coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
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.
It is different in each state, but some of them classify them as felony.
Yes, that's what I just said.
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.
Yes, that's what I just said.
People take their house and their person more seriously in the US.
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.More seriously than what? More seriously than human life? Is that sane?
The victim lived just two blocks from the burglars. It's the same "poor, crime-ridden area".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.
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 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.If they were targeting homes with no one in them, that would seem to turn the table on that.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.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.
The homeowner escalated the situation and created the unsafe condition.Also, the fact that it was two of them makes the perceived threat more credible.
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.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.
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.In Florida she no duty to get away from the situation. Some states do.
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.It's an easy rule to follow, don't break into someone's home.
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 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.
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.The prosecutor is using the conspiracy to commit a felony for this element of the charge.
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.
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...You are failing to follow... not sure I can explain it to you.. not going to try. However, your response "isn't even wrong".
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.
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.
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.
Please stop making misstatements about my posts.I am not arguing with Malintent--he was correcting LD's misstatement of my position.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
Please stop making misstatements about my posts.I am not arguing with Malintent--he was correcting LD's misstatement of my position.
What does that have to do with your misrepresentation?Please stop making misstatements about my posts.
That post was directed at Jimmy Higgins, not you.
What on earth are you babbling about now?And how do you think that you know my position better than I do???