How he gonna get his money?

[coloradoatheist]

It is different in each state, but some of them classify them as felony.

Yes, that's what I just said.

People take their house and their person more seriously in the US.

 

[Trausti]

It's not in general, maybe this case. But it's another case of punishing someone for engaging in a major crime.

Breaking and entering is not a major crime; unless your legal system is totally insane.

It is a felony. And I'll take a wild stab and the dark and guess that some people, just a few people, might considered unknown intruders braking into their home to be threatening and frightening. Which is exactly why engaging in this behavior creates a high risk of serious injury or death. If you doubt me, then do an experiment. Invite yourself into the home a person you don't know, and see how they react.

 

[bilby]

Yes, that's what I just said.

People take their house and their person more seriously in the US.

More seriously than what? More seriously than human life? Is that sane?

Taking things so seriously as to elevate them over other, far more genuinely important things is a form of insanity.

Is Joe 'obsessed by' the girl down the street that he is stalking; or does he just 'take his relationship with her more seriously'? Is there a difference between these descriptions, other than how much we tolerate his bad behaviour?

There are a number of US jurisdictions that have gone several turns too many around the vicious circle; each step seems like a reasonable response to the circumstances; but each step makes the circumstances themselves less reasonable - until you reach the perfectly 'reasonable' idea that because a housebreaker is doing something deadly, he should be charged with murder if someone dies.

This misses the point that housebreaking is NOT deadly. Or rather, it isn't deadly until the law encourages homeowners to kill intruders. Which is itself a 'reasonable' response to the assumption that all intruders are out to kill. An assumption that is only 'reasonable' if intruders expect to encounter deadly opposition.

The law can either escalate the risks, until housebreaking becomes so deadly dangerous that the criminals stop doing it; or it can de-escalate the risks, so that the harm caused by housebreaking is minimal.

The former is obviously a better choice, if AND ONLY IF, there is a chance of reducing the incidence of housebreaking to zero. Observation shows that this is not, in fact, achievable.

So the escalation approach is theoretically sound only if we accept as true premises that are demonstrably false. That's a policy the pursuit of which is correctly described as 'insane'.

You are like the proverbial frog - the temperature has increased too slowly for you to realise just how dangerous it has become.

 

[laughing dog]

More seriously than what? More seriously than human life? Is that sane?

Whether it is sane or not does not detract from the obvious evidence that a fair number of posters prefer the "kill and ask questions later" approach.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The point of that comment was to look at the situation from their perspective. If you grow up in a poor, crime-ridden area you're not going to have a lot of options available, especially if you've already been taken in by a gang at an early age. In addition it's ridiculous to think that someone in a poor, crime-ridden area would always have the same mentality as someone who is not from a poor, crime-ridden area. They're not excusing his actions, they're just trying to bring more of an understanding to them. Apparently, that in itself is a crime among conservatives.

The victim lived just two blocks from the burglars. It's the same "poor, crime-ridden area".

Regardless, it's much more complicated than "why doesn't he just get a job".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Sometimes people die in burglaries even though there was no intent to do violence. We have defined felonies as acts where death is a reasonably foreseeable outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

But that is my point. The person knows that the event they are in can cause a reasonable risk of death. Is robbing an empty home while being unarmed a high risk event that can lead to a killing? Not really... that is why they are robbing an empty home, to avoid detection! How many unarmed robberies lead to a killing?

The prosecutor is using the conspiracy to commit a felony for this element of the charge.

That sounds like bullshit. This charge pretty much ends this person's life and it is completely bogus. Any hope of rehabilitation is dead because this prosecutor wants to make a point.

It's probably more a negotiating point than an actual intent to nail him on the felony murder charge.

As for pretty much ending a person's life--are you forgetting that a person's life was ended due to their actions?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm confused also--I thought Felony Murder was treated as first degree murder, not second degree murder.

"Felony Murder" refers to any death that is a reasonably forseeable outcome of the commission of felony, even if it was not intended by any participant of the felony. The classic example is the cops shoot your partner, but it also applies to things like a heart attack when you pull a bank robbery etc. It also applies to traffic crashes due to fleeing or due to the cops rolling hot to the scene of your crime. I've heard of a case that was contested in the courts--two news choppers had a midair. Reasonably forseeable or not?

First degree requires premeditation; shooting someone in the back of the head. Second degree is conduct which will very likely cause serious injury or death. I was taught it as "any idiot would know." I may not have intended to kill Loren Pechtel, but by my dropping rocks on the highway where he was driving "any idiot would know" that there was a high risk he'd be killed.

The burglary was premeditated.

- - - Updated - - -

You are failing to follow... not sure I can explain it to you.. not going to try. However, your response "isn't even wrong".

Dude, you are arguing with LP, the low bar on what is considered enough of a threat for the use of violent force. He has gone as far as saying previous scuffles, arrests, even the throwing of rocks is enough for the use of violent force by the Police. If LP says there wasn't a big enough threat...

I am not arguing with Malintent--he was correcting LD's misstatement of my position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it very much does matter. As I noted, if you are unarmed and robbing an empty home. It is nothing like robbing a bank. I'm curious how many convictions on this charge has been made in a case where the felon(s) were unarmed.

A home you think is empty. It might not be. Someone might come home while you're doing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think now that the fact is known that there were two burglars, and only one shot was fired, only one of the burglars killed, also goes to show that the homeowner was not just out to murder someone for fun. If that were the case, she likely would have shot at both of them, and not let up until both were dead. Either she was startled by the burglar, which doesn't seem to fit what the reports are saying, or the burglar she shot did something threatening in the reported confrontation.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that he did something that provoked the shot. I don't really think she should have been there in the first place but given that she was I see nothing wrong in her actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People take their house and their person more seriously in the US.

More seriously than what? More seriously than human life? Is that sane?

Taking things so seriously as to elevate them over other, far more genuinely important things is a form of insanity.

Is Joe 'obsessed by' the girl down the street that he is stalking; or does he just 'take his relationship with her more seriously'? Is there a difference between these descriptions, other than how much we tolerate his bad behaviour?

There are a number of US jurisdictions that have gone several turns too many around the vicious circle; each step seems like a reasonable response to the circumstances; but each step makes the circumstances themselves less reasonable - until you reach the perfectly 'reasonable' idea that because a housebreaker is doing something deadly, he should be charged with murder if someone dies.

This misses the point that housebreaking is NOT deadly. Or rather, it isn't deadly until the law encourages homeowners to kill intruders. Which is itself a 'reasonable' response to the assumption that all intruders are out to kill. An assumption that is only 'reasonable' if intruders expect to encounter deadly opposition.

The law can either escalate the risks, until housebreaking becomes so deadly dangerous that the criminals stop doing it; or it can de-escalate the risks, so that the harm caused by housebreaking is minimal.

The former is obviously a better choice, if AND ONLY IF, there is a chance of reducing the incidence of housebreaking to zero. Observation shows that this is not, in fact, achievable.

So the escalation approach is theoretically sound only if we accept as true premises that are demonstrably false. That's a policy the pursuit of which is correctly described as 'insane'.

You are like the proverbial frog - the temperature has increased too slowly for you to realise just how dangerous it has become.

In societies where housebreakers aren't likely to be shot the homeowner is a lot more likely to be hurt through an accidental encounter with the housebreaker. Your de-escalation approach doesn't reduce the harm to zero, either.

Beyond that, there's a fundamental difference in how we look at the situation. You're looking (incorrectly!) at the total harm caused. We look at it differently--we're much more interested in reducing the harm to innocents. If a few bad apples get some holes poked in them in the process we don't care too much.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not arguing with Malintent--he was correcting LD's misstatement of my position.

Please stop making misstatements about my posts.

 

[Artemus]

I think it very much does matter. As I noted, if you are unarmed and robbing an empty home. It is nothing like robbing a bank. I'm curious how many convictions on this charge has been made in a case where the felon(s) were unarmed.

A home you think is empty. It might not be. Someone might come home while you're doing it.

First I'll make it clear that I do not think that the homeowner should have gone in or around the house before the police had secured the area. But, the severity of the crime of breaking and entering should not be discounted either. Personal anecdote...about 15 years ago a guy threw a brick through window of the bathroom of my wife's pharmacy (and then helped himself to the amphetamines) no more than 10 minutes after my then 7 year old daughter had used that very bathroom. I'm sure he thought he wasn't endangering anyone since it was thanksgiving day and the store was closed, but if his timing had been slightly different I could have had a severely injured (or even dead) daughter from a brick to the head. Breaking and entering always has the potential of putting someone in danger and should always be treated as such.

(I was out of town at the time but apparently my wife drove back by and saw the police with bulletproof vests on and guns drawn surrounding the building, and drove right up to them and had this conversation: "I was just in there and must have mis-set the alarm." "Did you break out a window while you were in there?" "Uh...no." "Why don't you take that van full of kids behind that building over there. We'll have an officer come get you when the area is secure." I've had a few nightmares about that incident since. They caught the guy shortly thereafter and he should even be out of prison by now.)

 

[Malintent]

Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen Burglary Suspect


How he gonna get his money? I don't know, maybe get a job?

For the record, I do not know whether the shooting is justified or not. It certainly is not clear cut but what is clear is that "but for" the burglary he would not have been shot.
But the reason I posted this is this casual justification of burglary by the cousin. It is a sign of a deep dysfunction in the culture.

P.S.: Being a Trevon from Florida is a dangerous proposition ...

The point of that comment was to look at the situation from their perspective. If you grow up in a poor, crime-ridden area you're not going to have a lot of options available, especially if you've already been taken in by a gang at an early age. In addition it's ridiculous to think that someone in a poor, crime-ridden area would always have the same mentality as someone who is not from a poor, crime-ridden area. They're not excusing his actions, they're just trying to bring more of an understanding to them. Apparently, that in itself is a crime among conservatives.

So you are saying that the sentiment that the robber was justified in robbing because of where he grew up is rational and sound? That same robber that was wearing designer sneakers and clothes, and about $1,000 worth of gold in his teeth.. that guy? for fucks sake, the degree of entitlement that American's seem to have these days is just disgusting.

 

[Malintent]

People take their house and their person more seriously in the US.

More seriously than what? More seriously than human life? Is that sane?

Taking things so seriously as to elevate them over other, far more genuinely important things is a form of insanity.

Is Joe 'obsessed by' the girl down the street that he is stalking; or does he just 'take his relationship with her more seriously'? Is there a difference between these descriptions, other than how much we tolerate his bad behaviour?

There are a number of US jurisdictions that have gone several turns too many around the vicious circle; each step seems like a reasonable response to the circumstances; but each step makes the circumstances themselves less reasonable - until you reach the perfectly 'reasonable' idea that because a housebreaker is doing something deadly, he should be charged with murder if someone dies.

This misses the point that housebreaking is NOT deadly. Or rather, it isn't deadly until the law encourages homeowners to kill intruders. Which is itself a 'reasonable' response to the assumption that all intruders are out to kill. An assumption that is only 'reasonable' if intruders expect to encounter deadly opposition.

The law can either escalate the risks, until housebreaking becomes so deadly dangerous that the criminals stop doing it; or it can de-escalate the risks, so that the harm caused by housebreaking is minimal.

The former is obviously a better choice, if AND ONLY IF, there is a chance of reducing the incidence of housebreaking to zero. Observation shows that this is not, in fact, achievable.

So the escalation approach is theoretically sound only if we accept as true premises that are demonstrably false. That's a policy the pursuit of which is correctly described as 'insane'.

You are like the proverbial frog - the temperature has increased too slowly for you to realise just how dangerous it has become.

Your argument is well reasoned. However I, and I believe most people in America, disagree with your conclusion. The 'nuclear option' is the option of choice... make it too dangerous to rob houses.

A pre-meditated home robbery whereby the criminal knows what he is looking for and knows how to get it, is going to avoid confrontation... if at the very least to minimize the penalty if caught. I disagree that an escalation on the homeowners side is going to trigger an escalation on the robber's part... if anything, it would reduce the occurrence of robberies down to those that are assured to be accomplished without confrontation... in my opinion.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The point of that comment was to look at the situation from their perspective. If you grow up in a poor, crime-ridden area you're not going to have a lot of options available, especially if you've already been taken in by a gang at an early age. In addition it's ridiculous to think that someone in a poor, crime-ridden area would always have the same mentality as someone who is not from a poor, crime-ridden area. They're not excusing his actions, they're just trying to bring more of an understanding to them. Apparently, that in itself is a crime among conservatives.

So you are saying that the sentiment that the robber was justified in robbing because of where he grew up is rational and sound? That same robber that was wearing designer sneakers and clothes, and about $1,000 worth of gold in his teeth.. that guy? for fucks sake, the degree of entitlement that American's seem to have these days is just disgusting.

Where in the fuck did I say that? Learn how to read.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The point of that comment was to look at the situation from their perspective. If you grow up in a poor, crime-ridden area you're not going to have a lot of options available, especially if you've already been taken in by a gang at an early age. In addition it's ridiculous to think that someone in a poor, crime-ridden area would always have the same mentality as someone who is not from a poor, crime-ridden area. They're not excusing his actions, they're just trying to bring more of an understanding to them. Apparently, that in itself is a crime among conservatives.

So you are saying that the sentiment that the robber was justified in robbing because of where he grew up is rational and sound? That same robber that was wearing designer sneakers and clothes, and about $1,000 worth of gold in his teeth.. that guy? for fucks sake, the degree of entitlement that American's seem to have these days is just disgusting.

Agreed. The degree of entitlement to just not even bother to try and have a dialogue and respond to statements not made is just out of this world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not arguing with Malintent--he was correcting LD's misstatement of my position.

Please stop making misstatements about my posts.

That post was directed at Jimmy Higgins, not you.

And how do you think that you know my position better than I do???

 

[laughing dog]

Please stop making misstatements about my posts.

That post was directed at Jimmy Higgins, not you.

What does that have to do with your misrepresentation?

And how do you think that you know my position better than I do???

What on earth are you babbling about now?