not to excuse criminals, but...

P

pitz96

New member
I'm not meaning to excuse criminals, but recently there was an armed robbery in my area which ended up with one of the bad guys running away, breaking into someone's house to hide, and the police finding and shooting him dead. Now the robber who didn't run, and was arrested at the scene of the crime (a convenience store) is being charged with murder (of his partner who the cop shot.) Does this seem right?

I guess it's kind of like when police crash their cars on the way to respond to crimes. If an officer dies in a crash (not in actual pursuit), whoever committed the crime he was responding can be charged with homicide, in my area anyway.
 
Short answer is no. It isn't right. Charging them with whatever crimes they both committed together and planned to commit is acceptable. Like charging the getaway driver with the robbery, that is OK. Charging him with killing his friend who at one point in a long chain of bad decisions, made a worse one, that is wrong and if I am sitting on the jury, he is only guilty of the robbery and not the other crimes.
 
Doesn't sound right to me, however as I understand things if you're an accomplice in a crime they charge you with the same thing as who actually did it.

I don't agree with that logic personally.
 
It sounds like he's being charged with felony murder. Which eliminates the necessity of proving intent, although the death that occurred during or immediately after the commission of the felony must be (IIRC) reasonably forseeable by Defendant (although that sounds awfully tort-ish rather than crim-law-ish).

I dunno, maybe somebody else here will know more about that. :o

Edited to add: The State has to prove that Defendant intentionally committed one felony; this intent then "transfers" to the killing of another that occured in the commission of the felony.

Or sumpin' like that.
 
Last edited:
I am not a lawyer, but as has been explained to me, felony murder states
that if a death occurs during a felony you committed, you will be charged with on the grounds that's all your fault. An excellent IMHO.
 
I wouldn't loose any sleep over it but I too feel it is wrong! The bone head that broke into the house to hide, took those actions on his own and died for it. I see that as a complete separate action by one individual.

While in Turkey, I Ran over a chicken in the road. I was taken to court and ended up paying for a pile of chickens. I paid for the chickens the chicken and the chickens chickens would have had and then the 5th generation of chickens they would have had!:rolleyes: It was a $2000,00 chicken!:cool:

Some laws just don't seem right! Most likely because they are not right!
 
Actually it is 'right'...

if you and I commit a crime and you die during the commision of that crime, I am responsible for your death... just like if innocent people die as a result of our crime we are both guilty of causing their deaths....

Don't do the crime if you aren't willing to face the penalty.

Two guys in Florida decided to attack a motorist last month... who shot both of them from his vehicle.... one died the other was charged with his bud's murder.
 
Pitz, we live in the same area. That convenience store is right in an area I frequent.

Missouri's felony murder rule, IMO, is not a bad one. The idea is for those who initiate a chain of events via a felony to be held criminally liable for any resulting fatalities. To me, that is not a bad thing; folks do need to think twice when it comes to initiating a felony. Armed robbery can easily result in a homicide.

That said, MO had a recent application of that law that in my opinion was not legit. A prisoner escaped, and in the resulting manhunt, a police officer was speeding to the scene and was killed in a traffic accident. The (then captured) fellow was charged with murder for the death of the officer. That's taking it too far, since the death is way too removed from the actions taking place. IMO, the fatal injury needs to be sustained in the same location of the initial felony or in proximity to the newly-christened felon. None of this "it happened 30 miles away and he wasn't involved other than the guy was responding" stuff.

At the same time, it pretty much just ends up being a stacked charge anyway- if they have the guy in question, then they have him dead to rights on whatever felony he had done, and probably some other charges as well. It just serves to keep the guy behind bars longer.
 
Let's see here...

If you participate in a crime - armed robbery - and/or you are in any way aiding and abetting that crime, then you are responsible for the results of your actions.

Typically, the principles and accomplices can and will be charged with the death of someone involved in the crime or the crime's immediate aftermath. If police arrive in time to catch them in the act and one suspect flees and dies as a result of pursuit, that's a foreseeable outcome of the risk of armed robbery.

On the other hand, if suspect #2 flees, eludes police and two days later walks in front of a bus and is killed, that is not a foreseeable circumstance of the crime. Nor would hiding in someone's house for 2 days, leaving and being killed in a shootout with police performing routine patrol.

Likewise, if the getaway driver panics and takes off with cops in pursuit, if he runs down a person on the streets the perps left behind at the scene can be charged with those homicides.

The homicide charges will stem as a direct result of their decision to commit a crime or the series of crimes committed until they are caught (reckless driving, ADW on other drivers, etc.)

I recall a detective story from long ago where robbers fled out towards the airport, spinning out in the wetlands near the end of the runway around dusk. Fleeing across a field of marsh grass they frightened several dozen geese into flight. One goose flies up and is sucked into the engine of a landing jetliner, causing it to crash land, killing 19 on board. In the book, they were charged with 19 murders. In reality, the DA would have to show that was a reasonably-foreseeable result of their crime (bringing down a jetliner). Not gonna happen.
 
if you and I commit a crime and you die during the commision of that crime, I am responsible for your death... just like if innocent people die as a result of our crime we are both guilty of causing their deaths....
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I totally disagree.

In my opinion:

--If you and I went to do a crime, and you die, well you knew what you were getting into, knew it was wrong, dangerous, and that you just might die. Your death would be 100% your responsibility (unless I actually caused your death, i.e. I intentionally shot you during the crime.)

--Innocents who died because of our crime would have received no warning and would not get to make the choice to or not to participate in a potentionally fatal event, therefore their deaths would be our fault.
 
Its called under common parlance felony murder and is a creature of statute in all 50 states IIRC

WilddontlikeitchangethelawAlaska TM
 
It'd be all right with me if they went to the scumbag's house and charged his Mama with murder! Fork 'em! Fork 'em all!
 
It'd be all right with me if they went to the scumbag's house and charged his Mama with murder! Fork 'em! Fork 'em all!
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.

So there is no way that good decent people could have a kid that becomes a criminal? Basically, everyone in prisons now have scumbag parents that deserve to be there as well? How about thier grandparents also, they should be charged as well for raising kids that raise criminals. Are you okay with being held liable for everything your kid does wrong throughout his or her life? I doubt it, once they are adults they are responsible for themselves. Actually, I think there was a thread somewhere that discussed this very thing.


And back to the topic, so if I follow the logic of this law, while police are trying to apprehend a felon, the surviving felons are charged with any and all damage the police might do as well? What if the police kill an innocent person either by gunfire or vehicle? What if one of the perps shoots himself, as in intentional suicide? What if one of the perps stays and gives himself up, but the other runs and kills someone to take thier car. Ditches that car, then kills someone else for thier car and so on, all to escape the law? Does the guy who gave himself up get charged with all those murders also? Much of this does not seem right.
 
Missouri's felony murder rule, IMO, is not a bad one. The idea is for those who initiate a chain of events via a felony to be held criminally liable for any resulting fatalities. To me, that is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Talk about a slippery slope. I don't see this as any different from the people who want to charge parents for what their "gansta" teens do, nor do I see it as any different from the people who want to prosecute gun owners when guns are stolen and then used in a crime.

As much as I would like to get a "two for one" deal in terms of removing the criminal element, where does this chain-of-blame end?
 
Two or more people engage in a conspiracy to commit a violent felony. During the course of said felony a person dies because of the act carried out by the two. The surviving criminal(s) are charged with the death since they participated in the commission of the crime. Don't do the crime if you aren't prepared to experience the consequences.
 
It is the law, but it grants too much power to the state. It should be altered so as to confine the liability to the acts commited together, the perpetrators began acting separately when one fled the scene and the other did not. In fact, it appears that the one who did not flee was already in custody when the other was killed. There is no reasonable nexus to the death with the act of robbery and the criminal in custody.

Not guilty of felony murder, next case!
 
Since that felony murder law existed long before these fine citizens chose to commit this particular felony, it is difficult to have any sympathy for this idiot.

"If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime".
 
I'm with Pat H. While I strongly agree with the aspect of felony murder that does away with the need to show intent, I'm not sure I'm comfortable holding one person responsible for the actions of another...especially if the first actually gave themselves up and is in custody at the time. Even more so since in this case the other "victim" is simply the other perpetrator.

I can see the reasoning behind it, so don't bother explaining it (already been well covered anyway), but it just doesn't seem quite "right" to me.

And charging somebody with the accidental death of an officer on his way to respond? That's way outside the realm of reason.

But with the former at least I guess I can see the whole "don't do the crime" argument. When you decide to commit a felony, particularly a potentially violent one (such as armed robbery), you aren't necessarily only responsible for the first couple dominoes. Kinda ties in well with obxned's sig (the second portion). Just because they're unintended, or even outside of your control, doesn't mean they aren't the consequences of your decision.
 
So let me get this straight. A police officer shoots and kills a burglar. That killing is determined to be lawful and justified. The officer faces no punishment.

A burglar two blocks away is in police custody. He's sitting in handcuffed in a car while his partner is shot. The same killing is determined to be unlawful and unjustified. He faces murder charges without having firing a shot.


That strikes me as very wrong. A murder is an unlawful killing. If the killing was unlawful than the person who shot the victim (the police officer) should be charged along with the accomplice (the captured criminal). If the killing was lawful and justified, than no murder has taken place and no one should be charged. As I see it, it can't be a murder and not a murder at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top