• Okla. Homeowner's Son Kills Three Burglars, Getaway Driver Arrested for their Murders
    71 replies, posted
[quote]BROKEN ARROW, Okla. — The man who [URL="http://myfox8.com/2017/03/28/homeowners-son-shoots-kills-three-would-be-robbers/"]shot and killed three teens[/URL] during an attempted home invasion last week will not be charged, [URL="http://ktul.com/news/local/wagoner-county-da-sheriff-to-give-update-on-investigation-into-deadly-burglary"]KTUL[/URL] reports.Shortly before 12:30 p.m. on March 27, police say the three suspects, dressed in black and wearing masks and gloves, broke into the house through a back door.[/quote] [quote]Several hours after the incident, 21-year-old Elizabeth Rodriguez walked into the Broken Arrow Police Department and told them she had additional information about the incident. She was arrested on three counts of first-degree murder after admitting to planning the whole thing. Rodriquez has said she drove the three men to Peters’ home to burglarize it but doesn’t feel responsible for their deaths.[/quote] [url]http://myfox8.com/2017/04/04/no-charges-against-man-who-shot-killed-3-would-be-robbers/[/url] [url]http://myfox8.com/2017/04/02/3-masked-teenage-burglars-dressed-in-black-shot-dead-during-botched-home-invasion/[/url] Is that common? I don't think I've ever heard of a surviving accomplice getting charged for their partner's deaths.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;52068082][url]http://myfox8.com/2017/04/04/no-charges-against-man-who-shot-killed-3-would-be-robbers/[/url] [url]http://myfox8.com/2017/04/02/3-masked-teenage-burglars-dressed-in-black-shot-dead-during-botched-home-invasion/[/url] Is that common? I don't think I've ever heard of a surviving accomplice getting charged for their partner's deaths.[/QUOTE] It all depends on the laws and in this case the accomplice gets charged because they were taking part in the activity as well. This is a pretty clear cut case of self defense.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;52068082][url]http://myfox8.com/2017/04/04/no-charges-against-man-who-shot-killed-3-would-be-robbers/[/url] [url]http://myfox8.com/2017/04/02/3-masked-teenage-burglars-dressed-in-black-shot-dead-during-botched-home-invasion/[/url] Is that common? I don't think I've ever heard of a surviving accomplice getting charged for their partner's deaths.[/QUOTE] Basically, if anyone dies during the commission of a felony, then regardless of whether or not they directly caused it, those committing the original felony are held responsible. Especially since the driver apparently admitted it was her plan, it makes sense. [editline]6th April 2017[/editline] She may not have pulled the trigger, but her actions lead to their deaths.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;52068082] Is that common? I don't think I've ever heard of a surviving accomplice getting charged for their partner's deaths.[/QUOTE] I imagine it's the same train of logic behind facilitation; you made it possible so you get to deal with the consequences.
Why murder and not manslaughter? Is it some get-tough rubbish? There's responsibility there but I can't see how any definition of 'murder' fits.
[QUOTE=Luni;52068128]Why murder and not manslaughter? Is it some get-tough rubbish? There's responsibility there but I can't see how any definition of 'murder' fits.[/QUOTE] Felony murder doctrine dictates that any killing that takes place during a felony, regardless of intent, is counted as murder.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52068137]Felony murder doctrine dictates that any killing that takes place during a felony, regardless of intent, is counted as murder.[/QUOTE] I feel like that cheapens the definition of murder, but maybe I'm just being pedantic.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52068137]Felony murder doctrine dictates that any killing that takes place during a felony, regardless of intent, is counted as murder.[/QUOTE] This is pretty dumb. Why bother having murder mean something as specific as it does at this point? [editline]6th April 2017[/editline] What if the killing that does happen is not self-defense, does the person who actually did it get off scot free?
Looks like she was the one that planned the whole thing, so she's responsible since the resident acted within his legal rights [QUOTE=_Axel;52068146] What if the killing that does happen is not self-defense, does the person who actually did it get off scot free?[/QUOTE] No, murder is also a felony
still stupid that shes getting stuck with murder charges. she deserves to go to prison for the rest of her life but stick her with the correct charges so it doesn't set a poor legal precedeny
[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52068168]still stupid that shes getting stuck with murder charges. she deserves to go to prison for the rest of her life but stick her with the correct charges so it doesn't set a poor legal precedeny[/QUOTE] These have always been the correct charges. It's how criminal responsibility works in these case.
Laws on how you can break the law. Never change America.
Interesting -- in most self defense/home defense arguments this kind of thing is shrugged off as never happening. I have never considered using my AR-15 for home defense but I guess here's a real world scenario where it worked out.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;52068082] Is that common? I don't think I've ever heard of a surviving accomplice getting charged for their partner's deaths.[/QUOTE] It's not only common, but standard practice for things like this. If there's a group of people who commit a felony like armed robbery, and one of them dies in the process; either at the hands of a civilian or police officer, the surviving associates will usually get murder charges for their dead associates. They're responsible for their actions and the actions of the other people who commit the crime(s) with them. It would be upside down and ass backwards to not hold someone responsible for the death, and you surely can't fault the person who is merely defending themselves. [QUOTE=archival;52068193]Laws on how you can break the law. Never change America.[/QUOTE] A woman plans an armed home invasion, and acts as the getaway driver. Her armed associates, get killed in an altercation with the home owner, and she flees. Tell me, how is she not responsible for their deaths? Also, do tell how someone killing armed home invaders makes them a murderer? Are you actually blaming the victim for defending themselves and their property by killing armed intruders?
[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52068168]still stupid that shes getting stuck with murder charges. she deserves to go to prison for the rest of her life but stick her with the correct charges so it doesn't set a poor legal precedeny[/QUOTE] She admitted to police that she planned this whole thing, her plan was ridiculously wrong to do to somebody, and her accomplices died as a result. Now she's being held responsible for everything because she was behind everything (again, she was the planner). That's not only fair given the circumstances, it's also sensible. Solution: don't break into people's houses.
[QUOTE=archival;52068193]Laws on how you can break the law. Never change America.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52068146]This is pretty dumb. Why bother having murder mean something as specific as it does at this point? [editline]6th April 2017[/editline] What if the killing that does happen is not self-defense, does the person who actually did it get off scot free?[/QUOTE]Nope, but their accomplices may also be charged with them for it.
The felony murder rule was originally designed around the idea of if one of the perpetrators murders someone then all the perpetrators can be charged equally. But since the wording of the law it also includes if one of the perpetrators dies as the result of self-defense by the victims of the original felony. It is just essentially getting someone to take responsibility for the deaths. She will most likely plea down to manslaughter. There was a similar famous case involving a [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/wabafiyebazu-proposed-plea-deal-1.3454831]Canadian diplomat's sons[/url].
Lol so she gets to go to a correctional facility to be corrected for murder even though she isn't a murderer. This is textbook manslaughter and the written law is silly.
Apparently one of the boy's grandfather's thinks his grandson should have just been able to stab the people in that home without them being able to fight back: [url]http://ktul.com/news/local/family-member-of-teen-burglary-suspect-killed-in-wagoner-county-break-in-speaks-out[/url] He just doesn't want to accept that his grandson did something that could get him killed, and that it actually got him killed. What's the guy supposed to do with the gun, stand there and hope that he doesn't get the shit kicked out of him by someone with brass knuckles, the gun stolen from him, and his family murdered?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52068808]Apparently one of the boy's grandfather's thinks his grandson should have just been able to stab the people in that home without them being able to fight back: [url]http://ktul.com/news/local/family-member-of-teen-burglary-suspect-killed-in-wagoner-county-break-in-speaks-out[/url] He just doesn't want to accept that his grandson did something that could get him killed, and that it actually got him killed. What's the guy supposed to do with the gun, stand there and hope that he doesn't get the shit kicked out of him by someone with brass knuckles, the gun stolen from him, and his family murdered?[/QUOTE] A parent and grandparent's love is a strong one. Irrational as it is, it's understandable. Nobody wants their precious grandbaby to be a felon.
I heard about this on /k/ a few days ago. One of the families said it was "unfair" how they used an AR15.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52068311]It's not only common, but standard practice for things like this. If there's a group of people who commit a felony like armed robbery, and one of them dies in the process; either at the hands of a civilian or police officer, the surviving associates will usually get murder charges for their dead associates. They're responsible for their actions and the actions of the other people who commit the crime(s) with them. It would be upside down and ass backwards to not hold someone responsible for the death, and you surely can't fault the person who is merely defending themselves. A woman plans an armed home invasion, and acts as the getaway driver. Her armed associates, get killed in an altercation with the home owner, and she flees. Tell me, how is she not responsible for their deaths? Also, do tell how someone killing armed home invaders makes them a murderer? Are you actually blaming the victim for defending themselves and their property by killing armed intruders?[/QUOTE] They're responsible for their own deaths, because they decided to carry out the home invasion as well. You can't [b]hold[/b] them responsible for their own deaths (because they're dead), but that doesn't mean she intentionally caused their deaths, nor does it mean they're not responsible for their own deaths. At the very least it should be manslaughter, not murder. She didn't intend to kill them (nor did she herself even kill them). They were killed as a result of her actions, but that just doesn't fit with murder. I know what the law [i]is[/i] but I don't think that should be the case. [editline]New mods are bad bring back swebonny[/editline] You say that someone has to be held responsible for their deaths. If this were a [i]single person[/i] who broke into the home, and died -- who would you then hold responsible? Because someone else has to be held responsible, right? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that they -- as free, rational adults who can make their own decisions -- are responsible for their own deaths? Or, at the least, this woman is not 100%, completely responsible for their deaths, to the extent that she is being charged with murder, not manslaughter?
[Quote=]Schumacher does say he supports the right to bear arms and protect your home. But he doesn’t agree with shooting and killing intruders."[/quote] These two statements are contradictory. [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;52069389]They're responsible for their own deaths, because they decided to carry out the home invasion as well. You can't hold them responsible for their own deaths because they're dead but that doesn't mean she intentionally caused their deaths. At the very least it should be manslaughter, not murder. She didn't intend to kill them (nor did she herself even kill them). They were killed as a result of her actions, but that just doesn't fit with murder. I know what the law [i]is[/i] but I don't think that should be the case.[/QUOTE] She willfully encouraged and assisted them in an illegal activity that was extremely likely to result in either their deaths or assaults/deaths of others, she should be responsible for the results of her actions, intended or not.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;52069459]These two statements are contradictory. [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] She willfully encouraged and assisted them in an illegal activity that was extremely likely to result in either their deaths or assaults/deaths of others, she should be responsible for the results of her actions, intended or not.[/QUOTE] And how does that fit in with a murder charge, where one has to explicitly and intentionally cause the death of another person in a premeditated way? At worst this should be a manslaughter charge.
If you read the article, it says that she's believed tobe the ringleader that organised it all. It's probably why the charge is so harsh.
[QUOTE=Duskin;52069594]If you read the article, it says that she's believed tobe the ringleader that organised it all. It's probably why the charge is so harsh.[/QUOTE] Yes, but unless her intent was to get them killed it still doesn't fit in with a murder charge.
[QUOTE=geel9;52069617]Yes, but unless her intent was to get them killed it still doesn't fit in with a murder charge.[/QUOTE] It was a premeditated felony with a very real risk of personal harm This is textbook murder in these cases, it's -always- been like that. Premeditation alone discounts manslaughter here [editline]6th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;52069617]Yes, but unless her intent was to get them killed it still doesn't fit in with a murder charge.[/QUOTE] Her intent was to put people into a scenario where there was a very real and probable chance of harm or death.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;52069688]It was a premeditated felony with a very real risk of personal harm This is textbook murder in these cases, it's -always- been like that. Premeditation alone discounts manslaughter here [editline]6th April 2017[/editline] Her intent was to put people into a scenario where there was a very real and probable chance of harm or death.[/QUOTE] Driving a car is inherently dangerous (although obviously much less dangerous) thing to do as well, but if you run someone over in your car I wouldn't consider that murder unless you intentionally steer your car into the person. That said, it's obviously not fair for me to say "it's not murder." I'm sure I have a very real lack of knowledge on the actual laws at play here. I should instead be saying "it should not be considered murder."
[QUOTE=geel9;52069852]Driving a car is inherently dangerous (although obviously much less dangerous) thing to do as well, but if you run someone over in your car I wouldn't consider that murder unless you intentionally steer your car into the person. That said, it's obviously not fair for me to say "it's not murder." I'm sure I have a very real lack of knowledge on the actual laws at play here. I should instead be saying "it should not be considered murder."[/QUOTE] When you commit armed robbery you are showing your intent to do harm. You don't intend to cause harm when you go for a drive. [editline]7th April 2017[/editline] That said, I do think people who conspire should be collectively charged for a crime, but I don't think getting killed by your victim counts. You should be charged for the crimes you commit against non-conspirators.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.