.

The man who shoved the woman into the street didn't literally kill her. It was being struck by a car that killed her. But he created the situation which led to her death, knowing full well that that was a likely outcome of his actions.

Would you dispute that the man who shoved the woman into the street is guilty of murdering her? Is he not fully responsible for her death?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm still trying to get how this guy "shoved his accomplice in front of a car"...

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Okay, in my scenario, what charges should the getaway driver face?

The getaway driver would probably be charged as an accessory to murder.

EDIT: The only analogous situation that is similar to your scenario might be this: two people try to rob a house. In the process, the armed owner confronts them. One of the thieves, instead of putting his hands up, sticks his hand in his pocket. The owner interprets this as the thief going for a weapon, and shoots, but hits and kills the other thief.

The guy who stuck his hand in his pocket is certainly not guilty of murder. But he is, arguably, responsible for the death, and guilty of a lesser crime.

 

[Bob Klase]

I meant the shooter, not the thief.

Ranb

He said he was sorry for what happened "and said he knew he was partially responsible for her death,"

I wonder if his words and actions will expose him to a civil lawsuit which could be brought by the dead woman’s relatives.

If you meant the shooter then I'm not sure what "words and actions you were talking about. The one who said he was sorry for what happened and said "he knew he was partially responsible for her death," was the thief.

 

[Drudgewire]

I don't think any of those analogies really work. A legal comparison would be two guys robbing a bank. If one is shot dead by the police, the other can be charged with his murder.

The reasoning is the commission of a crime with weapons led to a death, same as if they had shot a bank teller. In this instance the second the driver (allegedly) turned the car into a weapon, any injuries or deaths resulting from his actions are on him... whether it was a bystander or his partner.

 

[Bob Klase]

But in one, he's pointing a deadly weapon right at someone, that is loaded with ammunition that can kill someone,

In most (or all) states (and probably many other countries) a car is considered a deadly weapon when you try to hit someone with it.

and of which the entire purpose is to be able to do damage to or kill another being.

The fact that damaging or killing another being is not the entire purpose of a car doesn't make it any less deadly.

 

[Lonewulf]

In most (or all) states (and probably many other countries) a car is considered a deadly weapon when you try to hit someone with it.

So you can hit someone inside a car with the car?

The fact that damaging or killing another being is not the entire purpose of a car doesn't make it any less deadly.

So you can hit someone inside a car with the car they're inside of?

Is that he was intending? To hit his accomplice with his car? If not, then can you please tell me why the analogy counts at all?

If he was aiming for Pedestrian A, and hit Accomplice B, then that would be a different issue. Yes, he would be guilty of murder, or at the very least manslaughter.

But, assuming he was aiming for Pedestrian A, and Pedestrian A shot and hit Accomplice B, then how is that the same thing as accidentally shooting someone with a gun at all? It doesn't matter how deadly his car is. Period. It doesn't matter if he was behind the wheel of a giant supercannon. That still would not be him shooting or hitting the accomplice, or attempting to do so. He can't even be charged for attempted murder of the accomplice for the specific actions and motives he had, but he can be charged with direct murder... see why this still doesn't make sense?

Seriously, guys. You have to some real twisted logical gymnastics here to accept these analogies. They're all made of suck and fail.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

The getaway driver would probably be charged as an accessory to murder.

EDIT: The only analogous situation that is similar to your scenario might be this: two people try to rob a house. In the process, the armed owner confronts them. One of the thieves, instead of putting his hands up, sticks his hand in his pocket. The owner interprets this as the thief going for a weapon, and shoots, but hits and kills the other thief.

The guy who stuck his hand in his pocket is certainly not guilty of murder. But he is, arguably, responsible for the death, and guilty of a lesser crime.

I agree that the getaway driver would be charged as you said, but I'm curious if you think that's fair. In the original incident that spawned this discussion, it's not disputed that the car thief can be charged with murder under current statutes, but rather that such a charge is unfair as he did not fire the shot that killed the woman.

 

[Drudgewire]

Is that he was intending? To hit his accomplice with his car? If not, then can you please tell me why the analogy counts at all?

If he was aiming for Pedestrian A, and hit Accomplice B, then that would be a different issue. Yes, he would be guilty of murder.

Again, I agree with you the analogies put forth aren't applicable but it's a moot point. The general rule is if during the commission of a violent felony a suspect is killed, his or her accomplices are on the hook for the death.

Here's another case from Florida

A 17-year-old robbery suspect seen coming out of a Hendricks Avenue convenience store early Thursday was shot and killed by a police officer. The three other suspects who fled the scene -- all juveniles and Englewood High School students -- were tracked down, arrested and are facing charges of armed robbery and felony murder.

I couldn't find the wording in the Florida criminal code, but Oklahoma words the connection of an underlying felony to a homicide as such:

"The felony must be inherently or potentially dangerous to human life, inherently dangerous as determined by the elements of the offense or potentially dangerous in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding both the felony and the homicide."

I'd imagine that's close to the standard applied here. Stealing a car wouldn't apply, but if that car then became a weapon the crime does become "inherently or potentially dangerous to human life" and any loss of life resulting from it does become the legal responsibility of the person committing the crime.

 

[Lonewulf]

Again, I agree with you the analogies put forth aren't applicable but it's a moot point. The general rule is if during the commission of a violent felony a suspect is killed, his or her accomplices are on the hook for the death.

The question isn't whether or not the law states what's what, the question is if such a law is justified. I do not believe that it is justified. So I do not consider it moot.

 

[Drudgewire]

The question isn't whether or not the law states what's what, the question is if such a law is justified. I do not believe that it is justified. So I do not consider it moot.

Oh whether it's a just law is certainly up for discussion. But from a purely legal standpoint they aren't breaking any new ground with this case.

And if I was the guy's lawyer the first thing I'd do would be to kick him square in the family jewels for admitting he was partially responsible for her death.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Oh whether it's a just law is certainly up for discussion. But from a purely legal standpoint they aren't breaking any new ground with this case.

True. I vaguely remember arguing in a previous thread about a similar case.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I agree that the getaway driver would be charged as you said, but I'm curious if you think that's fair.

It's hard to say for sure without the details of a very specific situation, but if the getaway driver knew he was helping someone who had just committed a crime, then absolutely and aiding and abetting/accessory would be perfectly fair.

In the original incident that spawned this discussion, it's not disputed that the car thief can be charged with murder under current statutes, but rather that such a charge is unfair as he did not fire the shot that killed the woman.

I don't think that connects well with the getaway driver analogy, but regardless: it's not just that he didn't fire the shot, but that as far as I know, first and second degree murder require some intent to cause serious injury or death. Clearly the driver didn't intend for his girlfriend to be hurt or killed. Moreover, the girlfriend herself wasn't an innocent bystander. She was there willingly, and was therefore responsible for putting herself in danger. She wasn't a 'victim' per se.

I think that involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide (on top of the charges for the robbery) would be perfectly fair, though others here disagree.

 

[Cavemonster]

It's hard to say for sure without the details of a very specific situation, but if the getaway driver knew he was helping someone who had just committed a crime, then absolutely and aiding and abetting/accessory would be perfectly fair.



I don't think that connects well with the getaway driver analogy, but regardless: it's not just that he didn't fire the shot, but that as far as I know, first and second degree murder require some intent to cause serious injury or death. Clearly the driver didn't intend for his girlfriend to be hurt or killed. Moreover, the girlfriend herself wasn't an innocent bystander. She was there willingly, and was therefore responsible for putting herself in danger. She wasn't a 'victim' per se.

I think that involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide (on top of the charges for the robbery) would be perfectly fair, though others here disagree.

I think that sounds right. I think we can all agree that the accomplice is in a real way partially responsible for the death, but murder does need intent to harm at least, no?

To add another dodgy metaphor to the pot, let's say two people were engaged in something equally dangerous, but not illegal: Maybe, base jumping, or teasing grizzly bears. If one of the base jumpers or grizzly teasers died, no matter how stupid the stunt was, I don't think anyone would accuse the other grizzly teaser of murder unless there was evidence of intent. Maybe criminal negligence or manslaughter, but not murder.

It does seem like the murder charge is consistent with precedent, but it also seems out of step with homicide law in general.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I agree that to some extent, the murder charge seems excessive. It's tough for me to find sympathy for the current plight of the thief, however. I admit I have a bias toward criminals.

 

[Lonewulf]

I agree that to some extent, the murder charge seems excessive. It's tough for me to find sympathy for the current plight of the thief, however. I admit I have a bias toward criminals.

The mark of a civilized society is one that overcomes its bias in the interest of justice and fairness.