Lesson... Don't Steal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"You could foresee"? So, those criminals are soothsayers now? Great. We should hire them and replace the banksters, can't do much more harm than them.

And, by the way, if you intentionally choose to cause a death, that's called "murder". No need to make it this idiotic "felony murder".

---

Foreseeable risk isn't crazy, IANAL but as far as I know that applies to most liability cases. For example, if you shoot someone in the foot but only intend to injure him, but he happens to die, by shooting the gun at him you take the foreseeable risk of killing him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

They did commit the crime. You start a felony you take full responsibility for all consequences that come out of it. A getaway driver is just as guilty as the person who shoots a bank clerk.

---

Major difference is that in an armed robbery there is clearly a foreseeable risk of shooting someone (why else be armed in the first place?), but if you burgle a house unarmed*, I don't think you assume the risk of death as a consequence. I'd say it's reasonable to apply this rule for actions taken by the criminals, for actions taken subsequently by bystanders/victims, it doesn't seem right to me. And reading the wiki on felony murder in various states, most jurisdictions would agree - they mention either (as above) the suspect has to be the one doing the killing, or it has to be in furtherance of the crime, exhibit extreme indifference to the value of human life, causes the death of someone other than one of the participants, etc. And note that practically all of them specifically list what crimes are eligible, so not all crimes automatically apply, so when you start a felony you do not take full responsibility for all consequences (although this basically means when you start a violent felony with inherent risk of killing someone, you do, which seems reasonable enough).

*didn't read whether they were armed or not, but you were posting about basically committing any felony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

So is charging someone with murdering their friend for him getting shot by the security guard. Apparently, under this interpretation of the law, if you attempt to rob someone and they beat the crap out of you with a baseball bat, you're guilty of aggravated assault against yourself. Better hope the guy you attempted to rob doesn't start spitting racial epithets at you, that'll give the assault charge against yourself a hate crime add-on.

Using felony-murder in this way is lunacy. It's also apparently not uncommon. Part of the whole schtick DAs over here have of throwing every conceivable charge they can muster to encourage plea-bargaining. I know there's a case in California which is being pursued along fairly similar lines to the one Lewk cited.

---

That sounds roughly like my opinion on this. And the practice of stacking charges to insane levels simply to put pressure on for a plea bargain is a travesty of justice if you ask me, as it can lead to false confessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Foreseeable risk isn't crazy, IANAL but as far as I know that applies to most liability cases. For example, if you shoot someone in the foot but only intend to injure him, but he happens to die, by shooting the gun at him you take the foreseeable risk of killing him.

---

That may be, but they're also throwing that a burglars and carjackers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

That may be, but they're also throwing that a burglars and carjackers.

---

Why the hell wouldn't you want burglars and carjackers to be in prison longer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Major difference is that in an armed robbery there is clearly a foreseeable risk of shooting someone (why else be armed in the first place?), but if you burgle a house unarmed*, I don't think you assume the risk of death as a consequence.

---

Ignorance is no defence under the law, if you commit a violent felony (and robbery is by definition violent) I don't think the idea of a potentially fatal confrontation with the victim is that unreasonable. Same for rape or other extreme violent crimes.

Quote:

---

I'd say it's reasonable to apply this rule for actions taken by the criminals, for actions taken subsequently by bystanders/victims, it doesn't seem right to me. And reading the wiki on felony murder in various states, most jurisdictions would agree - they mention either (as above) the suspect has to be the one doing the killing, or it has to be in furtherance of the crime, exhibit extreme indifference to the value of human life, causes the death of someone other than one of the participants, etc. And note that practically all of them specifically list what crimes are eligible, so not all crimes automatically apply, so when you start a felony you do not take full responsibility for all consequences (although this basically means when you start a violent felony with inherent risk of killing someone, you do, which seems reasonable enough).

---

This was a violent felony. I think its not extraordinary to include deaths by victims, again if this was a hold-up and a security guard had tried to take down a felon and accidentally hit an innocent in the crossfire I'd consider that a consequence of the felony wouldn't you? The weird bit here is that it is a criminal, not that it was by a victim.

Quote:

---

*didn't read whether they were armed or not, but you were posting about basically committing any felony.

---

No, violent felonies. This was a violent felony though.

Quote:

---

That sounds roughly like my opinion on this. And the practice of stacking charges to insane levels simply to put pressure on for a plea bargain is a travesty of justice if you ask me, as it can lead to false confessions.

---

That's a problem with the pleas bargain system the US uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

That may be, but they're also throwing that a burglars and carjackers.

---

You think those are non-violent crimes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Liberals

---

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivat...1232434250.jpg

:kiss:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Isn't murder defined as "the intent to kill unlawfully"?

I can see manslaughter - but murder? Nope. Because that would make the distinction between manslaughter and murder pretty much meaningless.

---

For this exact reason, SCOTUS has ruled that felony murder cannot be applied to any crime with scalable charges (so it cannot be used if the DA is going to make any other sort of wrongful death charge, from vehicular manslaugher to 1st degree murder), as part of what is called "merger doctrine". The concept is supposed to be a way of nailing accomplices and/or those with complicit responsibility for the event who nonetheless can't be tied to the direct act (like the proverbial getaway driver). Lewk and Rand's (and the frequent use in various common law jurisdictions which maintain the rule) make a mockery of the already difficult-to-parse legal concept of proximate cause.

Quote:

---

You're speeding and thus kill someone? Murder. You steal a handbag and the old woman succumbs to a heartattack? Murder. You knock someone's teeth out, he gets a tooth infect, dies of the infection? Murder.

Please. There's a reason why we have different degrees of "unlawful killings". Simply slapping the murder charge on each and everyone of it simply makes the system more unjust.

---

Actually, in most US jurisdictions, the first and third would not be felony murder. Because the potential scope is so ridiculous, the courts generally require felony murder be tied to specific sets of offensives*. Speeding doesn't qualify because traffic violations do not carry an immediate forseeable danger to life (in fact it can and does, but the offense has not been tied to felony murder by statute). The death by infection subsequent to assault doesn't count because assault, like manslaughter, would fall under the merger doctrine and using felony murder would obscure a set of distinctions deliberate introduced into law. Particularly since felony-murder is legally equivalent to premeditated murder, the very hightest rung.

*But not in all jurisdictions. In California, for instance, it is largely at the court's discretion. Cooking meth has been ruled to be an activity with a forseeable danger to life. Which suggests that, as a hypothetical. if an investigating police officer trips down stairs in a meth lab while collecting evidence after an arrest, and breaks his/her neck, then those arrested will be guilty of felony murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivat...1232434250.jpg

:kiss:

---

Oh please. What part of limited government = opposite of what liberals want do you not understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Ignorance is no defence under the law, if you commit a violent felony (and robbery is by definition violent) I don't think the idea of a potentially fatal confrontation with the victim is that unreasonable. Same for rape or other extreme violent crimes.

---

Felony murder for the death of one of the perpetrators is saying that getting killed while committing a crime is not just suicide, it is murdering yourself with premeditated intent. There is no possible world where this is justice or any kind of reasonable and you are a lunatic for supporting it. At least with Lewk, we know he doesn't actually believe the above, he just welcomes anything that sees people accused with a crime being sent to prison for as long as possible, damn the rationale or injustice of it all. In his mind, anyone who has committed a crime (which means anyone who has been accused of committing a crime) has forfeited any right or expectation of life or the consequences of possessing life.

Quote:

---

No, violent felonies. This was a violent felony though.

---

Incorrect. Violence is not any sort of requirement. The only requirement is death somehow being a forseeable consequence of criminal activity. It could be by a heart-attack from someone overexerting themselves running away from the location of a meth lab they stumbled across.

There is no requirement for premeditation in murder.

There are multiple issues at play. Is felony murder in general right - and does this count?

A lot of the arguments have been against felony murder in general. I think those laws are right.
On the specific case of this one I find the case bizzare and odd. But potentially technically correct. The requirement is for a foreseeable death to occur during the commission of a felony. A death occurred, foreseeably, during the commission of a felony.

I wouldn't object to an exemption being added to the law but if its not there its not there. Best advice is to avoid felonies that can end in deaths - that it was a homeowner that killed an accomplice and not an accomplice that killed a homeowner is dumb luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Oh please. What part of limited government = opposite of what liberals want do you not understand?

---

:haha:

Your nebulous caricature of 'liberals' is so misplaced and simplistic you missed the point entirely.

Keep bashing your silly little strawman Lewk; it has no basis in reality. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There is no requirement for premeditation in murder.

---

No there is not. There is, however, a requirement for premeditation in premeditated murder. And felony murder is legally equivalent to premeditated murder (it assumes premeditation in the felony and via transfer of intent that applies to the homicide as well). But there are loads and loads and loads of deaths where it appears intent really shouldn't be transferring the way the prosecutors and courts have been doing it.

Quote:

---

There are multiple issues at play. Is felony murder in general right - and does this count?

A lot of the arguments have been against felony murder in general. I think those laws are right.

On the specific case of this one I find the case bizzare and odd. But potentially technically correct. The requirement is for a foreseeable death to occur during the commission of a felony. A death occurred, foreseeably, during the commission of a felony.

---

No one here that I can see has been claiming that felony murder is a completely unacceptable concept. We've been saying that it is overbroad, looking at its apparently excessive and unreasonable application. Another California case. A guy robbed a store and got away. He actually stopped for groceries before going home. On his way home from the grocery story, he got broadsided by a guy running a red light who died in the crash. Felony murder, it was declared that he had not reached a safe and private destination he had not "completed" the robbery and it was still a felony in progress. Just about any death is apparently "forseeable". Because it's not actually about any sort of fault, it's about throwing the kitchen sink at anyone accused of a crime. If a gawker witnessing a crime in progress gets hit by a car in the street by a third party, you could bet that would end up being felony murder too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Why?

He died due to their illegal actions. If they hadn't violently broken the law would he still be alive, yes or no?

---

The death of the criminal is, in this case, more akin to suicide than to murder. He is responsible for his choice to commit a felony that ended up in his death. If he had been shot but survived, he would have been responsible for the injury to himself rather than being charged with attempting to murder himself.

His accomplices intended no harm towards him, nor did they pull the trigger. It is absurd to try them for HIS death. If you want to punish them for his suicide, you are not being true to your beliefs about suicide. If you want to charge them with his murder, then you are implying that it is unlawful to kill a person while he's committing a violent crime.

For all I know you might actually believe that and still believe that the responsibility for the unlawful act should be shifted completely to the accomplices (to me this is a puzzling moral stance). However, I know for a fact that Lewk does NOT believe it's unlawful to kill a criminal. His approval of this sentence is inconsistent with his general approval of killing felons. It may certainly be consistent with a more deeply-held belief that you should flout the law and do whatever the hell you like to criminals, no matter how immoral or illegal, but that basically makes Lewk a criminal at heart and unfit for life in a modern civilized society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

:haha:

Your nebulous caricature of 'liberals' is so misplaced and simplistic you missed the point entirely.

Keep bashing your silly little strawman Lewk; it has no basis in reality. :)

---

In general liberals favor big government. Do you actually deny this?

Who is the opponent of free speech under the guise of hate speech laws? Who is the opponent of free speech under the guise of campaign finance reform. Liberals.

Who favors more taxes? Liberals.

Who favors greater regulation? Liberals.

Who favors economic central planning via things like monopoly busting, minimum wage laws and elimination of pay secrecy? Liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

In general liberals favor big government. Do you actually deny this?

---

Yes I do.

Why don't you use the name Democrats if that's what you mean?

Do you like Democrats more than you like Liberals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes I do.

Why don't you use the name Democrats if that's what you mean?

Do you like Democrats more than you like Liberals?

---

Democrats is a party affiliation, liberal is a set of beliefs. Do you know there are some Democrats who are in favor of smaller government? Crazy I know but in some deep red states the Democrats there look like Republicans do in deep blue states. Liberalism is an ideology.

Oh and sorry but the usage of the word liberal is absolutely based on how Americans use the word today. Words only have meaning based on what people give them - they change overtime naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Democrats is a party affiliation, liberal is a set of beliefs. Do you know there are some Democrats who are in favor of smaller government? Crazy I know but in some deep red states the Democrats there look like Republicans do in deep blue states. Liberalism is an ideology.

Oh and sorry but the usage of the word liberal is absolutely based on how Americans use the word today. Words only have meaning based on what people give them - they change overtime naturally.

---

Lewk, you're talking in contextual terms :up: Btw, the US has been a "progressive" nation, with "liberal ideology" as a core concept. If you're not a native American, you're an immigrant. If you dissociate yourself from federal power, you're either an illegal immigrant....or a thief.

Love that leap. Please keep em coming!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Love that leap. Please keep em coming!

---

It's not a "leap" to point out that Lewk is using terminology to conflate ideology with party affiliation....after he said so, in his own words. :picard:

Considering that the term progressive wasn't used for a century until after America's creation, I believe it's you who's conflating everything under the sun.

Er, no the leap I was referring to was that not liking big federal power means disacotiate...this becoming an illegal immigrant or a thief.

Please keep em coming!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Er, no the leap I was referring to was that not liking big federal power means disacotiate...this becoming an illegal immigrant or a thief.

Please keep em coming!!!

---

Disacotiate is not a real word. ;) 'Liberal' is a real word, but just like 'theft' and 'immigration'....their meaning has a contextual basis.


So if we have a "progressive" tax code, but the only way people can use it fully is by paying a CPA or tax attorney, is it truly "progressive"? If I haven't used all the loopholes available, am I a conservative? If I use my corporate standing or LLC status to get crazy tax breaks, am I legally stealing?

if it is not the action that matters, but the foreseeable possibility of it happening which makes them guilty in this case... why not extend it to them being charged for felony murder, regardless if he had been shot or not? Because they did not shoot him, they just forgot to think about it as a plausible consequence, which they would be guilty of regardless of the outcome. Since the actual case of what happened is obviously not relevant here, all that remains is in fact, the poor risk evaluation being a crime fitting of 50 years sentence, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland

if it is not the action that matters, but the foreseeable possibility of it happening which makes them guilty in this case... why not extend it to them being charged for felony murder, regardless if he had been shot or not? Because they did not shoot him, they just forgot to think about it as a plausible consequence, which they would be guilty of regardless of the outcome. Since the actual case of what happened is obviously not relevant here, all that remains is in fact, the poor risk evaluation being a crime fitting of 50 years sentence, no?

---

Thugs in jail longer than they otherwise would have been?

Hmm... I'm failing to see the problem. The streets in that community are safer. People's homes are safer. Everyone except the the thugs and their families came out ahead.