this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
612 points (84.6% liked)
US Authoritarianism
786 readers
898 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Exactly. I'm not even particularly opposed if you take part in a violent felony that resulted in death so long as it's a victims death. Participants dying by accident or by external deadly force especially police use of force getting charged is fucking dumb.
Why? Just because it feels wrong?
Their decision to break and enter directly lead to a persons death. Why do make a distinction between who's life it is?
If your actions lead to a persons death, you should be charged for it.
The flip side of this is what? As long as you have others do the murdering you can't be charged?
Walk me through why its wrong?
What? its not just “a person’s death.” There is a huge difference between your decision to commit a crime leading to an unwilling participants death and your decision to commit a crime leading to the death of your co-participant.
Let’s say you and I go rob a bank right now. A security guard starts giving us problems and I shoot him in the face. I should be charged with murder, makes sense.
Let’s say we are robbing that same bank. Same security guard is giving problems and I shoot him in the face. You can be charged with murder, I see the argument.
Let’s say we are robbing that same bank. Everything is fine and no one gets hurt, but as we are walking out a cop shoots me in the face. On what planet does it make sense to charge you with murder when I am the one who accepted the risk of getting shot in the face by deciding on my own to commit the crime? If you robbed the bank alone, you would have committed the exact same crime and only been charged with robbery, not murder, because I wouldn’t have been there and wouldn’t have been shot in the face.
In the case of number three, you would have to be a violent threat to be shot in the face legally. If the cop knows you have no weapons and are not harming anyone, say a silent robbery, then shooting you in the face is excessive force and the cop should be charged for murder (I understand the politics prevent this, but if cops had to adhere to the law too they would be charged).
Besides the fact that this is not the case to hold up as an example of bad felony murder. The guy was part of multiple violent events, and its reasonable to expect that he knew if he carried on with his friends someone would surely be hurt.
People need to be held accountable for making bad decisions that lead to harm or death, no natter who it is. This person got a slightly heavy punishment, at most.
Because it is wrong.
Because police need to be held to a higher standard and everyone is responsible for themselves not anytime else. We have negligent homicide laws for almost every reason that would be covered under my statement.
Sure. You know there are people in prison who were not even physically there for about crime that wasn't intended by them to be a violent crime? It's exceedingly broad.
No we have independent laws for that as well.
Morality, is not difficult. If a kid breaks my window playing baseball I don't go and demand payment from everyone playing, I just talk to the parents of the kid who actually broke the window.
If the people you are committing felonies with shoot at police, you are responsible for what happens next. This is the worst case to use as a bad example of felony murder. Its textbook.
Bringing up other examples that are not similar to this case helps how?
You'll notice the person convicted did not shoot at the police nor was that the plan. It may be textbook but the textbook is fucked, eugenics is technically textbook are we saying it's right because at one time it was accepted?
That's what you just did bud, why complain.
If we plan to steal gum get caught and run and your buddy, not you pulls a gun you did not know about and shoots at the officer and your buddy is shot dead. Are you then your buddies murderer?
Its textbook as in the logic is solid and settled. Has been for ages. You can't have it both ways, you have to pick a side and this side leads to those who choose to be part of violence being held accountable. Are you opposed to RICO cases as well?
The sentencing should be far less but whether they are guilty or not has no bearing on that.
Edit to answer your question: no but you'd have to convince a jury you had no idea violence would happen. Most would agree stealing a pack of gum is unlikely to lead to violence. It could but it would need more context, and likely additional escalating crimes.
In the case of this post though, thats not what happened. They had been on a string of violence prior and in this case on of the thieves charged an officer with a gun pointed at them. They had murdered someone else the night before. Context matters.
Bro, you're not going to get anywhere with "it's the law!". We know that, clearly, we're saying it's fucking stupid. Yes rico, though I think most people would agree.
We have a law that's lesser and used in states without felony murder called negligent homicide, that's literally what the article is about.... It's what we're talking about and have been the entire time ...
Yeah that isn't a thing, the jury doesn't care when it comes to felony murder because that isn't an aspect of it, that's the point.
No they had been on a string of robberies, I haven't seen reference to a violent robbery aside from the one the officers interrupted which only turned violent once the police arrived. So yes context matters, agreed.
Okay well stealing gun isnt a felony, so no felony murder. Almost like theres limitations to the law. The issue I take with this post is the example used is deceptive. If this was meant to be an honest debate then they wouldnt leave out so many details. I even disagree with applying felony murder in some cases, but this isnt one of them.
When I said it was settled logic I meant the basis of it hasnt changed for a while. I don't really see how people don't understand that people can act as a group.
The person this post is about surely deserves some time in prison for what happened. Even if it was just the home invasion charge he could have gotten 20 years. This person will be in prison for a long time for multiple crimes besides this one.
Yes it is, what are you talking about, depending on the firearm it's a federal crime. They didn't leave it details, you haven't read them. This one case you didn't bother to read about is the one that didn't sit well with ya, good to know.
I don't care, you bullshit excuse is the same shit that enabled shit like Jim Crow and the thirteenth amendment not actually banning slavery.
They deserve a punishment for the crime they knowingly participated in, yes. It wasn't home invasion, neither home was occupied. In fact iirc the house the shooting happened in was abandoned at the time. Sure, so let's pile on a bullshit charge to a 15 yr old, totally sane and logical huh?
Lol thats my bad, we were talking about gum, a package of gum. I know stealing guns is a felony usually.
It's your fault, what you're bad at is clearly reading.
Thats exactly what I said! Good on you!
Talking down to me only works if you were right once this whole time and ya ain't been.
Try that before the dipshit attitude.
Okay, thanks for the advice internet stranger I'll definitely remember!
Again, the attitude only works if you've been right at all. Being the lippy dumb guy who can't be bothered to read the article but insists on spewing his shitty hypocritical fucking opinion isn't a good look Internet stranger.
I thought I was doing this right though?
There's that reading thing again.
Robbing a bank and killing a person are two very different crimes. Intentionally killing someone is murder. Unintentionally causing a death is a different moral failing altogether, and should be treated differently.
They as a group put a persons life in danger. That person protected themselves. What exactly is wrong with holding the group responsible for their actions? Should the cop be held accountable for defending themselves?
If it was the homeowner instead does that change it for you? Follow actions to consequences.
If the officer did not commit murder how then could could anyone be charged with felony murder for a murder that did not happen. Justified homicide is specifically not murder.
If their actions could forseeably lead to violence and death, and that actually happens, yes they are responsible.
He could not foresee that his accomplice was either armed or an attempted murderer. There's no claim he resisted as far as I can tell just that he and two others took part in what they thought was solely going to be going into buildings not shooting at cops.
I don't think anyone is responsible for summer else's actions, you can do you time for your actions serving time for someone else's is fucking weird.
Yes he could and he likely did. Them having a gun is partly why they are able to go around robbing people. The whole group likely knew it, it had been used prior as well, and the expectation in a group like that is that if things go wrong the person with the gun will handle it.
Everyone else did the only thing they possibly could do when a gun fight broke out and they had no guns, run and hide. They should not get credit for doing the only possible thing at the time. Its likely if he had the gun it would have been expected he use it to defend the group as well.
There's no evidence to suggest that, what you feel is irrelevant.
They should absolutely get credit for not being the ones armed. You're being obtuse and kinda bigoted.
No, ive been in their shoes. I'm lucky I didnt get prison like he did. The only answer from the criminals perspective is that they are responsible for anything that happens as a result of their choice to commit their crimes, full stop.
Everyone's mad at the sentence anyways, if he got 10 years noone would even complain.
Being an admitted criminal isn't a good brag nor does it actually matter, it just makes you a hypocrite.
That's the whole point of the conversation! It's the point of the article, Jesus Christ dude read the fuckin thing before you speak.
Ed:
The fact you admit you should have got prison but didn't means combined with that comment means that you would have to turn yourself in and take your prison time to not be a whole ass hypocrite.
I don't think you know what the words you are saying means. Calm down.
Says the guy who thought I said gun but I said gum.
The same guy who goes on a rant about an article they clearly haven't read to express opinions about their feelings on a case they couldn't be bothered to research.
That about right? Sounds right.
Yeah I'm also the guy who admitted my mistake. Try it once in a while.
What details of this case do you think I don't know?
Point to a mistake.
The ones I've already corrected, again read.
Am I supposed to be checking your comments for edits regularly?
Do me a favor and get fucked.
You're intended to read the comment you reply to... Yes.
You first boo boo.
I'm from the UK here. That would be manslaughter. Not murder. The whole concept of felony murder is insane and illogical. They went in to rob a place, and theft here would probably be like 5 years actual time behind bars. Here, the case would sit against the cop, and it would be weighed up to be self-defence, so no real charge. This dude, unless he had intention to kill, but simply was involved in the process of theft, then he really shouldn't be held responsible for other people's actions because he made a decision to go there. He's just a dumb kid who made a silly mistake. Basically taking their life away for a fuck up.
The part of the brain that processes risk isn't fully developed until like 24ish, so holding them accountable for something they cannot accurately make a decision on is weird punitive nonsense. Has it led to an actual decrease so is effective as a deterrent? Nah.
We don't know his intentions for sure because he didnt have the capability to kill, only the one thief had a gun. We do know that they had been going around as a group robbing and killing prior to the event, so its fair to say that they knew going into that last robbery there was a good chance someone would get hurt or die. Thats why he's guilty. I think the sentencing is wrong for a minor by like, maybe 25 years or so though.
Murder is a strict intent crime dumb dumb.
They intended to commit armed home invasion. The results of that are theirs to bear. Dumb dumb.
What evidence is there if that side from yo feelins.