How he gonna get his money?

[coloradoatheist]

You are trying to make it more confusing then if someone is breaking into your house you can assume they are doing it it with bad intents.

Your problem is with the law as written. It is confusing, which is probably why your responses are so confused.

No. It's considered confusing because it allows the situation described in the OP based on the default details. And that's why people don't like these laws because it's easier to use deadly force.

 

[laughing dog]

Your problem is with the law as written. It is confusing, which is probably why your responses are so confused.

No. It's considered confusing because it allows the situation described in the OP based on the default details.

Except it doesn't allow that under the reading of the actual words of the law. Hence the confusion.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Has the DA come out and said anything about this case yet and said something to the effect of it was a legal shooting, probably an illegal shooting but we don't have enough to prove it, or that they will file charges later?

 

[Malintent]

Nope... in Alabama you can shoot a person that is engaged in robbery. The kid shot the guy while still on his property, and while still carrying the stolen goods. It is only the left-most opinion of the minority that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rights.

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

That is your prerogative. No one in the "robber got what he deserved" camp is saying that you would HAVE to shoot someone you found in your home.. feel free to be raped and murdered, if that's what you're into. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that no homeowner has the right to use deadly force against a home invader / burglar. You are wrong about that, as codified in several state laws, and in the human psych, as evidenced by the popularity of "trespassers will be shot on site" paraphernalia so widely available.
So you are saying that in this specific case we are arguing about, the robber "clearly wasn't posing a threat"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

That is your prerogative. No one in the "robber got what he deserved" camp is saying that you would HAVE to shoot someone you found in your home.. feel free to be raped and murdered, if that's what you're into. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that no homeowner has the right to use deadly force against a home invader / burglar. You are wrong about that, as codified in several state laws, and in the human psych, as evidenced by the popularity of "trespassers will be shot on site" paraphernalia so widely available.
So you are saying that in this specific case we are arguing about, the robber "clearly wasn't posing a threat"?

Not sure if Loren will come back to this one, but he approved this shooting. He said the person was a threat to her. He was talking about shooting that guy running away from the house on the other shooting.

 

[Trausti]

Has the DA come out and said anything about this case yet and said something to the effect of it was a legal shooting, probably an illegal shooting but we don't have enough to prove it, or that they will file charges later?

A teen charged with murder after his brother was shot and killed by a homeowner as they allegedly tried to burglarize a Miami home appeared in court Wednesday.
Vaughn Johnson, 18, is facing charges including second-degree murder and burglary in the March 10 incident in which his younger brother Trevon was killed.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/No-Bond-for-Teen-Charged-in-Death-of-Brother-During-Alleged-Burglary-375617031.html

Felony murder.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A teen charged with murder after his brother was shot and killed by a homeowner as they allegedly tried to burglarize a Miami home appeared in court Wednesday.
Vaughn Johnson, 18, is facing charges including second-degree murder and burglary in the March 10 incident in which his younger brother Trevon was killed.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/No-Bond-for-Teen-Charged-in-Death-of-Brother-During-Alleged-Burglary-375617031.html

Felony murder.

I'm confused. How is he charged with the murder?

 

[Trausti]

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/No-Bond-for-Teen-Charged-in-Death-of-Brother-During-Alleged-Burglary-375617031.html

Felony murder.

I'm confused. How is he charged with the murder?

The charge may be second-degree murder, but it's applying the felony-murder rule. If you conspire with other people to commit a felony, and someone dies in the course of the felony, you're responsible for the death. Doesn't matter who dies.

 

[laughing dog]

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

That is your prerogative. No one in the "robber got what he deserved" camp is saying that you would HAVE to shoot someone you found in your home.. feel free to be raped and murdered, if that's what you're into. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that no homeowner has the right to use deadly force against a home invader / burglar.

It is obvious what LP is saying. If the person does not clearly pose a threat, then he or she should not be shot. For example, if the home invader is leaving the home, the home invader no longer poses a threat.

 

[Jayjay]

What a twist. Not only is the homeowner not charged, the burglar is.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That is your prerogative. No one in the "robber got what he deserved" camp is saying that you would HAVE to shoot someone you found in your home.. feel free to be raped and murdered, if that's what you're into. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that no homeowner has the right to use deadly force against a home invader / burglar.

It is obvious what LP is saying. If the person does not clearly pose a threat, then he or she should not be shot. For example, if the home invader is leaving the home, the home invader no longer poses a threat.

But our argument and the one Loren made was he was still a threat leaving. A guy running out of a 7/11 after shooting the cashier is still a threat.

- - - Updated - - -

What a twist. Not only is the homeowner not charged, the burglar is.

It is a twist, and more combined that it was a legal shooting.

 

[Derec]

I'm confused. How is he charged with the murder?

Felony murder. It means if somebody is killed during the commission of a felony participants in the felony can be charged with felony murder even if they did not kill anybody themselves and even if the person killed is an accomplice and not a victim. Sometimes it is used too broadly, but seems spot on in this case.

Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm confused. How is he charged with the murder?

Felony murder. It means if somebody is killed during the commission of a felony participants in the felony can be charged with felony murder even if they did not kill anybody themselves and even if the person killed is an accomplice and not a victim. Sometimes it is used too broadly, but seems spot on in this case.

I'm confused. If the robbers were armed, I could see the liability. Did they even have weapons on them? The intent of the crime was to steal stuff in a home that was empty at the moment. While that may technically fall under "felony", it doesn't seem to be what I'd consider an aggravated crime, where one of them can be held liable for the death of the other criminal.

Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.

The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition. If anything, I'd see such a charge putting homeowners at risk. If a robber is caught in the act, better to kill the witness up front!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Felony murder. It means if somebody is killed during the commission of a felony participants in the felony can be charged with felony murder even if they did not kill anybody themselves and even if the person killed is an accomplice and not a victim. Sometimes it is used too broadly, but seems spot on in this case.

I'm confused. If the robbers were armed, I could see the liability. Did they even have weapons on them? The intent of the crime was to steal stuff in a home that was empty at the moment. While that may technically fall under "felony", it doesn't seem to be what I'd consider an aggravated crime, where one of them can be held liable for the death of the other criminal.

Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.

The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition.

A burglary is a felony and Florida law states a home burglary is presumed to be a force so the homeowner can shoot someone in their home. The two quibbles people have had, it uses the word force which is a bad word choice or that once they left the house it was an issue.

In Florida she no duty to get away from the situation. Some states do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm confused. If the robbers were armed, I could see the liability. Did they even have weapons on them? The intent of the crime was to steal stuff in a home that was empty at the moment. While that may technically fall under "felony", it doesn't seem to be what I'd consider an aggravated crime, where one of them can be held liable for the death of the other criminal.

Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.

The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition.

A burglary is a felony and Florida law states a home burglary is presumed to be a force so the homeowner can shoot someone in their home.

If they were targeting homes with no one in them, that would seem to turn the table on that.

The two quibbles people have had, it uses the word force which is a bad word choice or that once they left the house it was an issue.

Reasonable context would imply in the house and the owner does not have time to be able to suss out the reason for the invasion. Therefore, an immediate allowable force. The trouble is, if someone is fleeing, they clearly are not intending to harm the people in the home. That is the whole reason why a homeowner is allowed to use force. It isn't to protect their property, it is to ensure the protection of their lives.

In Florida she no duty to get away from the situation. Some states do.

That is one portion of the equation here, as I'm speaking as to the liability of a criminal to the death of another criminal. If the intent of the criminal is to not rob a home with someone in it, and once they notice someone coming, they flee, it is hard to understand how a criminal could be held liable for a killing while in the progress of fleeing a crime. While Florida law may speak otherwise, I can only fathom a reasonable law only allowing a felony murder charge in a case of an aggravated (armed) felony.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm confused. If the robbers were armed, I could see the liability. Did they even have weapons on them? The intent of the crime was to steal stuff in a home that was empty at the moment. While that may technically fall under "felony", it doesn't seem to be what I'd consider an aggravated crime, where one of them can be held liable for the death of the other criminal.

Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.

The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition.

A burglary is a felony and Florida law states a home burglary is presumed to be a force so the homeowner can shoot someone in their home.

If they were targeting homes with no one in them, that would seem to turn the table on that.

The two quibbles people have had, it uses the word force which is a bad word choice or that once they left the house it was an issue.

Reasonable context would imply in the house and the owner does not have time to be able to suss out the reason for the invasion. Therefore, an immediate allowable force. The trouble is, if someone is fleeing, they clearly are not intending to harm the people in the home. That is the whole reason why a homeowner is allowed to use force. It isn't to protect their property, it is to ensure the protection of their lives.

In Florida she no duty to get away from the situation. Some states do.

That is one portion of the equation here, as I'm speaking as to the liability of a criminal to the death of another criminal. If the intent of the criminal is to not rob a home with someone in it, and once they notice someone coming, they flee, it is hard to understand how a criminal could be held liable for a killing while in the progress of fleeing a crime. While Florida law may speak otherwise, I can only fathom a reasonable law only allowing a felony murder charge in a case of an aggravated (armed) felony.

It's still a major crime and the whole point of adding on the murder charges to a felony is to prevent the felony in the first place. It's an easy rule to follow, don't break into someone's home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

That is your prerogative. No one in the "robber got what he deserved" camp is saying that you would HAVE to shoot someone you found in your home.. feel free to be raped and murdered, if that's what you're into. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that no homeowner has the right to use deadly force against a home invader / burglar. You are wrong about that, as codified in several state laws, and in the human psych, as evidenced by the popularity of "trespassers will be shot on site" paraphernalia so widely available.
So you are saying that in this specific case we are arguing about, the robber "clearly wasn't posing a threat"?

You're really mixing up my position.

I have no problem with shooting an intruder when you don't know if they intend to harm you or not. What I'm saying is that when they clearly don't intend to harm you (they're running away) then I have a problem with shooting them even if the law permits it.

 

[Trausti]

That is one portion of the equation here, as I'm speaking as to the liability of a criminal to the death of another criminal. If the intent of the criminal is to not rob a home with someone in it, and once they notice someone coming, they flee, it is hard to understand how a criminal could be held liable for a killing while in the progress of fleeing a crime. While Florida law may speak otherwise, I can only fathom a reasonable law only allowing a felony murder charge in a case of an aggravated (armed) felony.

The charge is second degree murder, not first degree. So the charge here is not saying he had premeditated intent to murder. Second degree concerns conduct which "any idiot would know" creates a high risk of serious injury or death. The prosecutor is using the conspiracy to commit a felony for this element of the charge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is your prerogative. No one in the "robber got what he deserved" camp is saying that you would HAVE to shoot someone you found in your home.. feel free to be raped and murdered, if that's what you're into. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that no homeowner has the right to use deadly force against a home invader / burglar. You are wrong about that, as codified in several state laws, and in the human psych, as evidenced by the popularity of "trespassers will be shot on site" paraphernalia so widely available.
So you are saying that in this specific case we are arguing about, the robber "clearly wasn't posing a threat"?

Not sure if Loren will come back to this one, but he approved this shooting. He said the person was a threat to her. He was talking about shooting that guy running away from the house on the other shooting.

I'm unsure on this one--the problem is she charged into the threat. I had no problem when I thought she was inside the house.

You're right, though, the one I had a problem with is the one running away.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm confused. If the robbers were armed, I could see the liability. Did they even have weapons on them? The intent of the crime was to steal stuff in a home that was empty at the moment. While that may technically fall under "felony", it doesn't seem to be what I'd consider an aggravated crime, where one of them can be held liable for the death of the other criminal.

Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.

The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition.

A burglary is a felony and Florida law states a home burglary is presumed to be a force so the homeowner can shoot someone in their home.

If they were targeting homes with no one in them, that would seem to turn the table on that.

The two quibbles people have had, it uses the word force which is a bad word choice or that once they left the house it was an issue.

Reasonable context would imply in the house and the owner does not have time to be able to suss out the reason for the invasion. Therefore, an immediate allowable force. The trouble is, if someone is fleeing, they clearly are not intending to harm the people in the home. That is the whole reason why a homeowner is allowed to use force. It isn't to protect their property, it is to ensure the protection of their lives.

In Florida she no duty to get away from the situation. Some states do.

That is one portion of the equation here, as I'm speaking as to the liability of a criminal to the death of another criminal. If the intent of the criminal is to not rob a home with someone in it, and once they notice someone coming, they flee, it is hard to understand how a criminal could be held liable for a killing while in the progress of fleeing a crime. While Florida law may speak otherwise, I can only fathom a reasonable law only allowing a felony murder charge in a case of an aggravated (armed) felony.

It's still a major crime and the whole point of adding on the murder charges to a felony is to prevent the felony in the first place.

A major crime? It was a robbery. An unarmed robbery, of a home with no one in it at the time. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be charges, but it implies that the level of the crime and the mindset of the criminals isn't one of creating an aggravated situation where a fatality is a reasonable outcome of the event.

It's an easy rule to follow, don't break into someone's home.

No one is saying robbery should be legalized. I'm raising issue with charging a person with murder who did not commit a killing nor was committing an act where a killing was a reasonable outcome.