Never Bring A Knife To A Gun Fight, or "I'm charged with what?"

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bber-shot-dead-man-tried-stick-ATM-knife.html

'Robber' shot dead by man he tried to stick up with a knife at drive-through ATM
Justin Slivinski, 24, of Oviedo, Florida, was killed Friday night when he and accomplice Austin Lee Harvey, 19, tried to rob a man at knife-point at a local drive-through ATM
The unnamed man shot Slivinksi two times
Slivinksi and Harvey both have records of multiple criminal arrests

But here's the fun part:

Harvey was arrested Saturday afternoon and now faces attempted armed robbery and murder charges.

Police say the murder charge was added because robbery attempt contributed to Slivinski's death.

Yes, you read that correctly. If you commit an armed felony in some states, and your crime results in a death, you can be charged for it; even if you personally did not do it. In this case, to add insult to injury, not only is his armed-robber buddy dead, but he gets charged with murder for it. HA!

It's the same legal philosophy that allows arsonists to be charged with murder if there is someone in the building who dies, or if a firefighter dies fighting the blaze they set. They may not have meant to kill anyone, but it happened due to their crime, so they get to swing for it.

 

[WC_lun]

I think that is completly resonable. His friend would not be dead if not for thier own actions. I've seen this a few times.

 

[arnisador]

I'm not so sure I think that's reasonable...eh, but I'm not too excited about the matter. It seems both accomplices took the same risk.

 

[seasoned]

Crime just doesn't pay. Laws are twofold, there is punishment and there is deterrent. The guy dead is punishment and the accomplice serves as a deterrent for those that are followers in crime.

 

[chinto]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bber-shot-dead-man-tried-stick-ATM-knife.html



But here's the fun part:



Yes, you read that correctly. If you commit an armed felony in some states, and your crime results in a death, you can be charged for it; even if you personally did not do it. In this case, to add insult to injury, not only is his armed-robber buddy dead, but he gets charged with murder for it. HA!

It's the same legal philosophy that allows arsonists to be charged with murder if there is someone in the building who dies, or if a firefighter dies fighting the blaze they set. They may not have meant to kill anyone, but it happened due to their crime, so they get to swing for it.

many states have what is called "FELONY MURDER" and you do not have to be armed to be charged. if you commit a felony and some one dies of a heart attack or something they can charge you with it...

 

[arnisador]

many states have what is called "FELONY MURDER" and you do not have to be armed to be charged. if you commit a felony and some one dies of a heart attack or something they can charge you with it...

I have no problem with that...this case does seem to stretch the logic, though. They both intended to rob someone. If they had both been severely injured at the hands of the intended victim but lived, would each be sentenced for causing grave bodily harm (indirectly) to the other? It doesn't ring right to me.

 

[WC_lun]

Actions have consequences. If the action is illegal and predatory, resulting in the death of another human being, then holding the criminal accountable for that death is not a stretch, in my opinion. Even if the human dying was a co-conspirator in the crime.

 

[oftheherd1]

I may be wrong, but I don't think most states punish for another participant in an illegal endeavor getting killed. But if the guy who lived has been in almost constant trouble with the law, it would probably be considered a handy way to get a bad guy off the streets a little longer.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I may be wrong, but I don't think most states punish for another participant in an illegal endeavor getting killed. But if the guy who lived has been in almost constant trouble with the law, it would probably be considered a handy way to get a bad guy off the streets a little longer.

I don't know how many states have these laws, but I've seen a number of times it has been applied. When I used to live in Colorado, there was a notable case of a young woman who drove the 'get away' car for her boyfriend, who was killed trying to murder a police officer. She did not kill her boyfriend, but she was convicted of murder because she was a felony accessory to the crime in which her boyfriend was killed. She got life in prison and many felt that was wrong, that she did not deserve it. Some of that might have been because she was young, attractive, and many felt she had fallen 'under the spell' of her criminal boyfriend and should not be made to pay for his actions. Eh. I thought she got what she deserved. Actions have consequences. People may be young, dumb, impressionable, and not understand that notion, but they're not therefore immune to them.

 

[Kukage]

I understand the theory, but this is stretching it a little me thinks.

Given the nature of society I could see someone disarming a perp with a gun, gun goes off in the process and they end up getting charged because someone got shot in the process.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I understand the theory, but this is stretching it a little me thinks.

Given the nature of society I could see someone disarming a perp with a gun, gun goes off in the process and they end up getting charged because someone got shot in the process.

That would be a little different because the person doing the disarming is (one would suppose) not engaged in a felony at the time. That's not to say that Good Samaritans don't sometimes get shafted, but I haven't heard of a person being charged with murder in such a situation.

In the most common situation in which murder is charged even though the person didn't intend to murder anyone is arson. In most state that I am aware of, if someone dies as the result of an arsonist's fire, the arsonist can and often is charged with murder. A person who tried to take the gas can away from them and the fire started anyway would not be so charged, I think.

 

[WC_lun]

As far as I know, the person being charged has to be a willing participant in the original crime. There's a saying, don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. Don't want to be brought up on murder charges, then don't be a predatory criminal.

 

[arnisador]

When I used to live in Colorado, there was a notable case of a young woman who drove the 'get away' car for her boyfriend, who was killed trying to murder a police officer. She did not kill her boyfriend, but she was convicted of murder because she was a felony accessory to the crime in which her boyfriend was killed. She got life in prison and many felt that was wrong, that she did not deserve it. Some of that might have been because she was young, attractive, and many felt she had fallen 'under the spell' of her criminal boyfriend and should not be made to pay for his actions. Eh. I thought she got what she deserved.

I agree she got what she deserved, but not how she deserved it. Whether or not she was under his influence, there was no intent to murder him--and even manslaughter seems a stretch to me. Convict her for what she did--and I'm fine with considering her equally guilty of attempted murder of the cop--but not for what she didn't do (kill her boyfriend). This logic is too tortuous to sit well with me.

 

[arnisador]

Don't want to be brought up on murder charges, then don't be a predatory criminal.

There's a reason we have different categories of crime. I'm for charging people only with the crimes they commit. Arson leading to unintended deaths? Entirely foreseeable--manslaughter with aggravating circumstances, heavy penalty (life in prison works for me). Call it a degree of homicide if you like. Committing arson with an accelerant and catch your accomplice on fire? Foreseeable--OK. But robbing someone and your accomplice dies when the victim defends himself, or driving a get-away car while someone in it is shot (if that's how it happened)? Charge the person with what they did. Where is the murder in this?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm not so sure I think that's reasonable...eh, but I'm not too excited about the matter. It seems both accomplices took the same risk.

Consider, your daughter, or whomever, is confronted by two rapists, and she blows one of the guy's brains out. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the other guy would be mad about it, and maybe want to retaliate. It would be far better for him to be mad about it, behind bars.

 

[Kukage]

Consider, your daughter, or whomever, is confronted by two rapists, and she blows one of the guy's brains out. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the other guy would be mad about it, and maybe want to retaliate. It would be far better for him to be mad about it, behind bars.

I think a better answer is to teach her to make sure they are both put down at the same time unless there are witnesses and the perp(s) have surrendered and are screaming "Don't shoot me!"

Fortunately these people are generally cowards and usually won't confront victims in the presence of witnesses.

 

[arnisador]

Consider, your daughter, or whomever, is confronted by two rapists, and she blows one of the guy's brains out. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the other guy would be mad about it, and maybe want to retaliate. It would be far better for him to be mad about it, behind bars.

The Kitty Dukakis thing is not a very pleasant way to start a conversation, but I'm not arguing that the amount of years given is unfair--just that the logic is convoluted. I don't want to live with a system where we rationalize convicting people of crimes they didn't commit because they "should" be behind bars.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The Kitty Dukakis thing is not a very pleasant way to start a conversation, but I'm not arguing that the amount of years given is unfair--just that the logic is convoluted. I don't want to live with a system where we rationalize convicting people of crimes they didn't commit because they "should" be behind bars.

All I am saying is that social dynamics are being taken into consideration when laws like these are written.
Sean

 

[arnisador]

Fair enough--I see the point but would rather have it be more straight-forward. Increase penalties rather than contort meanings, I'd say.

 

[jks9199]

I may be wrong, but I don't think most states punish for another participant in an illegal endeavor getting killed. But if the guy who lived has been in almost constant trouble with the law, it would probably be considered a handy way to get a bad guy off the streets a little longer.

It's not always done -- but, at least as far as I know, most states do still have a felony murder rule, and it could be applied to a case like this. (Obviously... since it has been.)