• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Shooting while Black

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,638
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Well, here is an interesting story (interesting in a not funny way). Two black teens have been charged with murder for the death of an 8 year old, all of them were attending a high school football game. The interesting part is that the Police killed the 8 year old with a stray bullet. In fact, the police shot three bystanders. The two black teens, only managed to hit one bystander.

The Police reacted after the two black teens had words and figured guns were the solution to their disagreement. They (teens) fired shots, of which one hit a bystander (21 9 mm casings were recovered). The Police reacted and hit three more bystanders meaning 0 people who were shot at, were hit, while 4 who weren't shot at were hit.

Local prosecutors have brought the two original wannabe gunslingers on murder charges because they think the law allows that.

Here is where it gets really interesting. The black teens have been charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER. The ALL CAPS because, first degree requires intent. I can see some manner of charge, but First Degree?! That would be impossible to prove in court as neither of them were firing at the girl, but around each other. Really an incredibly mind numbing story, where a pair of teens pump 21 bullets towards one another, hitting one bystander.... and then the police fire who knows how many, hitting three, killing one bystander.

And no one is talking about the right to self-defense of the teen that fired second (or first really because they other guy had a gun too!) for some reason.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Whoever drew their gun first (between the teens) should face the appropriate charges for attempted murder etc
Whoever drew second (between the teens) should be allowed a self-defense plea but face the appropriate charges for any other crime committed
The police/state need to fucking respect their community and take responsibility for their part in this tragedy
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,090
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
This is a consequence of the "felony murder" rule. So what needs to happen is we need to make it a felony for a cop to shoot while incompetent.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,638
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This is a consequence of the "felony murder" rule. So what needs to happen is we need to make it a felony for a cop to shoot while incompetent.
If Wiki is accurate, Felony Murder in PA would be 2nd Degree. They are charged with 1st Degree.

article said:
Ford and Strand face first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and gun charges, according to prosecutors. While Ford is in custody and being held without bail, Strand was still at large as of Wednesday and was being sought by U.S. Marshals, according to prosecutors.

First Assistant District Attorney Tanner Rouse said the reason for charging the teen boys was “very simple.” In a statement, he explained, “They were attempting to kill one another that night, and as a direct result a little girl is dead.”
What I don't get is the statement that they were directly responsible. When it wasn't a bullet they fired. Reckless endangerment sure. But directly responsible without actually be directly the cause of the death? And 1st Degree requires provable intent, not merely being a cause.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,405
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Not seeing the relevance of the race of the teens. You mention they were black five times (including the title), but their race is not mentioned in any of the links I saw, though there is a video on one link showing their mug shots (which shows they are black). 'Splain, Lucy.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,638
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Not seeing the relevance of the race of the teens.
You mean like where a white teen shot four people and has an army of supporters for self-defense... but black teens are charged with the 1st degree murder of a girl they didn't even shoot.

I get that you can't see that relevance, there is a history of that. But it is quite relevant.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,405
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Not seeing the relevance of the race of the teens.
You mean like where a white teen shot four people and has an army of supporters for self-defense... but black teens are charged with the 1st degree murder of a girl they didn't even shoot.

I get that you can't see that relevance, there is a history of that. But it is quite relevant.
The two cases you are comparing are apples and oranges. Not to mention, cherry picked (can you tell I like fruit analogies?). I could counteract your narrative with my own about how OJ Simpson, a black man, got away with double murder of 2 white people, so therefore racism against whites, or something silly. If you're going to suggest the black teens are being overcharged because the DA is racist, then you need to focus on that. Find out if he has a history of being harsh on blacks, but letting whites off easy. Then we can talk. Otherwise, you're just pulling claims out of your ass. Another point is that people are frequently charged and convicted of first degree murder without actually killing anyone. Charles Manson, as a famous example. As well as murder-for-hire crimes.

And feel free to show me my history of "not seeing the relevance", and we can discuss. Sometimes the race is relevant, sometimes not.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,638
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Felony murder is 2nd degree, they were charged with 1st degree murder.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
563
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
*shrugs*

Frankly, I wish more African-American men would open carry with big, fancy gun holsters everywhere they went. Maybe some of them could go around with big AR-15s slung on their backs. If all of them, to a man, carried firearms of one kind or another, then I am pretty sure that the government would ban firearms just to spite them.

If anything, it would be an interesting social experiment.
 

Trausti

LGBASDF3+/-
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,743
Gender
Who/Whom
The prosecutor is probably angling for a theory of transferred intent with the 1st degree charge; but it seems a stretch here. Neither of defendants' bullets killed the girl. The higher charge may be just to get them to plea.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,405
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".
Absolutely nobody is "telling police officers its ok to shoot everyone". :rolleyes: There may be incompetence or recklessness on the part of these officers in this particular case, or maybe they were put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation"...a grand jury is supposedly going to be convened to get at the facts of the case. I can see having a felony murder law though. Let's say you have a multiple hostage situation. It sometimes happens (unfortunately) that innocent lives will be at risk by police/SWAT actions during attempts to end the situation. Even with trained expert marksmen. It doesn't seem right that they should be on the hook for a murder conviction (life in prison) while making a genuine attempt to end a standoff and save additional innocent lives.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,638
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".
Absolutely nobody is "telling police officers its ok to shoot everyone". :rolleyes: There may be incompetence or recklessness on the part of these officers in this particular case, or maybe they were put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation"...a grand jury is supposedly going to be convened to get at the facts of the case. I can see having a felony murder law though. Let's say...
Let's say we talk about the case in the OP instead hypothetical after hypothetical. A felony murder charge makes sense when reckless endangerment leads to someone's needless death.

It does seem odd though that two armed people shooting at each other (one of them has to be in self-defense?), are brought up on 1st degree murder charges while Mr. EMT Cadet (the only man to fire) is a right-wing hero of self defense.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,405
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".
Absolutely nobody is "telling police officers its ok to shoot everyone". :rolleyes: There may be incompetence or recklessness on the part of these officers in this particular case, or maybe they were put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation"...a grand jury is supposedly going to be convened to get at the facts of the case. I can see having a felony murder law though. Let's say...
Let's say we talk about the case in the OP instead hypothetical after hypothetical. A felony murder charge makes sense when reckless endangerment leads to someone's needless death.

It does seem odd though that two armed people shooting at each other (one of them has to be in self-defense?), are brought up on 1st degree murder charges while Mr. EMT Cadet (the only man to fire) is a right-wing hero of self defense.
Why do you keep trying to connect these two cases? They are completely different. Different laws, different jurisdictions, different crimes. Would it make you feel better about the Pennsylvania case, if the jury found KR guilty, contrary to their evaluation of the evidence?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,638
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Let's say we talk about the case in the OP instead hypothetical after hypothetical. A felony murder charge makes sense when reckless endangerment leads to someone's needless death.

It does seem odd though that two armed people shooting at each other (one of them has to be in self-defense?), are brought up on 1st degree murder charges while Mr. EMT Cadet (the only man to fire) is a right-wing hero of self defense.
Why do you keep trying to connect these two cases? They are completely different. Different laws, different jurisdictions, different crimes. Would it make you feel better about the Pennsylvania case, if the jury found KR guilty, contrary to their evaluation of the evidence?
As you noted, the cases are different, in that none of the shooting victims fired a gun at Rittenhouse.

Back to the OP case, where is the self-defense crowd? A teen was fired upon by another teen. Why isn't that second teen not acting in self-defense in firing back? Where is this holy threshold of self-defense?
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".
Absolutely nobody is "telling police officers its ok to shoot everyone". :rolleyes: There may be incompetence or recklessness on the part of these officers in this particular case, or maybe they were put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation"...a grand jury is supposedly going to be convened to get at the facts of the case. I can see having a felony murder law though. Let's say you have a multiple hostage situation. It sometimes happens (unfortunately) that innocent lives will be at risk by police/SWAT actions during attempts to end the situation. Even with trained expert marksmen. It doesn't seem right that they should be on the hook for a murder conviction (life in prison) while making a genuine attempt to end a standoff and save additional innocent lives.

I didn't say "people are telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone" what I did say was " It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob". Nice interpretation of the main subject (in this case an implied entity being the flawed interpretation of law) of my post. I went to one of the crappiest schools in the hood and even they managed to teach me how to find it. I didn't even graduate.


Anyhow,
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".

Saying that the shooters are guilty of felony murder doesn't make the cops blameless. You're not limited to one charge per victim.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Absolutely nobody is "telling police officers its ok to shoot everyone". :rolleyes: There may be incompetence or recklessness on the part of these officers in this particular case, or maybe they were put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation"...a grand jury is supposedly going to be convened to get at the facts of the case. I can see having a felony murder law though. Let's say you have a multiple hostage situation. It sometimes happens (unfortunately) that innocent lives will be at risk by police/SWAT actions during attempts to end the situation. Even with trained expert marksmen. It doesn't seem right that they should be on the hook for a murder conviction (life in prison) while making a genuine attempt to end a standoff and save additional innocent lives.

And the primary purpose of felony murder laws isn't even about this sort of situation, but more about your buddy kills someone, or someone kills your buddy.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Felony murder at work.

You commit a felony, any reasonably anticipatable bad outcome that results is your fault. A bystander being hit certainly counts as something bad that could happen.

If it's mutual combat they're both guilty. If one was trying to avoid the situation (doesn't sound like it) then only the other is guilty.

The race of the perps and the fact that the cop was incompetent has nothing to do with this.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the race of the perps and how that may or may not have affected the behavior of the police. I'll give them that. My issue is with telling police officers it's ok to shoot everyone because the blame will be placed on whomever or whatever caused you to shoot. "Have at it!" It's counterproductive to that whole don't harm civilians during training thingamabob. Would make a good scene in Police Academy though: Cadet blasts away at every target that pops up

"What the hell are you doing?"
"Stacking charges sir!"
"Carry on then".

Saying that the shooters are guilty of felony murder doesn't make the cops blameless. You're not limited to one charge per victim.

But I thought two people couldn't get charged for the same crime? Unless I'm mistaken. So let's say (for the sake of argument only) that 1st-degree murder was an option for the officer and the two teens. Could all three be charged for 1st degree murder of the same person?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,782
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Saying that the shooters are guilty of felony murder doesn't make the cops blameless. You're not limited to one charge per victim.

But I thought two people couldn't get charged for the same crime? Unless I'm mistaken. So let's say (for the sake of argument only) that 1st-degree murder was an option for the officer and the two teens. Could all three be charged for 1st degree murder of the same person?

I don't think it could happen in this scenario, but it certainly can.

3 people gun down one person. They're all guilty of first degree murder even though there's only one body. Whose bullets actually killed are irrelevant.

In this case we have the two teens guilty of felony murder. The highest charge the cop can face here is manslaughter as the shots were lawful and there was no intent to kill the dead person. To get higher than manslaughter you need criminal intent.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Ok, I'll wait and see what the state does about its role.
 
Top Bottom