Ayup. Both guys (dead and jailed) probably won't be ruining anyone
else's lives in the near future. And she proved to herself that she
can stand up to anything life presents to her, even without her
husband. It was a rough lesson, but a good one.
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
be charged with felony murder.
I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with a
baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on, perhaps (as
it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or drugs). Therefore,
they were both committing a feloney, and the result was 1 dead dude. The
other should be charged with at least soomething, leading to the death of
the first one.
I'm glad I live on the other side of the Passaic River ...
Um, she was a looker and the guy she shot had been stalking her that
day. I think they wanted something other than money or drugs from her.
It's common for all parties involved to be charged with conspiracy to
murder when a death occurs during the commission of the crime. It
isn't often -pursued-, though. Yeah, the second guy needs to be
punished for his involvement, but I'm not sure a murder rap is the
correct punishment. I guess we'll see. Was it he who got the other
guy interested in the woman so he could get sloppy seconds? Maybe it
is a fitting punishment after all. I group rape and murder pretty
closely as far as heinous crimes go. Rape can taint the woman and all
of the people around her for a lifetime, sometimes being worse than
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
It's not conspiracy to commit murder, it's a crime known as "felony
murder." Most states have a criminal statute that says if a person is
killed during the commission of a felony, the death is classified as a
murder, and every person involved in committing the felony is guilty of
> but I'm not sure a murder rap is the correct punishment.
That's the risk a person takes when deciding to commit a felony.
Good explanation. Let me expand it a bit:
A homicide (killing of one person by the actions of another) occurs during
the commission of a felony, the homicide is Felony Murder. All individuals
involved in the original felony are guilty of the crime. Note that the
person committing the homicide need not be the felon (as it was in this
case). In the extreme, during a riot, if a homicide occurs, ALL involved in
the riot are guilty of murder.
We had a case in my town, May 15-16, 1967, where 489 people were initially
charged with capital murder (killing of a police officer).
Apparently it is quite common in the states that when a group (2 or more)
hatch a plan to commit a crime, and a death occurs, that all involved
except the victim(s) are painted with the same brush as the actual
In NY City a group of 5 is being held, because 1 of them shot and killed
a policeman who had cornered him in the residence. The rest were
lookouts and/or otherwise accomplices. They are all facing charges of
murder of some kind now, although only 1 of them did the deed. He was
arrested and let go in spite of a NC/SC arrest warrant, but the down
south authorities didn't want to come and get him. Apparently that was
enough reason to let him free, damn the judge involved. Oh, yes, the gun
used was an illegal weapon.
I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
do see the stark difference?
You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
what should be the even hand of justice.
You're kidding right? Logic dictates that if they charged the dude, the
state where it happened must have a felony murder statue, eh?
All it takes for the rest of my statement is to be familiar with the
common law concept of _legal fiction_, which by its very definition
includes defying logic, common sense, and reality.
You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
out wearing a seat belt????
Now do you see the logic?
No. because (a) the two of you were not involved in the commission of a
felony, and (b) it was not reasonable foreseeable that your failure to
buckle up would kill anyone.
Now, if you were committing an armed robbery of a convenience store, and
the store clerk shot and killed your partner in crime, you convicted of
murder for the death of your partner. But for the chain of the events
resulting from your decision to commit a felony, no death would have
occurred, and it is reasonably foreseeable that your intended victim
might try to defend himself. Your intent to commit a felony transfers to
an intent to be responsible for the results, including someone's
potential death. There's no problem with holding you responsible for
the consequences of that decision.
OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe that
this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that go with it.
I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you were
not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him being
killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his gun
but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with felony
murder. Does that sound about right?
Even in a liberal state (I think) like New York, they are charging the 4
friends of the perp who killed a policeman during the commission of a
burglary with murder of some kind. They were active participants in the
robbery, not just lookouts. Slightly, but perhaps significantly
different. sorry for the wrap
This is different. The 2 go into the bar to have drinks, not to have a
Well, I wouldn't take a gun anywhere <grin>. And I certainly wouldn't go
with someone who is carrying a gun into any kind of drinking
establishment. But now you are supposing guy #2 knew that guy #1 was
carrying. Maybe yes, maybe no. Moreover, I don't know how excitable the
I thought they were just some drinking buddies who are/were generally
peacable. But then, I like to be optimistic about peoples intentions.
Which, my ultra-right wing buddie says, is just plain wrong.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.