Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[Cavemonster]

I don't really have sympathy either, but it feels like the murder charge is just a slapdash way of dealing with the fact that we don't have a designation that both accurately reflects the situation, and imposes an appropriate penalty.

 

[Ranb]

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.

Opps, you are right. There goes the whole point of my original post.

Ranb

 

[Bob Klase]

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

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

Irrelevant. He was using the car as a weapon and that justifies the other person shooting. His action was a direct cause of the shooting.

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?

It doesn't count if you just ignore what the law says.

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.

How about if he was aiming for Pedestrian A when another car comes around the corner and has to swerve suddenly to avoid hitting him- in the process, the 2nd car hits pedestrian B.

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

They'll all suck and fail until there's one that you like- and there won't be one that you like until it agrees with your point of view.

 

[Lonewulf]

Irrelevant. He was using the car as a weapon and that justifies the other person shooting. His action was a direct cause of the shooting.

Yes, that justifies the other person shooting. There's a term for that; self defense. That does not justify Murder II for the driver for that shooting. Try to keep up, please.

If there was a justified killing, then how can anyone be charged with murder? Murder isn't justified.

It doesn't count if you just ignore what the law says.

An unjust law is an unjust law. Just because it's on the books doesn't automatically make it a just law. Or do you think that previous laws to hand over escaped slaves back to their "rightful owners" were just, just because they were on the books?

How about if he was aiming for Pedestrian A when another car comes around the corner and has to swerve suddenly to avoid hitting him- in the process, the 2nd car hits pedestrian B.

Now you're just reeeeally stretching logic to prove your point.

This is getting so far away from shooting the other robber in the car, I'm not even sure where to begin.

They'll all suck and fail until there's one that you like- and there won't be one that you like until it agrees with your point of view.

Because I'm capable of rational thought and don't accept every analogy thrown at me? Hey, you know what? I also disagree with the idea that allowing homosexual marriage automatically leads into allowing people to marry their dogs or siblings. I guess that means that it's just because it disagrees with my point of view, and not because the argument distorts logic to make its point, right? The only reason to ever reject something is because it "doesn't agree with my point of view"? Or do you just accuse me of that because I'm not immediately going, "Oh! That makes total sense! Him attacking someone else with the car was TOTALLY like him shooting his accomplice with a gun in every conceivable fashion! NO WAY I could POSSIBLY disagree with that analogy, OMG!!!!!!"


I'll say it again: The only way you can possibly convince me that this was Murder II (I can accept negligent homicide, albeit reluctantly), is if you can tell me in what possible scenario he would be guilty of, with the same motivations and actions, Attempted Murder on his accomplice. And then you can tell me if both should have attempted murder on their charges as well, assuming both survive the action.

If he couldn't attempt murder on her with the same actions (if she didn't die), then how can he be guilty of Murder II? It makes no possible sense, unless you go through the requisite mental gymnastics to "make it match your point of view". Hey! You're guilty of what you claim I am! Hm, I think there's a word for that.

 

[WildCat]

Basically it boils down to that when you commit a felony you own the end results of your crime, even if it isn't what you intended.

If the guy hadn't decided to steal a car his g/f wouldn't have died.

It's really that simple.

 

[Lonewulf]

When you think simplistically, things to tend to look that way, yes.

 

[WildCat]

When you think simplistically, things to tend to look that way, yes.

When you make things more complicated than they really are it's possible to excuse just about anything.

 

[Lonewulf]

And yet, it still makes no sense to accuse him of Murder II.

Once more, if there's no possibility for attempted murder with the same actions and motivations, there's no justifiable reason to accuse him of being responsible for Murder II.

Hey, that's simple, not too complicated at all. I think you can even comprehend that, Wildcat. Just try!

I find it funny how certain people here actually refuse to accept the idea of personal responsibility. She couldn't possibly be responsible for her own death -- being an accomplice and all. I guess it's because she's an innocent little girl along for the ride? I would think that people like Wildcat would actually be capable of understanding such a concept, since "personal responsibility" is the mantra of certain folk...

 

[WildCat]

And yet, it still makes no sense to accuse him of Murder II.

Once more, if there's no possibility for attempted murder with the same actions and motivations, there's no justifiable reason to accuse him of being responsible for Murder II.

Hey, that's simple, not too complicated at all. I think you can even comprehend that, Wildcat. Just try!

His felonious actions resulted in the death of a person.

BTW, we had a very long thread about this subject a few years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86053

 

[Lonewulf]

His felonious actions resulted in the death of a person.

And she committed those actions as an accomplice. She would have been responsible for her own life.

BTW, we had a very long thread about this subject a few years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86053

And?

 

[timhau]

Basically it boils down to that when you commit a felony you own the end results of your crime, even if it isn't what you intended.

If the guy hadn't decided to steal a car his g/f wouldn't have died.

It's really that simple.

And if the girlfriend hadn't decided to steal a car with him, she'd still be alive. So... suicide?

 

[WildCat]

And if the girlfriend hadn't decided to steal a car with him, she'd still be alive. So... suicide?

Fatal attraction.

 

[WildCat]

And she committed those actions as an accomplice. She would have been responsible for her own life.

Not according to the Law of Parties, which is hardly unique to states in the US.

And?

It's been done to death.

 

[rwguinn]

It is mostly a matter of intent:
http://askville.amazon.com/definiti...ils.do?requestId=13112755&responseId=13114182

...Second degree murder means that someone does something on purpose that could cause someone to die, knowing that it could cause someone to die, and someone does die. Manslaughter means that someone does something on purpose that could cause someone to die without thinking of that possibility and someone dies.

If you aim a truck at someone and hit the gas, you know (or should know) that you can cause death to someone. Simply because the wrong person (from your perspective) died, does not excuse the fact that someone DID die. ("I didn't mean for Karen to get killed, Mr. DA--I was aiming at Charlie, but he jumped out of the way and I wrecked the truck, so it's not my fault!"
If they establish intent (trying to run over the vehicle owner), then it's Murder II. Otherwise, manslaughter.
I would be torn between the two, and need to hear more.
At any rate, when you engage in activity that is illegal, you deserve the consequences when it escalates to more than what you thought it would be.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How do you judge something like that?

The answer is clear in the opening post, you shoot them all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it working?

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

But then we're in the realms of crowds watching public executions of thieves were being worked by pickpockets and so forth.

But think about people shooting the pick pockets in the crowds would increase the deterant even more.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So in an equipment failure while base jumping everyone involved should be charged.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Well finaly we are having people outing themselves as sociopaths.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

See this is why we need to justify police not backing down, and shooting when ever anyone tries to run away.

 

[Cavemonster]

So in an equipment failure while base jumping everyone involved should be charged.

If it was a base jump executed at what could be termed "excessive risk" to the extent that a robbery and using a car as a weapon constitutes excessive risk, then I'd say that criminal negligence might be a realistic charge for those involved in the base jump.

After all, everyone involved in a game of Russian Roullete can be charged. I'd imagine that if an episode of "Jackass" went horribly wrong, they would need damn good paperwork to keep everyone involved out of trouble. (I'm guessing that the stunts are not as dangerous as they appear and that they do have damned good paperwork though).