Lesson... Don't Steal

[Wraith]

In certain jurisdictions, third degree murder is defined as murder without intent - it's what's called manslaughter in other jurisdictions. But really, this is just semantics and shouldn't be very relevant - it's just terminology, which varies wildly anyways.

The US, in general, follows transferred intent. That is, if you intend to cause harm, you're responsible for whatever harm is caused, regardless of whether what occurred was the harm that was originally intended. For example, if I try to shoot you with a gun, but miss and kill Randblade instead, it's still murder with intent. It also works with severity, as long as the end result was a foreseeable possibility.

We also have 'misdemeanor manslaughter', which is the weaker form of felony murder.

[RandBlade]

No you (edit:Khen) are wrong. Murder does not require intent, in the way you mean it. There are multiple ways to meet the criteria of intent as felony murder does.

In the US other versions of murder that don't require intent to kill include Depraved Heart Murder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart - also classed as Second Degree Murder in Canada if you want a non-US example. US second degree murder can also be commited without a deliberate intent to kill.

Felony murder, like depraved heart or second degree murders still must meet the criteria of intent and is done so under the principle of strict liability. In order to meet the requirement of felony murder the accused must have done an offence that presents a foreseeable risk to life. Those in the OP did so. Violent felonies like that have a foreseeable risk of death, that it was one of their own that died is irrelevant had the homeowner died they'd have all been guilty of felony murder.

[Wraith]

On this actual case:

A person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human trafficking, sexual trafficking of a minor or carjacking . . . commits murder, a felony.

This doesn't appear to actually apply here. It sounds like this was a misuse of the law.

[Veldan Rath]

The above post from Wraith, does seem to make this a misuse of the law.

I'd also like to suggest, even if the use was appropriate, I would think the judge should have some leeway in applying a sentence.

[RandBlade]

Got a link to that?

[Khendraja'aro]

No you (edit:Khen) are wrong. Murder does not require intent, in the way you mean it. There are multiple ways to meet the criteria of intent as felony murder does.

In the US other versions of murder that don't require intent to kill include Depraved Heart Murder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart - also classed as Second Degree Murder in Canada if you want a non-US example. US second degree murder can also be commited without a deliberate intent to kill.

Felony murder, like depraved heart or second degree murders still must meet the criteria of intent and is done so under the principle of strict liability. In order to meet the requirement of felony murder the accused must have done an offence that presents a foreseeable risk to life. Those in the OP did so. Violent felonies like that have a foreseeable risk of death, that it was one of their own that died is irrelevant had the homeowner died they'd have all been guilty of felony murder.

By your logic, anyone is a murderer because you always have an "intention" at some point. Rubbish. That's just the abominable US version of "justice" where they also do this moronic thing of threatening you with 1000 years of prison or something. Equally idiotic.

The US, in general, follows transferred intent. That is, if you intend to cause harm, you're responsible for whatever harm is caused, regardless of whether what occurred was the harm that was originally intended.

That's not what "intent" actually means. That's once again, redefining a term making it so overly broad as to be absolutely useless. In which world exactly is an outcome which you didn't plan on an intentional one? Such outcomes have a description and it's called an "accident".

You might have heard of the concept behind that.

[RandBlade]

By your logic, anyone is a murderer because you have "intent" at some point. Rubbish.

No you're talking rubbish. There has to be a death that is an outcome of an action you took, either a death you intentionally chose to cause or a death you could foresee but intentionally disregarded the risk.

To repeat what Wraith said if he shoots at you but kills me he's a murderer despite having no intent to kill.
If I shoot you in the leg trying to hurt you (a common gangster technique) but it hits an artery and you bleed to death then that is murder despite only an intent of GBH.

Felony murder follows the same principles as those. There doesn't need to be intent to kill.

[Khendraja'aro]

[...]a death you could foresee but intentionally disregarded the risk.

"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".

[Wraith]

That's not what "intent" actually means. That's once again, redefining a term making it so overly broad as to be absolutely useless. In which world exactly is an outcome which you didn't plan on an intentional one? Such outcomes have a description and it's called an "accident".

You might have heard of the concept behind that.

Like most disciplines, there are specialized definitions in law that do not always perfectly synchronize with common uses of the terms.

[Wraith]

Got a link to that?

Originally found it in an opinion piece, but I was able to pull up the full law:

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/i...code_35-42-1-1

Section 1-1(2)

[Flixy]

"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.

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.

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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?

[RandBlade]

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.

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.

*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.

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.

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

You think those are non-violent crimes?

[Timbuk2]

Liberals

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

[Lewkowski]

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

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

[RandBlade]

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.

[Timbuk2]

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

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

[Aimless]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[RandBlade]

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?

[Lewkowski]

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.

[GGT]

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 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.

[Veldan Rath]

Love that leap. Please keep em coming!

[GGT]

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.

[Loki]

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.

[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!!!