55 years: A burglary, a teen, and a death

[Gig em Aggies]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/felony-murder-why-a-teenager-who-didnt-kill-anyone-faces-55-years-in-jail/ar-BBhZuAc

Well I find it hard for someone to say he isn't guilty. I am currently in Collee for a degree in Criminal Justice and I remember my professor saying if a death happens in the comission of a felony you are held liable wether or not you pulled the trigger or were un-armed. I find the sentence for all remaining suspects within rights and not too harsh. I feel the kid might get a lower sentence but he still might serve maybe 20-30 years if a plea is worked out with the prosecution.

So how do you feel on this case (Criminal Justice employee's and criminal justice students welcome to comment)

[Scomagia]

Felony murder laws are a crock of shit.

[United Russian Soviet States]

The sentence is just.

[Fartsniffage]

Felony murder laws are a crock of shit.

Not really. If you take part in a crime and one of your accomplices kills someone then I set it as just. The crime of murder has been committed and you were an accomplice.

In this case....not so much.

[Fartsniffage]

The sentence is just.

55 years for burglary?

[Scomagia]

Felony murder laws are a crock of shit.

Not really. If you take part in a crime and one of your accomplices kills someone then I set it as just. The crime of murder has been committed and you were an accomplice.

In this case....not so much.

You should only be considered an accomplice if you had reason to believe a murder might result from your activities.

[Alyakia]

wait a minute so who actually got murdered

are they jailing him for the death of the guy he was in the closet with what

[Scomagia]

wait a minute so who actually got murdered

are they jailing him for the death of the guy he was in the closet with what

If you're committing a dangerous Felony and anyone dies, you're going to be charged with murder.

[Fartsniffage]

Not really. If you take part in a crime and one of your accomplices kills someone then I set it as just. The crime of murder has been committed and you were an accomplice.

In this case....not so much.

You should only be considered an accomplice if you had reason to believe a murder might result from your activities.

Right. And choosing to commit a crime against a person with another person is reason to believe that the victim might be harmed.

[Scomagia]

You should only be considered an accomplice if you had reason to believe a murder might result from your activities.

Right. And choosing to commit a crime against a person with another person is reason to believe that the victim might be harmed.

I disagree.

[Alyakia]

holy shit lol the guy shot in justified self-defence and now they're charging the guys who broke in with murdering the guy he shot ahahaha this is the stupidest shit

i mean, i thought it would be one killed the homeowner and they all got charged, which is debatable. but this is a whole new level of what the shit.

e: Cara and Joel Wieneke, the legal duo who represent Layman, said that at the heart of the argument they will be presenting to the supreme court is the issue of agency. “The plain language of the statute requires the defendant or one of his accomplices to do the killing. In Blake’s case neither he nor any of his co-perpetrators killed anybody – this was a justified killing by the person who was protecting his home,” Joel Wieneke told the Guardian.

like really

You should only be considered an accomplice if you had reason to believe a murder might result from your activities.

Right. And choosing to commit a crime against a person with another person is reason to believe that the victim might be harmed.

but the victim wasn't harmed

[Fartsniffage]

but the victim wasn't harmed

I'm aware of that.

[Ikania]

I've seen some bullshit things in my day. The Ferguson decision was bullshit, even more so with Eric Garner. But Eric Garner could possibly be classified as an accident, that the cop didn't mean to kill him (he did, but that's not the point). But this?

This is the most bullshit thing I've ever seen. This kid deserves maybe a short sentence for burglary, nothing over 5 years, but he did not commit a murder. The law itself even says that someone must die by the hands of the people committing the crime, and that did not happen.

This is just so incomprehensibly stupid that I can't even imagine how heartless and fucked up are the people who put him in jail.

[Scomagia]

I've seen some bullshit things in my day. The Ferguson decision was bullshit, even more so with Eric Garner. But Eric Garner could possibly be classified as an accident, that the cop didn't mean to kill him (he did, but that's not the point). But this?

This is the most bullshit thing I've ever seen. This kid deserves maybe a short sentence for burglary, nothing over 5 years, but he did not commit a murder. The law itself even says that someone must die by the hands of the people committing the crime, and that did not happen.

This is just so incomprehensibly stupid that I can't even imagine how heartless and fucked up are the people who put him in jail.

Unfortunately, there's precedent establishing that ANY death caused as a result of a "dangerous" Felony falls under the Felony Murder Rule, whether the death is the victim of the crime or one of the perpetrators.

[Ikania]

I've seen some bullshit things in my day. The Ferguson decision was bullshit, even more so with Eric Garner. But Eric Garner could possibly be classified as an accident, that the cop didn't mean to kill him (he did, but that's not the point). But this?

This is the most bullshit thing I've ever seen. This kid deserves maybe a short sentence for burglary, nothing over 5 years, but he did not commit a murder. The law itself even says that someone must die by the hands of the people committing the crime, and that did not happen.

This is just so incomprehensibly stupid that I can't even imagine how heartless and fucked up are the people who put him in jail.

Unfortunately, there's precedent establishing that ANY death caused as a result of a "dangerous" Felony falls under the Felony Murder Rule, whether the death is the victim of the crime or one of the perpetrators.

Well then that precedent is dumb as a mentally challenged mule. I don't have respect for anyone who says 'well technically he broke the law, so he deserves it'. The law is not always right.

[Scomagia]

Unfortunately, there's precedent establishing that ANY death caused as a result of a "dangerous" Felony falls under the Felony Murder Rule, whether the death is the victim of the crime or one of the perpetrators.

Well then that precedent is dumb as a mentally challenged mule. I don't have respect for anyone who says 'well technically he broke the law, so he deserves it'. The law is not always right.

I agree with you.

[Fartsniffage]

Right. And choosing to commit a crime against a person with another person is reason to believe that the victim might be harmed.

I disagree.

Why?

[Scomagia]

I disagree.

Why?

Because there's not always reason to believe the victim of your crime will be present during your crime, for one thing.

[New Baldonia]

Texas LEO here. In my opinion, this is wrong. Getting charged for any murders that happen as a direct result of your crime is acceptable. However in this situation, and from what that article states (there may be more to the story), I feel as though the murders should be written off as self defense on the homeowners part, and not as a murder charge on the boy. As the defense stated :

Our felony murder statute provides: “A person who ... kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit... kidnaping ...commits murder, a felony.”Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. Palmer here did not kill another human being; his co-perpetrator was killed by a law enforcement official. Under the terms of the felony murder statute, Palmer is not guilty of felony murder. Our accomplice liability statute provides: “A person who knowingly or intentionally aids ... another person to commit an offense commits that offense.”Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. A person can be liable for felony murder for aiding another person in the commission thereof. But because Palmer's co-perpetrator did not commit felony murder, Palmer cannot be found to have aided in committing that offense. Under the terms of the accomplice liability statute, Palmer is not guilty of felony murder.

(source)
Now if he had, for instance, used his accomplice as a shield, or somehow pushed him directly into the path of the shot, then I could understand accrediting the murder to him. Which he may have done, however I won't know unless I decide to look further into this on my own. So I won't assume he did. I know for a fact that this case will be reviewed likely several more times regardless of the outcome, that's just how the US justice system works. Especially now that a major news source has covered the story. And I wouldn't be surprised if his sentence is reduced a fair amount.

[Fartsniffage]

Why?

Because there's not always reason to believe the victim of your crime will be present during your crime, for one thing.

So don't commit the crime in the first place. It's a risk that one should take into consideration before breaking the law.

[Costa Fierro]

If anything, this sounds like a shaky case for manslaughter. Where the actions of the individuals resulted in an unintentional death.

[Scomagia]

Because there's not always reason to believe the victim of your crime will be present during your crime, for one thing.

So don't commit the crime in the first place. It's a risk that one should take into consideration before breaking the law.

Now I remember why I had you on my ignore list.

[Gauthier]

Sadly, would it have even made national attention if a black youth was going to face life for being a driver in a crime?

[Fartsniffage]

So don't commit the crime in the first place. It's a risk that one should take into consideration before breaking the law.

Now I remember why I had you on my ignore list.

You did? That's brilliant. I wasn't aware I was on anyone's ignore list.

*Swans around having finally made it on NSG...*

[The Cobalt Sky]

This doesn't sit right. They were robbing the house, but they get fired upon... so the robbers that live get jailed for killing the one that died, even though they probably didn't want him dead and it's clear they didn't fire any guns? I hope I read that article right...