Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail
87 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Blake Layman made one very bad decision. He was 16, an unexceptional teenager growing up in a small Indiana town. He’d never been in trouble with the law, had a clean criminal record, had never owned or even held a gun.
That decision sparked a chain of events that would culminate with his arrest and trial for “felony murder”. The boy was unarmed, had pulled no trigger, killed no one. He was himself shot and injured in the incident while his friend standing beside him was also shot and killed. Yet Layman would go on to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 55 years in a maximum-security prison for a shooting that he did not carry out.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][url]http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/felony-murder-why-a-teenager-who-didnt-kill-anyone-faces-55-years-in-jail/ar-BBhZuAc[/url][/QUOTE]
This is Fucking Bullshit
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47232333]This is Fucking Bullshit[/QUOTE]
If you're accomplice with someone who committed a murder, you helped him murder and therefore are just as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. This is how it's been for a good long time and I don't see it changing for good reason
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47232344]If you're accomplice with someone who committed a murder, you helped him murder and therefore are just as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. This is how it's been for a good long time and I don't see it changing for good reason[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with this?
[QUOTE=unrezt;47232364]What does that have to do with this?[/QUOTE]
I guess I read the article wrong, woops
I misunderstood it as a guy was with his friend who shot and killed someone, not they were both shot, his friend was killed, and he's getting time for it
This is pretty bullshit then if that's the case.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47232344]If you're accomplice with someone who committed a murder, you helped him murder and therefore are just as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. This is how it's been for a good long time and I don't see it changing for good reason[/QUOTE]
If you read the article, they broke into a house expecting it to be empty. The owner was there and shot both of them, killing one and wounding the other. The wounded guy is going to prison for murder even though he had nothing to do with killing the other guy. The guy who was killed went into that house of his own free will and died because he didn't expect someone to even be there.
Yeah it is a load of shit
Kid isn't a saint like that snippet might have you believe but he certainly is no murder. At most a year for attempted robbery and breaking and entering.
That article is so awfully written it hurts. But yeah those charges doesn't make sense. Person A and B commits a felony, person C kills B, A gets charged with the murder of B. I get that the guy in the house with the gun doesn't get charged(C) but why the fuck does A get charged for fucking murder?
[QUOTE=zombini;47232379]If you read the article, they broke into a house expecting it to be empty. The owner was there and shot both of them, killing one and wounding the other. The wounded guy is going to prison for murder even though he had nothing to do with killing the other guy. The guy who was killed went into that house of his own free will and died because he didn't expect someone to even be there.[/QUOTE]
I think legally it's still kind of what I described. In the process of committing a crime, someone was killed, so the person who's alive and who was committing crime gets the murder charge because if they hadn't been breaking the law, the other guy would've been alive. It has some amount of logic to it, but I don't think it's just.
He shouldn't be charged felony murder thats just stupid, but hes a dumb ass for breaking into someones house and stealing their shit though, and does deserve jail time but not that long.
They're pretty much ruining his life there. 55 fucking years
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47232372]I guess I read the article wrong, woops
I misunderstood it as a guy was with his friend who shot and killed someone, not they were both shot, his friend was killed, and he's getting time for it
This is pretty bullshit then if that's the case.[/QUOTE]
if a criminal dies during an act of illegal behavior (such as robbery), their accomplice is accountable for their deaths and they can be charged with murder.
[QUOTE=Davoc;47232407]They're pretty much ruining his life there. 55 fucking years[/QUOTE]
He'll get out when he can no longer start a career, a family, or have any friends. He'll get out and know nothing about the world. He will have no reason to live.
Justice system at its finest.
Murder charges like this aren't unusual, an Arizonian(?, will check that tonight) was explaining this to me a week ago.
accomplices are given the same charges and are fully liable as much as the person who committed the crime.
accomplice liability
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232435]if a criminal dies during an act of illegal behavior (such as robbery), their accomplice is accountable for their deaths and they can be charged with murder.[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense to me. Robbery isn't murder. The accomplice didn't pull the trigger, someone else did. How can you take murder of self defence and switch it to murder and put it on someone else? That makes zero sense. None. Nadda. Zip.
[QUOTE=jiggu;47232398]That article is so awfully written it hurts. But yeah those charges doesn't make sense. Person A and B commits a felony, person C kills B, A gets charged with the murder of B. I get that the guy in the house with the gun doesn't get charged(C) but why the fuck does A get charged for fucking murder?[/QUOTE]
Welcome to legal hoops. I dont even understand this case. Person B is liable for person A's death, but to the extent of murder... probably not.
The judges agree
[quote]The judges have asked lawyers for Layman and for the prosecution to address that specific question: is it consistent with Indiana law that he and his friends who were all unarmed, who fired not a single shot, and who in fact were themselves fired upon, one fatally, by a third party – the homeowner Rodney Scott – could be put away for decades for murder?[/quote]
The other possibility is what I think, and the article confirms, is that felony murder is worded different than what I'm familiar with.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232454]That makes no sense to me. Robbery isn't murder. The accomplice didn't pull the trigger, someone else did. How can you take murder of self defence and switch it to murder and put it on someone else? That makes zero sense. None. Nadda. Zip.[/QUOTE]
accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.
in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47232344]If you're accomplice with someone who committed a murder, you helped him murder and therefore are just as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. This is how it's been for a good long time and I don't see it changing for good reason[/QUOTE]
This should be involuntary manslaughter or something along those lines. Someone died because of and while you were committing a crime, so you should be held responsible for it in some way
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232487]accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.
in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.[/QUOTE]
The robbers didn't kill anyone, the robee killed one of them.
[QUOTE=DaDillsta;47232492]The robbers didn't kill anyone, the robee killed one of them.[/QUOTE]
pls read the full post before replying.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47232344]If you're accomplice with someone who committed a murder, you helped him murder and therefore are just as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. This is how it's been for a good long time and I don't see it changing for good reason[/QUOTE]
-snip- he didnt read the article
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232487]accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
[b]if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.[/b]
in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.[/QUOTE]
The robbers didn't kill anyone. They were both unarmed. They committed no murder. Your own argument suggests they cannot be held accountable yet you contradict yourself by saying they can be.
not like this is the first time it's happened where an accomplice is charged with the felony murder of their counterpart.
[url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-burglar-murder-charged-20140725-story.html[/url]
[editline]28th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232514]The robbers didn't kill anyone. They were both unarmed. They committed no murder. Your own argument suggests they cannot be held accountable yet you contradict yourself by saying they can be.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232487]accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.
[b]in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.[/b][/QUOTE]
??????????????????
[editline]28th February 2015[/editline]
it works both way, i'm not contradicting myself. whether the robber kills somebody or the robber themselves are killed, the accomplice is held accountable.
Neither of them committed murder. The responsibility of ones death isn't in the act of theft, it is in the act of the home owner defending himself from intruders. The homeowner committed the murder. The surviving robber however, through being an accomplice, could reasonably be held accountable for manslaughter as his choice to support his friend, unknowingly lead to his death.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232538]Neither of them committed murder. The responsibility of ones death isn't in the act of theft, it is in the act of the home owner defending himself from intruders. The homeowner committed the murder. The surviving robber however, through being an accomplice, could reasonably be held accountable for manslaughter as his choice to support his friend, unknowingly lead to his death.[/QUOTE]
now here's where you're wrong. the legal definition of murder is that you must have malice aforethought and it must be predetermined and not a spur of the moment decision.
HOWEVER, considering the kids were committing a criminal act, it escalates to murder [b]for the accomplice[/b] because they were knowingly committing a criminal act.
do you get the difference now?
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232487]accomplice liability.
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/what-is-complicity-or-accomplice-liability.html[/url]
if a robber kills somebody and both he and the get-away driver are caught, both can face the same murder charge.
in this case, since both the kids were committing burglary, the fault lies on the 16 year old because if they hadn't been committing a crime, the other kid wouldn't have been shot and killed, thus he's held accountable.[/QUOTE]
you can't possibly agree that in this situation it's fair at all
Is 55 years for a 16 year old reasonable for an unarmed robbery? As I mentioned earlier, when he gets out his life will have been long gone. He will have no friends. No family. No hopes of a career.
The justice system is supposed to be about assigning an appropriate punishment for the crime. Is taking this young mans life away justifiable when him and his friend intended no harm on anyone? They intended to steal, not kill. Is such a harsh punishment reasonable?
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47232580]Is 55 years for a 16 year old reasonable for an unarmed robbery? As I mentioned earlier, when he gets out his life will have been long gone. He will have no friends. No family. No hopes of a career.
The justice system is supposed to be about assigning an appropriate punishment for the crime. Is taking this young mans life away justifiable when him and his friend intended no harm on anyone? They intended to steal, not kill. Is such a harsh punishment reasonable?[/QUOTE]
Why would he be charged with robbery? He didnt rob anyone. He committed felony burglary. The issue is not that. The issue is how liable he is for the death of his friend. Apparently in Indiana this qualifies as felony murder and he apparently is fully responsible for the death.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232554]now here's where you're wrong. the legal definition of murder is that you must have malice aforethought and it must be predetermined and not a spur of the moment decision.
HOWEVER, considering the kids were committing a criminal act, it escalates to murder [b]for the accomplice[/b] because they were knowingly committing a criminal act.
do you get the difference now?[/QUOTE]
I still don't understand. They were knowingly committing a criminal act, but they weren't knowingly killing anyone. I'd definitely call it negligent manslaughter, but there was never any intention to kill anyone. An entirely different act was predetermined, not the killing.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47232515]
it works both way, i'm not contradicting myself. whether the robber kills somebody or the robber themselves are killed, the accomplice is held accountable.[/QUOTE]
How can a person be held accountable for something a third party did. No murder (as in, felony) even happened AFAIK - the home owner was justified to defend his property. Why are his actions are placed on an accomplice of the killed guy, someone who had no power over it at the time of the event. "If they weren't committing a crime, it wouldn't have happened" doesn't really look like something justice system should follow really - if the poor fella wasn't born, that wouldn't have happened too, let's put his parents on trial.
And even then, even they are to be held accountable, why murder - his actions led to another person's death, of which he had no prior knowledge, that's manslaughter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.