Strange legal case
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2017, 03:51 AM
RE: Strange legal case
This would seem strangely punitive in any modern first world country, except for the only one that still performs capital punishment.

─────────▄▄───────────────────▄▄──
──────────▀█───────────────────▀█─
──────────▄█───────────────────▄█─
──█████████▀───────────█████████▀─
───▄██████▄─────────────▄██████▄──
─▄██▀────▀██▄─────────▄██▀────▀██▄
─██────────██─────────██────────██
─██───██───██─────────██───██───██
─██────────██─────────██────────██
──██▄────▄██───────────██▄────▄██─
───▀██████▀─────────────▀██████▀──
──────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────
───────────█████████████──────────
──────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────


Go us. We're still number one at something. I guess...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
31-03-2017, 04:00 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(28-03-2017 05:45 PM)Aliza Wrote:  This is one of the sources that I'm using in my paper. I'm not writing the paper from a criminal or legal standpoint. I'm writing it about kids who are "falling through the cracks" and going to prison instead of graduating from high school. -So, granted, my source may not hold water from a legal standpoint. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-cha...rview.html

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies, such as:

Arson;
Burglary;
Kidnapping;
Rape; and
Robbery.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they're fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death even though neither of the robbers actually did the killing.

That's fucked up and totally wrong, not fair or just at all, I'm so glad I'm not American the justice system there is practically medieval.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
31-03-2017, 04:05 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 04:00 AM)adey67 Wrote:  That's fucked up and totally wrong, not fair or just at all, I'm so glad I'm not American the justice system there is practically medieval.

Welcome to a puritanical justice system rooted in retribution, not rehabilitation; the way god intended. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
31-03-2017, 04:26 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This would seem strangely punitive in any modern first world country, except for the only one that still performs capital punishment.

─────────▄▄───────────────────▄▄──
──────────▀█───────────────────▀█─
──────────▄█───────────────────▄█─
──█████████▀───────────█████████▀─
───▄██████▄─────────────▄██████▄──
─▄██▀────▀██▄─────────▄██▀────▀██▄
─██────────██─────────██────────██
─██───██───██─────────██───██───██
─██────────██─────────██────────██
──██▄────▄██───────────██▄────▄██─
───▀██████▀─────────────▀██████▀──
──────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────
───────────█████████████──────────
──────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────


Go us. We're still number one at something. I guess...

It is not only the USA that has this legal concept and it was pretty much universal among countries with legal systems based in English common law.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 04:27 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 04:00 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(28-03-2017 05:45 PM)Aliza Wrote:  This is one of the sources that I'm using in my paper. I'm not writing the paper from a criminal or legal standpoint. I'm writing it about kids who are "falling through the cracks" and going to prison instead of graduating from high school. -So, granted, my source may not hold water from a legal standpoint. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-cha...rview.html

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies, such as:

Arson;
Burglary;
Kidnapping;
Rape; and
Robbery.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they're fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death even though neither of the robbers actually did the killing.

That's fucked up and totally wrong, not fair or just at all, I'm so glad I'm not American the justice system there is practically medieval.

The concept is rooted in English common law and is not unique to the USA.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 04:49 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 04:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This would seem strangely punitive in any modern first world country, except for the only one that still performs capital punishment.

Go us. We're still number one at something. I guess...

It is not only the USA that has this legal concept and it was pretty much universal among countries with legal systems based in English common law.

As a concept? Sure, that doesn't strike me as improbable. But would you get the book thrown at you in the UK for being the non-violent member of a B&E group who were killed in self defense? Just how far, and how strongly, would that concept actually be applied? Once convicted, what would their outlook be there versus the US? I imagine that the US still takes the cake in the application of retribution for retribution's sake.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 04:51 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(28-03-2017 11:17 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  So your three buddies get shot by the homeowner in self defense while you wait in the getaway car yet you get charged with murder for their deaths? I've heard of felony murder but never quite seen it applied like this! What gives?

That's not self-defence it's cold blooded murder. The US is batshit crazy. Sure, look I agree the home-owner has every right to defend his life - including taking lethal action - but he had a gun, and they had knives. All he had to do was restrain them and call the police.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 08:37 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2017 08:41 AM by Aliza.)
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 04:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 04:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not only the USA that has this legal concept and it was pretty much universal among countries with legal systems based in English common law.

As a concept? Sure, that doesn't strike me as improbable. But would you get the book thrown at you in the UK for being the non-violent member of a B&E group who were killed in self defense? Just how far, and how strongly, would that concept actually be applied? Once convicted, what would their outlook be there versus the US? I imagine that the US still takes the cake in the application of retribution for retribution's sake.

The burglers had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent and they created reasonable fear for the victims/homeowners.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 08:50 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 08:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The burglers had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent.

That's not how self-defence laws work. Not here in Australia, not in Europe, not anywhere that's civilised. Self-defence is based on a proportional response. Did oyu even read the article? They only had two weapons between three of them - so the third kid was in fact unarmed. And none of them had guns.

In most places if you did what this American did, you'd be convicted for either murder or manslaughter. You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to kill people because they broke into your home and threatened you. If you use excessive force in self defence, you are culpable.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 09:21 AM
RE: Strange legal case
(31-03-2017 08:50 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 08:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The burglers had weapons. That shows that they were willing and prepared to get violent. They didn't get the chance to act upon it, but they would be considered violent.

That's not how self-defence laws work. Not here in Australia, not in Europe, not anywhere that's civilised. Self-defence is based on a proportional response. Did oyu even read the article? They only had two weapons between three of them - so the third kid was in fact unarmed. And none of them had guns.

In most places if you did what this American did, you'd be convicted for either murder or manslaughter. You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to kill people because they broke into your home and threatened you. If you use excessive force in self defence, you are culpable.

In the United States, you do have the right to defend your property. Many states hold that when someone illegally enters your home, they have created a credible threat and the homeowner is not responsible for searching the burglars or evaluating the threat level of the situation. Seconds can make the difference in the homeowner's safety. This is the culture here and it's common knowledge in this country that when you illegally enter someone's home, you can be shot and killed. Maybe in a country where this is not the law, it sounds foreign and extreme, but in the US, everyone knows that the law protects the homeowner in this situation.

It's sucks for the kids who lost their lives, but the law is written that way to protect the victims, not the criminals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: