Posted on 02/11/2009 2:56:54 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
It’s NOT the law everywhere. Massachusetts still requires identification of the shooter (or ball bat swinger).
>The best news I’ve heard in weeks.
>
>Lock ‘n’ Load!
Indeed.
Good post - not likely to be seen in the MSM outside of the area due to the inconvenient ... um... facts.
One man apparently was teaching his sons to rob and kill - and paid for it with his life. Another man was apparently taught, probably by his father, how to properly use a firearm - and it saved his life.
Sometimes there is justice in this world.
I think this has been a law in Kalifornia for some time.
Even if the cops shoot the perp, the other perps are charged with murder.
Two out of three aint bad
???? All the parties in this little contretemps have been identified. You gotta ID ‘em before you can charge ‘em.
In the civilized world things are different. The criminals are responsible for any of the deaths.
Too many times I've seen Murder One reduced to Murder Two or even manslaughter via plea bargaining.
Another thing that gripes me is when a Murder One perp who has massive physical as well as DNA evidence against him, is allowed to plead guilty "in order to avoid the death penalty." (That's also a good argument to use on the "the death peanlty is not a deterrent" types.)
The Felony Murder rule should only apply in cases where the death was a foreseeable consequence of the crime in question, but its application should not be restricted to pæons.
Interesting.........
two out of three aint bad...
Somehow, the ACLU will get this overturned...but I hope not.
I don’t think this is correct. I found this cite immediately: “[T]he felony-murder rule in the Commonwealth imposes criminal liability for homicide on all participants in a certain common criminal enterprise if a death occurred in the course of that enterprise.” Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 502 (1982).
Fine, but they should call it something other than murder, which it is not. Murder requires the intent to murder. Words have meanings and politicians shouldn't be making things up as they go along.
It is still murder, though, because everyone is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their illegal acts.
Words have meanings. Foreseeable means it is known in advance that it will happen. Is it reasonable that had this been known in advance they would have been there? The odds of getting killed committing a burglary is less than the odds of being killed by a car. A special penalty enhancement is fine, but it's not alright to twist words to mean whatever lawyers feel like. This was something but it was not murder.
The law requires precision, and the "something" that this offense is, is "felony murder".
When people show up with guns, duct tape and wire, they are NOT there merely to commit a burglary. They knew the home was occupied, and they intended to threaten the occupants with physical harm.
They therefore could reasonably anticipate that somebody might get shot. The fact that the somebody turned out to be one of their number and not one of their intended victims doesn't matter.
Makes sense to me.
If you break into a house, you should know that the outcome may not go as planned. You are putting lives in danger, regardless if they be your own or the home owner(s). Simply because the odds of being killed during a burglary are small doesn’t make it any more excuseable. They have the intent to do harm and because of their actions someone died.
The idiots that broke in are getting what they deserved and if there’s a law on the books stating that this is the consequence then so be it.
No, it means that it is known that it could happen.
1 : being such as may be reasonably anticipated
2 : lying within the range for which forecasts are possible
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.