AIBU to think this isn’t murder

[AldiAisleofCrap]

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.

Which laws in England & Wales do you think are stupid?

Or do you have some Scottish or NI laws in mind?

@AldiAisleofCrap

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.

Joint enterprise?

In America your responsible for everyone's crimes when you act as a gang iirc,

@BluebellsGreenbells

People who want to commit crimes should think about it in advance. They don't have to do it

I would think that anyone involved in crime doesn’t actually want to commit crimes.

Would I steal food if my children were hungry, of coarse I would! And so would you, crime takes many forms, dealing drugs, prostitution, theft.

Now add in lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of self worth, I’ll health, addiction. Poverty breeds poverty, it’s a downward spiral of desperation.

Im not agreeing with the crime, but there will be factors that lead too it. These boys knew the risks and decided it was worth it.

Are you kidding?

Gangs are quite a "fun" lifestyle choice for many.

The laws are generally written to cover one scenario and then get applied to different ones.

The law under which this person was charged and sentenced was intended for people who caused a murder during a felony... thinking it would be the victim of the crime who was murdered.

I can’t say I am outraged or even mildly concerned that it was used in the way it was.

Part of the problem, that isn’t exactly well known, is the stupidly light sentences that criminals receive in the US. Carjacking/theft is a perfect example of this...it is seen as a nonviolent crime for the most part so very light sentences... but the ‘accidental’ death rate linked to these crimes is ridiculously high, so the laws are written to be able to charge people with more serious crimes in the event that the ‘less serious’ ones result in death.

It's an ancient common-law rule. It just isn't used in England and Wales anymore.

5 people break into your house, all bets are off

That sort of nonsense only works provided, you, as the homeowner, are still playing 'all bets are off' when they beat the living shit out of you, steal your possessions, piss in your flowerpots, and then wake up the neighbours on the way out. 'All bets are off' after all, so you won't be bothering to report them, will you?

The idea that you can go full Chuck Norris on anyone simply because they are in your property uninvited is ridiculous. The law still applies even though they are already in breach of one aspect of it. What do you propose? That we turn a blind eye to people keeping home-invaders as sex slaves etc simply because "they shouldn't have been there in the first place"?

No. If you choose to wantonly shoot and kill someone when they are demonstrably in the process of trying to escape from you, regardless of how that comes about, you absolutely are guilty of murder and should face the full extent of the law. Different when there is a justifiable claim that the occupier felt a genuine risk to their own life, but this 'all bets are off' shit is exactly that. Shit.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

5 people break into your house, all bets are off

That sort of nonsense only works provided, you, as the homeowner, are still playing 'all bets are off' when they beat the living shit out of you, steal your possessions, piss in your flowerpots, and then wake up the neighbours on the way out. 'All bets are off' after all, so you won't be bothering to report them, will you?

The idea that you can go full Chuck Norris on anyone simply because they are in your property uninvited is ridiculous. The law still applies even though they are already in breach of one aspect of it. What do you propose? That we turn a blind eye to people keeping home-invaders as sex slaves etc simply because "they shouldn't have been there in the first place"?

No. If you choose to wantonly shoot and kill someone when they are demonstrably in the process of trying to escape from you, regardless of how that comes about, you absolutely are guilty of murder and should face the full extent of the law. Different when there is a justifiable claim that the occupier felt a genuine risk to their own life, but this 'all bets are off' shit is exactly that. Shit.

I yanked this from the Wikipedia... but it sums up the castle doctrine/self defense pretty well. Each state will have specific laws that can vary but it’s a good overview...

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force. In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.[20]

Nothing about a person retreating... but that’s subjective against the imminent danger clause.

Like almost any law it can lead to absurd results in certain cases. It's intended for scenarios such as death of a firefighter following arson, death of bank teller by heart attack during a bank robbery where no shots are fired. I believe the theory is that normally murder requires intent. An arsonist may not intend to kill a firefighter but the bad intent of the arson is applied to the death as well, and that can add up to murder.

It won't happen but I've been thinking today about how incitement of insurrection is a felony and they could charge Trump with at least 2 counts of felony murder (police officer beaten to death and protester trampled). I haven't really investigated but federal law does have a felony murder rule.

There’s no balance in US 55 years? They were young boys and even 20 years would be a harsh sentence TOO harsh.

I’m glad I don’t live there.

There is no balance - and it could so easily be anyone's child ending up in those circumstances of being there and part of something illegal.

I think criminals should absolutely be held responsible for creating situation where someone died and have it added to sentence for the crime. However, as said upthread. 55 years was ridiculous.

Again. As on another thread about crime.
Can quite easily spot people who never had to deal with burglars, let alone repeatedly...

You're op isn't particularly well written so I didn't quite understand initially but think I've got the gist. In my opinion the home owner murdered the boy. I think there are many many ways of scaring off a group of boys other than shoot to kill. For example firing a warning shot.

Yes the boy shouldn't have broken into the home but this isn't an executable on the spot crime. So yes is responsible for his crime but not his death.

I would think that anyone involved in crime doesn’t actually want to commit crimes.
😂😂😂😂

@Teapot13

Like almost any law it can lead to absurd results in certain cases. It's intended for scenarios such as death of a firefighter following arson, death of bank teller by heart attack during a bank robbery where no shots are fired. I believe the theory is that normally murder requires intent. An arsonist may not intend to kill a firefighter but the bad intent of the arson is applied to the death as well, and that can add up to murder.

It won't happen but I've been thinking today about how incitement of insurrection is a felony and they could charge Trump with at least 2 counts of felony murder (police officer beaten to death and protester trampled). I haven't really investigated but federal law does have a felony murder rule.

I don't agree with the law, or the sentencing, but came to say exactly this re incitement of an insurrection. It'll never happen. Five people died, but it's usually one rule for one, and another for everyone else.

Also this is not about fear for your house being burgled. I empathise. It's an awful scary thing to happen. But it should not result in young boys serving the majority of their adult lives in jails. No one benefits there.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX I absolutely agree with you.

I would think that anyone involved in crime doesn’t actually want to commit crimes.

When I was in secondary school, there were groups of guys (multiple groups) who would literally mug people recreationally.

One such group made a compilation video which of them (interspersed between clips of their amateur grime music). The majority of crimes that I personally heard about in my teenage years were not about survival. They were about excitement and bravado.

I think there is often a bit of a blurred line between protecting your life and protecting your property in these situations. A lot of serial killers ensired compliance by claiming that they had just invaded a home for a robbery before murdering and/or raping the inhabitants.

I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting a criminal to be honest about the crime they're in the process of committing.

That said, it doesn't really do much in terms of rehabilitation to add to someone's sentence for something that was out of their hands. If you get shot whilst breaking into someone's home, that doesn't make you more dangerous. I don't think rehab is the primary goal of American prisons though.

Struggling for any sympathy, simple solution if you don't want to go away for along time on a felony murder charge... don't break into people's homes.

Also, anyone in my house uninvited, especially in the middle of the night; the last thing I'm thinking is, they're only there to take my insured items, there's a whole host of other horrible things ahead of that why I think they're in my home, and will respond with what I would deem necessary at that time.

I don't know the full story. But I still maintain...5 nearly adult men in your house, all bets are off.

In other words, you defend yourself first with a pre emptive strike. Not wait around to find out what they want to do to you.

How does my all bets are off translate into keeping them as sex slaves

Have you been burgled before? Raped? Hurt? Seen anyone beaten?

I repeat. 5 people appear in your home. All bets are off while (DH) gets them out.

Plus, you do realise in that situation, it's quite hard to think straight with the amount of adrenaline going on.

55 years is madness. But felony murder I do agree with as a law.

How does my all bets are off translate into keeping them as sex slaves confused

It can apparently. Olga Zajac.

If someone broke into my house they’d be getting smashed over the head with a baseball bat. If I killed them then so be it. I wouldn’t expect the other offenders there to be charged with murder, or myself for that matter to be charged with anything.

I’d expect them to be charged with burglary though and sentenced appropriately.

And the people committing crimes do want to commit crimes otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Plenty of other lifestyle options.

"A lot of serial killers ensired compliance by claiming that they had just invaded a home for a robbery before murdering and/or raping the inhabitants.

I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting a criminal to be honest about the crime they're in the process of committing."

A lot of serial killers do this? I'd like to see what proportion.
And the probability is that it's more likely a burglary than a murder.

@Abouttimemum

If someone broke into my house they’d be getting smashed over the head with a baseball bat. If I killed them then so be it. I wouldn’t expect the other offenders there to be charged with murder, or myself for that matter to be charged with anything.

I’d expect them to be charged with burglary though and sentenced appropriately.

I think you'd be charged with using unreasonable force. Your property is not more important than someone's life.

I wish we had similar laws here. It would be a huge deterrent for crime.