Felony murder rule which provides that if someone is killed in the commission of a violent felony, all participents are guilty of murder, not only the trigger puller, even the get away driver outside.

I don’t think it is enacted in every state but quite a few, with inevitable variations, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yeah, leave it to you, Keystoner, to express surprise at a law that's been on the books in many states for decades. Why don't you go tell the police, judge and DA about how this makes no sense to you?

Decades, huh? What a stupid law.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yeah, leave it to you, Keystoner, to express surprise at a law that's been on the books in many states for decades. Why don't you go tell the police, judge and DA about how this makes no sense to you?

Decades, huh? What a stupid law.

I'm not sure why you find it stupid, but if you ever find the time to study the legal system formerly, I think you'll notice a theme.

For example in Tort Law there is the Eggshell Doctrine, or Thin Skull Rule. The concept is that if you cuff someone on the back of the head and they have a skull like an eggshell and you crack it, you're in deep do-do. You take your victim as you find them.

Similar theme to the Felony Murder Rule. The point is that when you try to establish laws, there are all sorts of what-if's that come up. Eventually, it's best just to say, screw it, if you do it, you own whatever the outcome is...so don't do dumb stuff.

If you don't want to risk being charged with murder because someone died when you were committing a violent felony....don't commit a violent felony. Someone is dead as a result of your stupid ass choice, so I'm all for you going down hard. If you said, ya know guys, this felony is a bad idea, let's not do it...your accomplice would be alive.

As a matter of public policy, I think it's a great thing. I am pro Felony Murder Rule.

Oh, I agree with the accomplice part. The fact that the cop killed the accomplice, and he's guilty--that's stupid.

welp, not sure what to tell you. Some really great legal scholars think it's smart.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Just wondering, what was going on in his mind to reject the plea deal?
I will bet it was disbelief he was actually going to prison for 25 years. He'd never faced adult consequences for his criminal behavior before.
What was going on in his mind to laugh at 65 years in prison?
I will bet it was disbelief he was actually going to prison for 65 years. He'd never faced adult consequences for being an idiot in front of a sentencing judge.

Is his brain really that dysfunctional?
Yes, but as a function of his upbringing, not genetics.

Has his life really been that screwed up?
Yes. His and countless others raised in fatherless "families" throughout the Democratically-controlled urban ghettos.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimb888

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Just wondering, what was going on in his mind to reject the plea deal? What was going on in his mind to laugh at 65 years in prison? Is his brain really that dysfunctional? Has his life really been that screwed up?

Clearly that answer is YES.

Well, question asked, question answered. It's sad, but very real.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
....What a stupid law.

If you willingly engage in potentially violent criminal activity, and someone is killed in the process, you are fully accountable regardless if you are the one who pulled the trigger or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
....What a stupid law.

If you willingly engage in potentially violent criminal activity, and someone is killed in the process, you are fully accountable regardless if you are the one who pulled the trigger or not.

Sure, and if the accomplice killed the cop, or anyone else, I'm all for that.

First rule of life: Know when to shut up

FAIL!

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yeah, leave it to you, Keystoner, to express surprise at a law that's been on the books in many states for decades. Why don't you go tell the police, judge and DA about how this makes no sense to you?

Decades, huh? What a stupid law.

I'm sure there's several felons in Prison doing life who would agree with you.

We had a black kid come into our system many years ago who was doing 20 years because he watched his chums murder an Asian grocer in Harrisburg during an armed hold up. He just stood there and did nothing. All he had to do was walk out of the store before the armed hold up began.

I helped interview the kid for space placement. Juvenile's must be celled with another juvie or a family member. The kid was 16, I believe and had the mind of a 10 year old, but he was in the state prison system because it was the law.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Smith was charged under Alabama’s accomplice law, “which holds co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are committing a crime,” the Montgomery Adviser reported.On Feb. 23, 2015, Smith, along with four other people, broke into two homes in Millbrook.

Police responded to calls of the robberies, and the suspects fired at the officer who entered the home they were raiding. The suspects fled the home but continued to fire at the officer.

One of the suspects, A’Donte Washington, 16, of Montgomery, who was armed with a revolver, allegedly pointed a gun at the officer, body cam footage showed. The officer fired at the teenager, killing him.

Am I understanding this correctly - A police officer shoots and kills an armed criminal (good, one less to worry about) and one of the other criminals gets charged for murder of said dead criminal? I'm glad Lafuckup is off the streets but this seems weird.

I agree this is a weird law, I could understand if one of the four thugs killed someone but the Officer kills one of them and they're up on murder chargers. I knew about this law but would have never guessed that it would also work if one of the criminals was killed by law enforcement. Learn something new daily.

quote:

Police responded to calls of the robberies, and the suspects fired at the officer who entered the home they were raiding. The suspects fled the home but continued to fire at the officer.

Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about. These THUGS shot at the officers and continued to fire. Had the officer not returned fire, HE might be dead now. They all deserve the harshest penalties available. These thugs were not acting as individuals; they were acting as a GROUP, or in this case a PACK, intent on harming or killing a LEO. Too bad he can't be executed for his role in the crimes.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
....What a stupid law.

If you willingly engage in potentially violent criminal activity, and someone is killed in the process, you are fully accountable regardless if you are the one who pulled the trigger or not.

Sure, and if the accomplice killed the cop, or anyone else, I'm all for that.

So because a criminal was killed, no one should care? Is that what you are saying?

Since the life lost was a criminals life, it is less important, and therefore the other living criminal should not have to do as much time for the guy who died during the crime?

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yeah, leave it to you, Keystoner, to express surprise at a law that's been on the books in many states for decades. Why don't you go tell the police, judge and DA about how this makes no sense to you?

Decades, huh? What a stupid law.

Man, just be quiet.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:
Not sure what all the hand-wringing is about. These THUGS shot at the officers and continued to fire. Had the officer not returned fire, HE might be dead now. They all deserve the harshest penalties available. These thugs were not acting as individuals; they were acting as a GROUP, or in this case a PACK, intent on harming or killing a LEO. Too bad he can't be executed for his role in the crimes.

Amen to that!!! Pack mentality, and pack activity! Treat them like a pack and exterminate them all, just like the vicious animals they are!!!

No tears shed from me whatsoever; I'm just sad these wastes of oxygen and taxpayer money have to keep on breathing!

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yeah, leave it to you, Keystoner, to express surprise at a law that's been on the books in many states for decades. Why don't you go tell the police, judge and DA about how this makes no sense to you?

Decades, huh? What a stupid law.

I believe the concept goes all the way back to English Common Law.

But to call it "a stupid law" misses the point of this aspect of law.

If only one criminal actually takes the property of another during the commission of a crime with accomplices, generally do not all share equally in the proceeds of the crime? Why not then have the penalty equally shared among the guilty?

Do we get 30, 60 , and 90 day follow-up pics of the punk to determine if he's still laughing and happy in his la'cell?

quote:

Originally posted by cazio:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Smith was charged under Alabama’s accomplice law, “which holds co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are committing a crime,” the Montgomery Adviser reported.On Feb. 23, 2015, Smith, along with four other people, broke into two homes in Millbrook.

Police responded to calls of the robberies, and the suspects fired at the officer who entered the home they were raiding. The suspects fled the home but continued to fire at the officer.

One of the suspects, A’Donte Washington, 16, of Montgomery, who was armed with a revolver, allegedly pointed a gun at the officer, body cam footage showed. The officer fired at the teenager, killing him.

Am I understanding this correctly - A police officer shoots and kills an armed criminal (good, one less to worry about) and one of the other criminals gets charged for murder of said dead criminal? I'm glad Lafuckup is off the streets but this seems weird.

I agree this is a weird law, I could understand if one of the four thugs killed someone but the Officer kills one of them and they're up on murder chargers. I knew about this law but would have never guessed that it would also work if one of the criminals was killed by law enforcement. Learn something new daily.

Same thing applies if he was killed by an armed citizen homeowner. They came armed to either commit burglaries or home invasions, based on if anyone was home at the time they kicked the door in. Most Felony laws read that a death has to occur during the commission of the crime, law doesn't state whose death. The surviving suspects should not be rewarded with just burglary charges just because their intended victim was quicker on the draw and a better shot(similar to the Oklahoma shooting where the son shot the three suspects with his AR15 last year, female driver is facing felony murder charges).

Lakeith acted like the arrogant little thug he is because he thought he was going to get probation; just like the other 5-20 prior times he went to court for stealing and burglary charges with time served in the County Jail with his family members and gang buddies. Now it is off to big boy prison, where the butt rape has dire consequences.

Would it apply if someone dies from natural causes while committing a felony in a group? Or during the commission of a non-violent felony?

A friend of a friend was driving home and someone else crashed into him at a red light. He called the police because there was more than a couple thousand dollars of damage and wanted a report/get the statement by the driver (who admitted fault) in case the other driver's insurance company gave him a hard time. When they arrived they smelled alcohol on his breath and asked if he'd been drinking. He admitted to having a few drinks after work and because he was involved in an accident they asked him to take a breathalyzer which he did. He blew exactly .08 and the next thing he knows he's arrested for DUI and from that point on the accident that he didn't cause and wasn't at fault for was now being put on him because he shouldn't have been driving. He beat it in court (well his expensive lawyer did) but the other driver's insurance company refused to cover the damages to his vehicle and I believe both insurance companies paid for their own insureds' claims.

That being said, what if I'm in the car when that happened and that someone who caused the accident gets killed. Does this law apply now that I'm involved with a felony DUI that resulted in a death and have to plea to 25 years simply because I was a passenger in his vehicle?

StayFrosty:
I arrested a number of "not at fault" drivers who were legally drunk, but not otherwise at fault in the crash. And the other parties insurance uses the argument that the drinking driver was not in lawful use of the roadway at the time of the crash and so reduces or negates their liability.
And was not at all unusual for me to arrest both drivers out of a crash. And a co-worker once arrested 3 drivers out of the same crash.