Legal Question

[Deleted]

hi,
I'm looking for a case I thought I heard, but can't find any references - but I would like to present it in a sociology workshop.

A, B and C decide to rob a bank. They enter the bank. A draws a gun but a security guard is faster and kills A. B and C are arrested and charged with the death of A - reason being involved in criminal activity where the death of A or their own was a possible foreseeable consequence.

Is this true at all? And if so, would B and C be charged with first or second degree murder or manslaughter or would it depend? on what?

thanks in advance!
Kim

[Californian]

It's called "the law of parties" in Texas and several (at least) have gone to the gurney for it. Many states have similar laws. You can also search "felony murder."

[Californian]

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2416

[Donnie]

ichick said:

would B and C be charged with first or second degree murder or manslaughter or would it depend? on what?

It would depend on how the state law was written. But such criminals certainly should be executed.

[trogdor]

ichick said:

hi,
I'm looking for a case I thought I heard, but can't find any references - but I would like to present it in a sociology workshop.

A, B and C decide to rob a bank. They enter the bank. A draws a gun but a security guard is faster and kills A. B and C are arrested and charged with the death of A - reason being involved in criminal activity where the death of A or their own was a possible foreseeable consequence.

Is this true at all? And if so, would B and C be charged with first or second degree murder or manslaughter or would it depend? on what?

thanks in advance!
Kim

Depends on the state. As a matter of principle, A, B, and C are all equally responsible for the murder.

[PIP]

I think in some states it could be called manslaughter, but I am not an expert.

[mel77]

Bob, would the sentence be the same even if the jury found that A, B and C never had the intention to harm anyone and only wanted to scare their victims by taking along a gun?

[Barry]

mel77 said:

Bob, would the sentence be the same even if the jury found that A, B and C never had the intention to harm anyone and only wanted to scare their victims by taking along a gun?

People's intent is better judged by their actions rather than their after the fact defense. It's foreseeable that someone may get shot and killed during the commission of a robbery. That is why we have the felony murder rule.

[Deleted]

mel77 said:

Bob, would the sentence be the same even if the jury found that A, B and C never had the intention to harm anyone and only wanted to scare their victims by taking along a gun?

I forget his name now, but a while back there was a death row inmate who wound up dying before his execution. He was the driver, sat in the car while his buddies went inside to rob the place, there was no intention to kill. The shooter got a lesser sentence.

[iamjumbo]

mel77 said:

Bob, would the sentence be the same even if the jury found that A, B and C never had the intention to harm anyone and only wanted to scare their victims by taking along a gun?

if the store clerk has a heart attack, it is first degree murder and they all deserve to be executed. intending to scare someone is intending to harm them. nonetheless, the absolute fact is, anyone who takes a gun to a robbery intends to kill someone. what the punk says he intended has no relevance to the reality whatsoever
it's like the fourteen year old piece of shyt here who shot the 70 year old woman at the store because she shot at him and, unfortunately, missed. his stupidity sitting on tv crying that he didn't mean to hurt anybody doesn't mean shyt. it is sad that we can't execute him, but he will be getting social security before he ever sees daylight again

[iamjumbo]

wonderwoman said:

mel77 said:

Bob, would the sentence be the same even if the jury found that A, B and C never had the intention to harm anyone and only wanted to scare their victims by taking along a gun?

I forget his name now, but a while back there was a death row inmate who wound up dying before his execution. He was the driver, sat in the car while his buddies went inside to rob the place, there was no intention to kill. The shooter got a lesser sentence.

when they took a gun inside, they intended to kill, or no one would have been killed. it can't get any simpler than that, and the irrefutable fact is that EVERYONE involved, however slight, is guilty of the murder.

[Rev. Agave]

I think people might have missed what our friend was asking. Mainly, If A, B, and C all conspire to rob a bank, and during the robbery one of the 3 robbers gets killed, what is the liability of the 2 others for their accomplice's death? That was the question as I understand it.

[lawrence]

Exactly my point in other conversations, take the gun out of society and your gun related murder rate will fall. I do agree that if you carry a gun by definition you intend to use it. Therefore you forfiet any right to be given leaniency by the police on the scene because it then becomes self defence and you will deserve to get *your rear* shot off.

[iamjumbo]

agaveman said:

I think people might have missed what our friend was asking. Mainly, If A, B, and C all conspire to rob a bank, and during the robbery one of the 3 robbers gets killed, what is the liability of the 2 others for their accomplice's death? That was the question as I understand it.

it was answered. it would apply if, during the getaway, the driver hit a light pole and one of the punks was killed. the other two are guilty of first degree murder.
a good case is the two punks in california who are getting the death penalty because the homeowner blew their pal away while they were trying to burglarize his house.

[iamjumbo]

lawrence said:

Exactly my point in other conversations, take the gun out of society and your gun related murder rate will fall. I do agree that if you carry a gun by definition you intend to use it. Therefore you forfiet any right to be given leaniency by the police on the scene because it then becomes self defence and you will deserve to get *your rear* shot off.

you really do need to get over your delusion that criminals obey the law.
you do get to be right that any piece of shyt that has used a gun in a crime deserves to have his ass shot off, although his head would be more preferable

[Lisa]

iamjumbo said:

agaveman said:

I think people might have missed what our friend was asking. Mainly, If A, B, and C all conspire to rob a bank, and during the robbery one of the 3 robbers gets killed, what is the liability of the 2 others for their accomplice's death? That was the question as I understand it.

it was answered. it would apply if, during the getaway, the driver hit a light pole and one of the punks was killed. the other two are guilty of first degree murder.
a good case is the two punks in california who are getting the death penalty because the homeowner blew their pal away while they were trying to burglarize his house.

Do you have a link to information about that case?

[Benny]

Do you have a link to information about that case?

It's some kid named Renato Hughes Jr, and he is being charged with first degree murder under the provocative act doctrine, i.e., was in forseeable that breaking into a house in the middle of the night but elicit a violent response? It's not a capital case.

[benny]

. . . was in foreseeable that breaking into a house in the middle of the night but would elicit a violent response?

[Lisa]

benny said:

. . . was in foreseeable that breaking into a house in the middle of the night but would elicit a violent response?

I found information on the case but nothing about prosecutors seeking the death penalty.

[benny]

The state has never sought the death penalty in this case.

[iamjumbo]

pdp0143 said:

iamjumbo said:

it was answered. it would apply if, during the getaway, the driver hit a light pole and one of the punks was killed. the other two are guilty of first degree murder.
a good case is the two punks in california who are getting the death penalty because the homeowner blew their pal away while they were trying to burglarize his house.

Do you have a link to information about that case?

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1538749/posts

it had been a while since i saw it. i had it backwards. the one piece of shyt is charged with the murders of both his accomplices

[iamjumbo]

pdp0143 said:

iamjumbo said:

it was answered. it would apply if, during the getaway, the driver hit a light pole and one of the punks was killed. the other two are guilty of first degree murder.
a good case is the two punks in california who are getting the death penalty because the homeowner blew their pal away while they were trying to burglarize his house.

Do you have a link to information about that case?

here is a more insightful one:

rushroom.simjournal.com/Lexviewer.aspx?lid=796&dart=2913

[Deleted]

ichick said:

hi,
I'm looking for a case I thought I heard, but can't find any references - but I would like to present it in a sociology workshop.

A, B and C decide to rob a bank. They enter the bank. A draws a gun but a security guard is faster and kills A. B and C are arrested and charged with the death of A - reason being involved in criminal activity where the death of A or their own was a possible foreseeable consequence.

Is this true at all? And if so, would B and C be charged with first or second degree murder or manslaughter or would it depend? on what?

thanks in advance!
Kim

Yes, it is called felony murder. In the case of Richmond v. State, 554 P.2d 1217, 1232 (Wyo. 1976), the Wyoming Supreme Court succinctly summarized the very issue you present in your robbery-gone-bad hypothetical: "Felony-murder is an unusual offense in that the death arising out of the robbery is purely an incident of the basic offense. It makes no difference whether or not there was an intent to kill."