Lesson... Don't Steal

[Lewkowski]

I swear it isn't that complicated. Don't touch other people's stuff. I have no sympathy for these idiots and they and their families crying about the sentence is laughable.

Frankly I hope this case gets a lot of publicity so people think twice about robbing places.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10...-didnt-commit/

They were five young men with time on their hands, but the attempted burglary in Elkhart, Ind., turned into the equivalent of life sentences for four of the teens and death for the fifth.

That’s because of Indiana’s felony murder law, which comes into play when anyone is killed during commission of a crime, such as burglary or rape.

In the Elkhart case, the dead man was Danzele Johnson, 21, one of the would-be burglars, shot by Rodney Scott, owner of the house they were trying to rob. He has not been charged with any crime.

Last month, Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker in Goshen, Ind., sentenced Blake Layman, 16 at the time, and Anthony Sharp, 18, to 55 years and Levi Sparks, 17, to half a century behind bars.

Sparks did not enter the house as he was standing on guard. The fourth accused, Jose Quiroz, 16 at the time, got 45 years even though he pleaded guilty.

Now, the case of the Elkhart Four is sparking heated debate among advocacy groups and youth lawyer associations who say justice has not been done.

***************

[GGT]

Broken link.

[Aimless]

That's not just; killing a criminal is supposed to be rewarded, not punished. Lewk, you goddamned hypocrite, have you no shame or integrity?

[Lewkowski]

That's not just; killing a criminal is supposed to be rewarded, not punished. Lewk, you goddamned hypocrite, have you no shame or integrity?

The fellow criminals were charged with felony murder NOT the homeowner.

[Aimless]

The fellow criminals were charged with felony murder NOT the homeowner.

That doesn't matter. It was the killing of a criminal, ergo it should not be punished but rather rewarded. They should have their sentences reduced!

[RandBlade]

Sounds like justice to me. I thought felony murder laws were pretty standard in the US?

[Timbuk2]

Hooray for charging people with crimes they did not commit.

America; taking justice back to the dark ages.

[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.

[Loki]

It's the same logic as charging drunk drivers for murder. After all, it's not like most of them intended to commit murder. But through the recklessness of their actions, the result was foreseeable and preventable. Same thing in this case.

[Lewkowski]

It's the same logic as charging drunk drivers for murder. After all, it's not like most of them intended to commit murder. But through the recklessness of their actions, the result was foreseeable and preventable. Same thing in this case.

I of course take issue with the drunk driver who is given a slap on the wrist. Their actions could have caused a loss of life and was foreseeable and preventable. And yet in most cases they spend a night in jail, pay a fine and go on with their lives.

For starters drunk driving *first offense* should come with a 30 day minimum prison sentence and suspension of a license for a year. That should fuck up someone's life enough not to ever do it again. And if someone is stupid enough to do it AGAIN then at that point clearly normal deterrence principals don't apply to that deranged individual and he needs to be separated from the general population for everyone's safety (ie very long prison sentence). Drunk driving deaths are 100% preventable and shouldn't occur. When society gives drunk drivers a pass they spit on every single one of the victims who died. It shouldn't take someone's death before their reckless behavior is truly punished.

[Lewkowski]

That doesn't matter. It was the killing of a criminal, ergo it should not be punished but rather rewarded. They should have their sentences reduced!

Ah I see what you did there.

A right doesn't make up for a wrong. If you give to charity you don't get your prison sentence reduced.

[Aimless]

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.

It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

[RandBlade]

It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

That would apply to the homeowner not the felon's accomplices.

[Aimless]

For a felon, getting another felon killed should be a mitigating factor, just like "assisting the police with their investigation" might be. If you believe killing felons is a good thing then it's nonsensical--or at worst despicable and tyrannical--to punish someone more for doing that good deed just because they happen to be felons. If they'd stopped to do the dishes--undeniably a good deed--would that be grounds for punishing them EVEN harder? Of course not. Doing something good should not be punished. If killing a felon is good then getting a felon killed should be rewarded, regardless of whether the angel of death is a felon or an innocent homeowner.

[RandBlade]

So going to the bank robbery scenario if a bank robbers incompetence led to a security guard shooting dead one of his accomplices then that should be a mitigating factor? That's absurd.

Furthermore doing something good is only mitigation if it was deliberate. If a drunk driver kills a kidnapper with the child he'd kidnapped would the death of the kidnapper mitigate the child's death?

[ImAnOgre]

Aimless, are you advocating for the death penalty now? Since killing a felon is a good thing and all.

[Loki]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/...200257701.html

[LittleFuzzy]

So going to the bank robbery scenario if a bank robbers incompetence led to a security guard shooting dead one of his accomplices then that should be a mitigating factor? That's absurd.

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.

[Lewkowski]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/...200257701.html

Epic!

[Timbuk2]

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. .

Precisely.

[Khendraja'aro]

So is charging someone with murdering their friend for him getting shot by the security guard.

Well, they can't very well charge the friend with murdering himself now, can they? Someone has to take the blame, after all!

[ImAnOgre]

I like this law. The criminals made a choice to break the law, that choice led to the loss of life..... and i'm realy glad to see that Aimless is finally advocating the death penalty now.

by Aimless
It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

Think that should be my new sig line!

[Aimless]

Ogre, please don't conform so readily to the stereotype you know the one I'm talking about

[RandBlade]

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.

The law is absolutely crystal clear and not being misapplied. You start a violent crime and it results in loss of life then you are responsible for murder even if you did not pull the trigger. The life would not have been lost had you not started your felony. Don't want to be charged with that? Don't start violent felonies. Simples.

[Aimless]

Simple, yet absurd and unjust

[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?

[Lewkowski]

The law is absolutely crystal clear and not being misapplied. You start a violent crime and it results in loss of life then you are responsible for murder even if you did not pull the trigger. The life would not have been lost had you not started your felony. Don't want to be charged with that? Don't start violent felonies. Simples.

Liberals won't agree because criminals are precious little snowflakes that society has 'failed' to properly educate and raise. Its not their fault they are committing crime!

[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.

And don't give me the bullcrap that were was intent - it's about the intent to commit murder. A failure to distinguish between intentional und unintentional effects would mean that pretty much everything which leads to a death will result in a murder charge.

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.

[RandBlade]

As far as I know Felony Murder has no intent to kill requirement, just an intent to commit a felony that could end in death. There are other variants of murder in law that don't require an explicit intent to kill either.

Only "First Degree Murder" to my knowledge has a deliberate intent to kill requirement.

[Khendraja'aro]

Where exactly did I talk about "explicit" intent? Please don't retcon my statements to mean something I explicitly did NOT say! (And yes, this time I used the word deliberately. And I also left it out deliberately).

Again: Murder is the intent to kill. And it's also the exact reason why we have courts, due process, lawyers and trials in the first place: To determine whether intent was involved or not!

And to your knowledge: A quick Google search could have told you that your knowledge is incomplete. But you're welcome to find a definition of "murder" in law which doesn't include intent. Don't expect me to hold my breath because you won't find it save for this travesty of "felony murder" which should be called "felony manslaughter". Redefining murder is just a way for hypocrites with a hard-on for overly harsh travesties of justice.

Of course, such moronic hardline notions are also the reason why the US are the leading nation in locking their people away.