Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think this isn’t murder

271 replies

AldiAisleofCrap · 13/01/2021 21:30

AIBU to think this is really wrong. In America four teenagers break into a house , the home owner fires a gun and one teenager dies. The boys age 17 are charged with murder and sentenced to 55 years in prison.
The judge said done one has to be held responsible but surely the teen who is dead is responsible for his own actions.

OP posts:
NeedCoffeeToSurvive · 13/01/2021 22:23

I'm going to go the other way here and say that the felony murder law or whatever it's called actually sounds like a good idea, in theory it should prevent things like this from happening but obviously not. In this case I don't see an issue with the outcome. The home owner was protecting his home, himself and family if he has one, the teenagers chose to break in and commit a crime, probably not expecting collateral damage. None of them would have died if they'd never carried out the crime in the first place, they deserve what they get, whether that's a prison sentence or being shot.

Guylan · 13/01/2021 22:23

@HerMammy

www.abc57.com/news/elkhart-4-life-after-lockup-blake-layman-one-year-later He’s been released
Thank goodness.
WhereverIGoddamnLike · 13/01/2021 22:25

If someone dies during the commission of a crime then yes, everyone committing the crime can be charged with their murder. The death wouldn't have happened if they hadnt all been at it.

This happens in other cases, even if you were just sitting outside in the car as the driver and someone does during the break in, you can be charged with their death too.

WhereverIGoddamnLike · 13/01/2021 22:25

(In the USA)

Cheeseandwin5 · 13/01/2021 22:30

To be fair this seems fair to me. Someone died , are we too say the Homeowner is responsible for that.
If someone sents to commit a crime that can result in other incidents , then they should be held accountable.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 13/01/2021 22:30

I’m a bit surprised by my own reaction to this case.

I think the law is fine. And as a result, I agree with their conviction. I’d quite like to see similar in the UK.

But I disagree with the sentencing.

I think that US sentencing guidelines allow judges far more discretion in some cases which can be abused and too little discretion in other cases (which results in predominately ‘black’ crimes being unfairly punished - drugs and demographics).

diamondpony80 · 13/01/2021 22:30

Sometimes I think the US justice system is fairer than ours in that they give REAL sentences for terrible crimes where a criminal would barely get a few years here. But then you hear stories like this and the Lisa Montgomery execution etc. which seem highly unfair (given their circumstances). Justice doesn't always get served.

LimitIsUp · 13/01/2021 22:30

I'm horrified by some of these responses

LimitIsUp · 13/01/2021 22:31

@Cheeseandwin5

To be fair this seems fair to me. Someone died , are we too say the Homeowner is responsible for that. If someone sents to commit a crime that can result in other incidents , then they should be held accountable.
Well since he pulled the trigger!
TableFlowerss · 13/01/2021 22:32

Well yes it does seem harsh for the boys, however I sometimes think we should have sticker laws and harsher sentences in Britain for example child killers, peadophiles etc...

At the end of the day, surely proceeding with something that you know could have severe consequences etc would make some people think twice - therefore less victims of horrific crimes.

I’m not totally against laws that that state ‘if you do abc, then xyz will be the consequences. If they go on to commit the crime well tough.

Sometimes there’s always an explanation for crimes, ‘oh they had a bad upbringing etc...’ and some people do have shit lives but still don’t chose to commit crime.

I often think there’s more empathy towards the criminal than the victim. So whilst in this particular case, I agree it seems harsh, I think we are overall too soft

HerRoyalNotness · 13/01/2021 22:35

As to the homeowner there are stand your ground and castle laws here that protect him. It’s a timely discussion as our Texas governor as just stated he won’t allow changes to the Texas castle doctrine which states home owners can use deadly force if:

Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.

The change they want to make is for the homeowner to have first attempted to retreat from danger. Which seems reasonable.

I’m not armed so the recourse I have is to yell for the kids, grab the smallest and get the hell out the back door if possible. But in the situation occurring who knows what we’d actually do

Whatthebloodyell · 13/01/2021 22:41

Bloody hell there a lot of draconian people here. I think that law is inhumane , especially when applied to juveniles. And really ‘justice’ doesn’t exist in the USA just because some very harsh sentences are handed out. The poor and the non whites are handed out massively more punitive sentences than the wealthy. Just google Brock Turner.

Coyoacan · 13/01/2021 22:41

I think the USA must one of the most uncivilised places on God's earth.

They need a criminal justice system where the accused has access to a decent defense lawyer.

Blackberrycream · 13/01/2021 22:42

It’s a pity they can’t sort out their system and deal with neighbourhood watch who shoot and kill unarmed teenagers who ‘look out of place’ walking down their street.
They are juveniles.They have been given basically a life sentence for break and enter. Anyone on this thread saying it’s a good warning to others and a fair enough outcome need to think about the above. It’s an old trope but true that certain sections of society make mistakes, have mental health issues etc while others are dehumanised ( they deserve what they get as a pp said).

Goldieloxx · 13/01/2021 22:46

Or maybe if civilians didn't have guns no one would have died. There's no point applying logic to the US justice system, they have the death penalty for goodness sake so can't be classed as a civilised country

SnackSizeRaisin · 13/01/2021 22:47

It obviously didn't work as a deterrent though. Otherwise these boys would never have broken in. 55 years is excessive but 4 teenagers breaking into a house must have been pretty scary for the home owner in a country where everyone carries guns. You have to wonder why this situation even arose. These lads could be already dangerous criminals or have gone in with a bad crowd or it could even be a prank gone wrong. I would hope for a more proportionate punishment and for some effective education and rehabilitation to allow these lads to change their ways.

Gwenhwyfar · 13/01/2021 22:48

"On the other hand I can’t really get worked up about scumbags who break into people’s houses - they destroy people’s lives."

A burglary destroys someone's life? Compared to murder?
The punishment for burglary should not be death.
People should be allowed to defend themselves of course, but not property.

They have a lot of silly things like this in the US. The death penalty of course, then the three-strikes law meaning people can get life imprisonment for stealing socks.

thelegohooverer · 13/01/2021 22:49

I think reactions very much depend on what you think is the purpose of a prison sentence.
The phrase “someone must pay” has been used a few times in this thread. Which fits the traditional image of justice as blind balance.
Is incarceration to keep law abiding people safe from criminals? Will society only be safe from this teenager when he’s a pensioner?
Is incarceration for the benefit of the criminal, to provide an opportunity to change course?

Justasecondnow · 13/01/2021 22:51

Mad people are ok with this.

One boy has died, his life is important so lets imprison the others for life. One life is ruined - let’s ruin them all?

Doesn’t Intent matter? 55 years for a burglary? 55 years for 17 year olds, for a serious but non-violent offence?

Some of you on here are nuts.

WhereamI88 · 13/01/2021 22:51

4 men doing a home invasion. That's so fucking scary. That's pretty extreme and violent and should be punished. The law is excellent and I fully agree with it. If you decide to commit a crime, you have to take responsibility for whatever happens as a result of your actions.

Gwenhwyfar · 13/01/2021 22:51

They also have incentives to imprison people because the prisons function as a kind of slave economy. This was covered quite well in Orange in the New Black (which I know is fiction).

Gwenhwyfar · 13/01/2021 22:52

@WhereamI88

4 men doing a home invasion. That's so fucking scary. That's pretty extreme and violent and should be punished. The law is excellent and I fully agree with it. If you decide to commit a crime, you have to take responsibility for whatever happens as a result of your actions.
Their crime was burglary, not murder and they were boys, not men.
LimitIsUp · 13/01/2021 22:53

I actually wondered if there might be some sock puppetry on this thread

Balhammom · 13/01/2021 22:56

If you don’t like the punishment, don’t commit the crime.

While US law is pretty strict, I think there’s some merit in having a lawful right as a homeowner to defend your property.

TatianaBis · 13/01/2021 22:57

The US is a strange country.

Swipe left for the next trending thread