this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
612 points (84.6% liked)
US Authoritarianism
793 readers
339 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OK, this, much like the specific law involved in this situation, is ridiculously reductive.
Did they break and enter? Yes. Did the friend, who was shot and killed, engage police with a weapon? Yes. Did the guy charged with murder force his friend into the situation that led to his death? NO! The kid who was killed decided to engage the cops with a weapon, while the kid who was charged ran into the woods.
The law just seems like a poorly veiled means of piling additional charges on to criminals, no matter how petty the crime. I'd bet there are probably some more wild situations where the justice system managed to butterfly effect their way to linking some petty crime with something not at all associated with the crime itself.
I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you've helped create a scenario where someone ended up murdered. I think it's ridiculous that one of your accomplices can be that person though.
The real issue with this case is that he is 15 (16?). Obviously he should have been treated as a juvenile (especially since it sounds like they were all kids).
Imagine we used that on white collar crimes.
A lawyer helped register a company that later went on to commit fraud. Charge her because she helped create a scenario where someone committed fraud. Charge the IT manager because he hooked up the computers that were later used in the fraud.
It seems pretty basic, but you should charge people for things they actually did. If multiple people planned a crime but only one person was caught executing the crime, you can charge them all with conspiracy. That makes sense. On the other hand, this seems to involve charging someone with a crime that wasn't part of the plan. If it was a potential foreseeable consequence of the plan, there are crimes for that: reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.
I just can't imagine a real scenario where someone did something wrong, but there are no laws on the books that match the wrong thing they did. So, instead, you have to charge them with the crime someone else did instead.
I think RICO is a white collar equivalent to the concept of felony murder, although maybe not a 1-to-1.
You get a harsher penalty by basically being involved/contributing in a large operation.
They're not really equivalent. With RICO if you've committed multiple times of crimes from a certain list, and those crimes are related to an "enterprise" you can be charged with racketeering.
You're not being charged with crimes someone else did. You're being charged with masterminding a bunch of crimes. RICO charges are used against people at the head of an organization. Felony Murder is used against people who have the bad luck to be part of a group when someone else in the group pulls the trigger.
RICO goes after the organization in organized crime. It fills in a gap in the laws that maybe wasn't there already, because none of the other laws went after the planning and organizing of the crimes. Felony murder seems to just exist to pile additional charges on someone who had already committed crimes that were already on the books, and make that person additionally responsible for the actions of a different person.
Actually by your definition I think RICO fits really well, RICO is for anyone who participated in the criminal enterprise (so not just the leaders of the organization) and to my understanding it is primarily to trump up charges against them to hold them accountable for the crimes of the organization.
That being said in general we don't really go after the secondary effects of white collar crime the same way we do with violent crime.
You have it right but the part in parenthesis is backwards. It was originally used because we were only capable of prosecuting those who personally committed the crimes. We could not charge people who directed those things or paid for those things until RICO. It then followed though that you could use it in the reverse, like what you said, so you aren't wrong.
Felony murder would perhaps work if you were directly involved. For example, if the guy had been active in a shootout with the cops with his friend, or e en if he was then only one shooting at the cops and his friend was shot and killed, then yeah sure I get it. But here, the only common thread in the incident is the robbery, the surviving kid ran into the woods to escape while his friend actively engaged the cops. They weren't acting together at that point. Otherwise, yeah I agree that there also should have been safe guards in place since he was a minor at the time as well.
If there's a 2-man team of a spotter and a sniper, the sniper is pulling the trigger and the spotter is calling the shots, then sure, charge the spotter with murder too.
In virtually every other case, there are already crimes for what the other person did. Use those existing crimes.
This also makes me think of SWATting. Yeah, it's awful to do that. But, 99% of the blame for a successful SWATting should fall on the cops. Someone makes a claim over the phone, and as a result you kick down a door and charge in, guns blazing? SWATting wouldn't work if cops could go to prison for kicking in the door at a house where nothing was going on. If that were a risk, they'd stop and verify the facts before making a decision that could ruin their lives. The only reason it works is that cops are given immunity for just about everything, so there's no real downside to shoot first and verify assumptions later.
Charging the kid for his buddy getting killed by the cops is some kind of black mirror garbage that can only happen in a world where cops can face no responsibilities for their actions. If we lived in a world where cops could face responsibility for their actions, the cop could get charged with murder. Now, he'd easily beat that murder charge because he was acting in self-defense, as the guy he shot was shooting at him. How twisted is it that the person who actually fired the killing shot could claim self-defense, but the person who was running away at the time can't make that claim because he wasn't the one who actually fired the shot?
Yeah, I've heard of that guy. He's one of the many reasons why the US police suck so much. But, he can only influence cops in a world where cops can't be held legally responsible for their actions. If cops could be charged with murder / manslaughter people would avoid his course because they'd get sent to prison for following his advice.
You live in a fantasy land where distance apparently prevents consequences.
You know what, answer one question. What else besides run into the woods could that kid do, considering he had no weapon? Armed home invasion already is a 20 year felony, you don't think if he had a gun too he wouldnt have engaged the police?
It doesn't matter what he could have done, what matters is what he did. What he did was illegal, he should be charged with that. He shouldn't be charged for his friend getting killed by a cop. Those were actions taken by other people.
You are framing this incorrectly. They didnt make different decisions. They were committing crimes as a group. As a group, they had at least one gun. They were using this is backup in case they ran into a homeowner or police. The person with the gun did exactly what was expected of him by the rest of the group, while those without guns rightfully ran from gun fire and his from danger. If they had guns however its likely they would have been expected to assist.
When people act as a group and every step of the way they keep moving forward instead of stopping, you have to at some point hold the whole group responsible. If this person had decided to sit this robbery out, then they would only have to deal with the other murder they committed the night before with the same group.
Theres more to the story and the headline is about as misleading as can be, considering he didnt even end up with that much time.
If only this "committing crime as a group" could be applied to corporations, so we'd end up with the whole board in jail whenever there is wage theft, price collusion, environmental negligence, money laundering, etc, etc.
If the board is involved in making illegal decisions or below standard decisions, they can be held accountable.
It doesnt work out well in america because rich people defend themselves far better than average folk.
So you are saying none of them knew he had a gun or would use it, despite being part of violent crimes literally the day prior where someone was shot and killed.
The group had a gun, not one person. They were a group robbing and hurting people, and part of the reason why they all felt so bold is because "we have a gun".
If you act as a group you will be punished as a group, its simple. It doesnt matter the division of labor, you can't protect yourself legally that way.
That is an insane leap in logic. You can have a trial with multiple co-defendants that results in different punishments, or separate trials for each defendant with different outcomes.
He should be punished for the crime he committed. His friend had a mind of his own, and agency over his own actions. No one forced him to engage the police.
As I said before, the way this law is written is just an excuse to find ways to pile on more charges.
If the plan was "go into this house and kill the occupants" and the group executed that plan even though only one person pulled the trigger, that would be one thing.
The plan was never "go into this house, wait for the cops to show up, get into a shootout with the cops, and get shot by the cops". Or, if it was, the kid who was charged sure didn't follow that plan because he ran away instead or getting into a shootout. There are a variety of possible crimes for someone who was part of a group: conspiracy to X, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.
At a bare minimum, if someone in a group is charged with X, it should be necessary to prove that the group's plan was to do X. In addition, it should be necessary to prove that the group did X. That seems like it should be the absolute minimum. In this case, what's absurd is that the group didn't even do X.
In this case, the "murder" was the "murder" of one of the criminals, and the person who did the "murder" was the cop. It's absolutely ridiculous that if the cop were charged with that murder (and somehow wasn't just automatically immune) the cop could invoke their right to self-defense, and would almost certainly be acquitted. But, the person who was running away from the crime scene at the moment the murder happened can't use the self-defense justification because he wasn't the person who fired the shot.
Yeah, I figured that. Thanks for the confirmation though.
i don't care how the law does it. if you break into people's homes with weapons, i want you removed from society. i'll advocate for a more humane society in which people don't have to do that, but my first priority is making sure that armed home invaders aren't allowed to exist in the same society as me.
What are you arguing? I 100% agree he deserves to be punished.... for the actual crime he committed, which was robbery.
law will always be imperfect. i'm not advocating for anything other than removing violent criminals from society. i don't care how it gets done, really.
We know, that is why you are being called out?
we?
You're looking for revenge, not justice.
how presumptuous of you to assume what my motives are. i say what i mean. my motives are clearly outlined in my previous statements.
Not assuming anything, what you are asking for is revenge not justice. Justice is proportional disciplinary action relative to the crime, tou just want them punished and you don't care how or why, that's just simply revenge.
according to you.
i just don't want home invaders roaming the streets. the law is just a means to an end. i don't care about justice for this young man. have fun with that last statement.
OK, let's start where we agree: home invasion is not OK, and it deserves punishment. Furthermore, I want to remove this individual from the public (until such time that they have been reformed, or at least served their sentence) so they are not able to repeat such behaviour.
Here's where we seem to disagree: you want punishment, seemingly, by any means necessary. My stance is, punish him based on the crime he directly committed.
He was set to potentially recieve up to 25 years just for the burglary and then an additional 30 for murder and the judge dropped it to 24-30. So, if they had just charged and convicted him for the burglary would that not been enough for you? The murder charge, in this case really only provides for a slightly higher upper limit and probably increases time until he is eligible for parole. It's also a slippery slope that can easily be used to pile on charges. So, is piling on the murder charge really worth it? He got caught, he was charged, he's been convicted, they probably would've thrown the book at him just with the burglary charge. Seriously, do you really still think adding that murder charge is worth it?
it's really not my concern. i'm definitely not going to take the lenient side of the two choices. i'm 50. the longer the sentence he gets, the better the chances that i'll be dead by he time he gets out. that's ok with me. i'm not worried at all about the criminal in this case.
Then I'm sorry, you don't care about justice, you just want vengeance. Just remember this is a slippery slope and some day you might be on the losing end of it.
quit telling me what i want. i'm the one that decides what i want. not you. i don't care about your slippery slope. i know how to take care of myself. thanks for your concern.
"Justice is a legal or moral process of evaluating and resolving conflicts, whereas revenge is a personal desire to cause harm or injury to someone who has wronged you."
You don't give a fuck how they get to it, you just want punishment, that's not moral process of evaluating or resolving conflict, it's revenge.
god, you fucking poindexters and your false dichotomies, and your googled definitions, and your fucking debate team bullshit. just fuck off okay? i disagree with you and you don't get to define my motivations. do you fucking understand that, poindexter?
All you want is revenge. You don't care about justice, just accept that. You can't beat logic with ad hominem attacks.
all you want is to have the last word, so go ahead and have it. i'll be living my guilt-free life undeterred by your lame attempt at trolling.