FAFO Home Defense - Unfair!

[lucusloc]

You are out with your wife. Some loudmouth a-hole insults you and your wife. You lose your cool and punch him 3 times. He pulls a pistol and shoots and kills your wife and then himself. You are charged for 1st degree murder of your wife and the a-hole, because you started it.

If you didn't get charged with the murder of your wife and the a-hole, then it would send the message that people can hit other people and not be responsible for their responses that lead to people's deaths.

Because sending a message of convicting people for actions they did NOT do makes complete sense.

You decide to fund a revenge robbery against a rival business. You set up the heist, hire the goons and bankroll the whole operation, but you actually sit out the whole thing to "keep your hands clean." While on the heist one of your hired goons kills a clerk. Are you guilty of just the conspiracy to commit robbery, or are you complicit in the murder too, despite that not being part of the plan? Because lets face it, if it were not for your conspiracy the murder would not have happened either.

Felony murder rules are there to allow criminal leadership to face maximum charges for their leadership roles in crime instead of letting those leadership roles insulate them against the full consequences of their crimes. They establish culpability for the full fallout of a crime, including aspects of the crime that were "unintended" but happened anyway. They largely apply to accomplices and co-criminals in a specific crime, and transfer culpability to all members of the group participating in the criminal action.

As to your specific example, as the instigator of a criminal assault that (albeit unintentionally) lead to a double homicide, yes, you do hold some culpability for the full results. If it were not for your criminal actions no one would have been hurt. The fact that you instigated the physical part of the altercation against another criminally insane individual is just unlucky on your part, and while they do hold the majority of culpability you are not blameless in the results. So while you are not actually a co-conspirator with the person you assaulted, your actions undoubtedly instigated their response. So while a felony murder rule may or may not apply here (depending on if it were specifically written to include only true co-conspirators, or simply the fallout from any party in a criminal action) you probably should face charges for unintentional homicide at the very least.

Don't want criminal liability for the full results of your crime don't participate in crime.

 

[Mark W.]

The weapon has nothing to do with the out come tge three bad guys could have been just as dead if the home owners son had had a 150 year old 6 shot revolver in his hand. Or a pump shotgun or 100 year old 1911. The one and only thing that could have made sure they did not die during the commission of a crime was to have not been there. The owners son had no control over that.

 

[arakboss]

You are out with your wife. Some loudmouth a-hole insults you and your wife. You lose your cool and punch him 3 times. He pulls a pistol and shoots and kills your wife and then himself. You are charged for 1st degree murder of your wife and the a-hole, because you started it.

If you didn't get charged with the murder of your wife and the a-hole, then it would send the message that people can hit other people and not be responsible for their responses that lead to people's deaths.

Because sending a message of convicting people for actions they did NOT do makes complete sense.

Why didn't he shoot me?

 

[Jade Falcon]

The ugly bubblegum in this case got three 45 year sentences. She's never getting out.

https://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-sentencing-of-elizabeth-rodriguez.html

Good riddance. Hopefully her kids grow up to avoid that lifestyle, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[nammac]

I think we're already had this conversation as I recall..

Darken my threshold, uninvited, yer get what yer get…

 

[Diamondback]

As I recall, Disparity of Numbersvm is legally considered Deadly Force in its own right.

 

[Ben B.]

Why didn't he shoot me?

He missed.

 

[Ben B.]

You decide to fund a revenge robbery against a rival business. You set up the heist, hire the goons and bankroll the whole operation, but you actually sit out the whole thing to "keep your hands clean." While on the heist one of your hired goons kills a clerk. Are you guilty of just the conspiracy to commit robbery, or are you complicit in the murder too, despite that not being part of the plan? Because lets face it, if it were not for your conspiracy the murder would not have happened either.

You would be guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. The trigger puller is the murderer. Robbery is not murder. Tort law is not criminal law. Blending the two leads to magical thinking, as demonstrated.

I especially like the examples of 2 knuckleheads attempting robbery on a store, one knucklehead is shot dead by storekeeper, and surviving robber is charged with murder because his accomplice was shot by the robbery victim. Complete hocus pocus.

Felony murder rules are there to allow criminal leadership to face maximum charges for their leadership roles in crime instead of letting those leadership roles insulate them against the full consequences of their crimes. They establish culpability for the full fallout of a crime, including aspects of the crime that were "unintended" but happened anyway. They largely apply to accomplices and co-criminals in a specific crime, and transfer culpability to all members of the group participating in the criminal action.

Yep. Charging people for things someone else did thru the magic of culpability transference.

As to your specific example, as the instigator of a criminal assault that (albeit unintentionally) lead to a double homicide, yes, you do hold some culpability for the full results. If it were not for your criminal actions no one would have been hurt. The fact that you instigated the physical part of the altercation against another criminally insane individual is just unlucky on your part, and while they do hold the majority of culpability you are not blameless in the results. So while you are not actually a co-conspirator with the person you assaulted, your actions undoubtedly instigated their response. So while a felony murder rule may or may not apply here (depending on if it were specifically written to include only true co-conspirators, or simply the fallout from any party in a criminal action) you probably should face charges for unintentional homicide at the very least.

Don't want criminal liability for the full results of your crime don't participate in crime.

In my made up example, the guy who punched the loudmouth committed an assault. A response by loudmouth with a pistol could be argued as self defense, or assault with intent/aggravated assault that went awry and resulted in manslaughter (unintentional/negligent). Would be interesting to see the gymnastics in puncher Person A claiming self defense by Person B as the basis of the shooting response to Person A's punching. I mean, if A could be charged with murder from B attempting to shoot A, why couldn't A also claim that it wasn't murder when B shot A's wife, therefore A defended himself from A via B shooting?

IMHO that highlights the ridiculousness of charging Person A for Person B's criminal behavior.

 

[Diamondback]

OK, Godfather movie comparison.

Vito Corleone plans the murder of Luca Braci. Sonny does the hit. Why shouldn't Vito get charged comparable to his son?

The Ryan Doctrine: "If it is moral to kill a soldier following orders, it is just as much so to smoke his leaders giving them."

 

[CamoDeafie]

As the criminal leader of the group, she was held responsible and culpable for the criminal actions taken by the people working for/with her.

Since they died under her criminal "leadership", she bears responsibility for their deaths, not just themselves.

It is the exact same in any group/team endeavor/business/military .

The head/direct leader is held responsible for the actions of their people in the group.

Edit. Even in a family setting, the head of household is typically held responsible for the behavior and actions of those in the household.

Medical setting too; the lead doctor is held responsible for the actions of the nurses and specialists under the doctors orders for their patients. This is why medical malpractice suits is a big business

 

[Ben B.]

Conspiracy to commit murder for Vito is valid, and is different than Vito tells Sonny to rough up Angelo, and Angelo then beats up Connie, so Vito is charged with beating up Connie.

 

[CamoDeafie]

She sent the criminals to burglarize the house, knowing that it could result in their deaths if homeowners were armed or present. She basically sent them to their deaths on a chance that they'd live to rob again.

 

[1911Fanatic]

You decide to fund a revenge robbery against a rival business. You set up the heist, hire the goons and bankroll the whole operation, but you actually sit out the whole thing to "keep your hands clean." While on the heist one of your hired goons kills a clerk. Are you guilty of just the conspiracy to commit robbery, or are you complicit in the murder too, despite that not being part of the plan? Because lets face it, if it were not for your conspiracy the murder would not have happened either.

Felony murder rules are there to allow criminal leadership to face maximum charges for their leadership roles in crime instead of letting those leadership roles insulate them against the full consequences of their crimes. They establish culpability for the full fallout of a crime, including aspects of the crime that were "unintended" but happened anyway. They largely apply to accomplices and co-criminals in a specific crime, and transfer culpability to all members of the group participating in the criminal action.

As to your specific example, as the instigator of a criminal assault that (albeit unintentionally) lead to a double homicide, yes, you do hold some culpability for the full results. If it were not for your criminal actions no one would have been hurt. The fact that you instigated the physical part of the altercation against another criminally insane individual is just unlucky on your part, and while they do hold the majority of culpability you are not blameless in the results. So while you are not actually a co-conspirator with the person you assaulted, your actions undoubtedly instigated their response. So while a felony murder rule may or may not apply here (depending on if it were specifically written to include only true co-conspirators, or simply the fallout from any party in a criminal action) you probably should face charges for unintentional homicide at the very least.

Don't want criminal liability for the full results of your crime don't participate in crime.

The woman charged is in about the same position of responsibility that Charles Manson was. And she actually participated in the crime by being there as the getaway driver. Was she the Foster parent? I think she definitely is looking at 30 at least to life. But maybe she will be sentenced to death. Why should we care about her. And, was she charged with child abuse? It seems to me that she could have or should have been.

 

[lucusloc]

You would be guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. The trigger puller is the murderer. Robbery is not murder. Tort law is not criminal law. Blending the two leads to magical thinking, as demonstrated.

I especially like the examples of 2 knuckleheads attempting robbery on a store, one knucklehead is shot dead by storekeeper, and surviving robber is charged with murder because his accomplice was shot by the robbery victim. Complete hocus pocus.

Yep. Charging people for things someone else did thru the magic of culpability transference.


In my made up example, the guy who punched the loudmouth committed an assault. A response by loudmouth with a pistol could be argued as self defense, or assault with intent/aggravated assault that went awry and resulted in manslaughter (unintentional/negligent). Would be interesting to see the gymnastics in puncher Person A claiming self defense by Person B as the basis of the shooting response to Person A's punching. I mean, if A could be charged with murder from B attempting to shoot A, why couldn't A also claim that it wasn't murder when B shot A's wife, therefore A defended himself from A via B shooting?

IMHO that highlights the ridiculousness of charging Person A for Person B's criminal behavior.

Its not "magical culpability transference", it is recognizing who set up the situation where the homicide was likely to happen and holding them actually culpable for that, including the homicide-as-consequence. If you set up a criminal situation, you are responsible for the outcomes of that situation whether you intended for that outcome to happen or not. This includes any actions of underlings or equal partners in the crime, or yes even the actions of people defending themselves from your crime. If you had not set up the situation they would have had no need to defend themselves in the first place, so absolutely you get to take responsibility for that too.

Again, this is so that people who had a direct hand in setting up the crime cannot get away from the consequences of that crime simply because they were not the direct cause of a particular outcome. If you hire someone for a robbery and they commit murder while pulling off that robbery you do not get a get-out-of-jail-free card on the homicide charges just because "you did not intend for that to happen." Hell, if you allow that kind of thing you could just say you only intended them to steal a misdemeanor amount of stuff, so that felony theft they committed was not your fault. Slap me with a civil find for the misdemeanor and let me walk why dontcha?

That would be exactly how a crimelord would insulate themselves from all culpability. "I never told them to commit a felony, I just said what I wanted them to accomplish. They picked the methodology." At some point we have to acknowledge that the guy who instigated the situation in the first place shares culpability for all the consequences that result from that instigation.

 

[Provincial]

Here is a brain-teaser:

Ignoring the concept of Sovereign Immunity, what if the FBI enticed a gullible person or persons to commit a "terrorist act" that would kill several persons and damage lots of property. What if that person or persons managed to pull off the act without the FBI preventing it? Shouldn't the FBI be culpable for that act, since they initiated, helped plan, and helped execute the act?

 

[hongkong2]

Here is a brain-teaser:

Ignoring the concept of Sovereign Immunity, what if the FBI enticed a gullible person or persons to commit a "terrorist act" that would kill several persons and damage lots of property. What if that person or persons managed to pull off the act without the FBI preventing it? Shouldn't the FBI be culpable for that act, since they initiated, helped plan, and helped execute the act?

The current FBI would have him killed, dead men tell no tales.

 

[Ben B.]

1. The guy who shot and killed the 3 knuckleheads is Not Guilty by reason of self defense. Good.

2. The woman who told the 3 knuckleheads to go rob the house didn't shoot anyone. But she is guilty of 3 murders. (In addition to whatever else.)

3. So the person who killed the 3 did not commit murder. But the person who did NOT kill the 3 IS guilty of murder.

4. Magical culpability transference.

 

[titsonritz]

I think we're already had this conversation as I recall..

Darken my threshold, uninvited, yer get what yer get…

Yep

Other State - Dead criminal’s family complains victim’s AR-15 made the fight unfair

In case you haven’t already heard, a 23-year-old man from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma made headlines this week when he shot and killed three teenage home invaders. The three teens had robbed the garage earlier that day, then returned to try the main house. They awoke Zach Peters, the homeowner’s son...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[titsonritz]

1. The guy who shot and killed the 3 knuckleheads is Not Guilty by reason of self defense. Good.

2. The woman who told the 3 knuckleheads to go rob the house didn't shoot anyone. But she is guilty of 3 murders. (In addition to whatever else.)

3. So the person who killed the 3 did not commit murder. But the person who did NOT kill the 3 IS guilty of murder.

4. Magical culpability transference.

Read Oklahoma state law on the subject, it's pretty clear. She got what she had coming.

 

[lucusloc]

1. The guy who shot and killed the 3 knuckleheads is Not Guilty by reason of self defense. Good.

2. The woman who told the 3 knuckleheads to go rob the house didn't shoot anyone. But she is guilty of 3 murders. (In addition to whatever else.)

3. So the person who killed the 3 did not commit murder. But the person who did NOT kill the 3 IS guilty of murder.

4. Magical culpability transference.

No, a simple failure to understand actual culpability. The woman set up the situation where the homeowner needed to defend himself, therefor she is responsible for whatever the consequences of that situation are, including the deaths by justifiable homicide. If you create a situation where someone might die you still get to be responsible for that death even if you were not the direct cause of that death. A felony home invasion is definitely a situation where someone might die, either through criminal action or justifiable self defense. This is a foreseeable outcome, so she gets zero wiggle room to avoid culpability in that outcome. She is as guilty as if she pulled the trigger herself, because she is the one who instigated the situation. No mom of the year, no teen kids breaking into homes, no homeowners defending themselves leaving dead hoodlums. That is a classic chain of culpability from criminal instigator to criminal actor.