So now cops can charge you with murder when THEY kill someone

[Kicker96FS]

Yeah, cops shoots at Dad, kills daughter behind him, they charge him with murder!


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/us/pennsylvania-ciara-meyer-shooting-father-charged/index.html

 

[IPSC_DRL]

Same as driving the getaway car when your fellow criminal kills someone. You are charged as well.

Damn sad case all around. Father was known to have mental issues.


If only there was a law..........................

 

[mremski]

So when the cops shoot your dog, are you charged with animal cruelty?

 

[Dream to Dream]

Looks like a good call to me. Notice he didn't just shoot "at" the accused, he shot him; the bullet shattered a bone in his arm, but passed through and struck the daughter.

Assuming accurate reporting, the officer acted as best as anyone in his position could be expected to when a rifle is removed from concealment and pointed at them.

 

[Dream to Dream]

Also, if you know police are coming to evict you from your home, and you're planning to defend it with lethal force... maybe you shouldn't have your family there, you **** head!

 

[allen-1]

Yeah, cops shoots at Dad, kills daughter behind him, they charge him with murder!


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/us/pennsylvania-ciara-meyer-shooting-father-charged/index.html

If the report is accurate, then yes. Unstable father points a rifle at constable while his daughter is sheltering behind him (father), constable fires in self-defense, hits father with rifle in arm, penetrates arm and kills daughter behind him. Yeah, it's the father's fault. It's awful, but it certainly isn't the constable's fault.

 

[Snora]

Yeah that isn't anything new.

 

[browncoat]

If the report is accurate, then yes. Unstable father points a rifle at constable while his daughter is sheltering behind him (father), constable fires in self-defense, hits father with rifle in arm, penetrates arm and kills daughter behind him. Yeah, it's the father's fault. It's awful, but it certainly isn't the constable's fault.

Yeah. You can disagree or agree with the felony murder rule, but this is a pretty clear cut application if the scenario played out as described.

 

[dcmdon]

Also, if you know police are coming to evict you from your home, and you're planning to defend it with lethal force... maybe you shouldn't have your family there, you **** head!

Pay your god damned bills and it won't be a problem. It was a rental. It was someone else's property.

Assuming the story is true, the cop had no choice. I'd pin it on the dad. Assh01e

 

[kmanick]

wow how sad for this little girl.
Completely irresponsible behavior by the father here.
I'd agree with dcmdon on this one. Shitty dad

 

[fishgutzy]

In this case the charge is appropriate. The father raise a gun at the officer. But for that action, his daughter would be alive.
But their are many cases where it is pushed too far.
My nephew is serving time in MA for being a back seat passenger in a car, with no knowledge that the driver and the driver's girl friend were planning to kill her ex boyfriend.
My nephew cooperated fully. His testimony was backed by other witnesses and the physical evidence. The driver, who was the shooter got LWOP.
But because nobody else in the car told the truth, my nephew is serving 10. Choose your friends wisely.

 

[Bonesinium]

Assuming it happened as reported, seems like the shooting would be justified, with a terrible and tragic outcome. Charging him with murder is still an abuse of the felony murder rule. I've also heard the claim of someone pointing a firearm at a LEO forcing said LEO to shoot and be proven a lie too many times to just believe that is what happen absent further proof.

Either way, this application of the felony murder rule is corrupt and abusive. He didn't murder his daughter. He wasn't out committing some violent felony like armed robbery leading to shooting where a bank teller is killed, leading to him and his partner in crime, the one who killed the teller, to both be charged. It's not even close to the same thing. One has valid application for such a rule. The other not so much.

 

[Bonesinium]

Well in PA criminal homicide is either murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. What you quoted says he is being charged with two. So maybe check the law first.

(b) Classification.--Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.

 

[daekken]

Yeah. You can disagree or agree with the felony murder rule, but this is a pretty clear cut application if the scenario played out as described.

Correct as I understand it. If you rob a store with a buddy and the storekeeper shoots and kills your pal, you are charged with felony murder.

I don't know the specifics of this case but it sounds like a typical application of the law, arguments about its fairness aside.

 

[Bonesinium]

If you are wondering, this is how the statute reads.

(b) Murder of the second degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.


(d) Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:


"Perpetration of a felony." The act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.
"Principal." A person who is the actor or perpetrator of the crime.

 

[Bonesinium]

I'm not saying he isn't I'm saying that

1. I don't agree with the felony murder rule in general, particularly in examples like this.
2. In PA murder=homicide so you arguing otherwise is flat out wrong.

 

[drgrant]

I don't have any problems with felony murder rule most of the time, because it can protect people from being prosecuted in the course of defending themselves. Say for example a woman is getting mugged on the street, she whips out a gun and shoots the bastard attacking her, but a bullet goes through the guy and kills an unseen toddler somehow. There is no way in hell that she should "eat" the legal liability for that bullet because she wouldn't have launched it to begin with if the mugger didn't attack her. The entire incident was caused by the mugger's actions and he should eat the entire cost of it.

-Mike

 

[rivet_42]

Felony murder rule has been eliminated in most other places whose legal systems originate in English common law like ours does. It's also omitted from the US Model Penal Code, and has been abolished in some states. Reason being that you can have someone facing murder charges even if they have only the most tenuous of connections to the criminal act that precipitated the killing. Make the link tenuous enough and a reasonable person would say that the penalties wouldn't constitute "justice", considering the person's level of foreknowledge and the level of understanding of the consequences that might result. (mens rea)

Some of the cases really read like law-school hypotheticals. There's a case where someone (Ryan Holle) ended up sentenced to life without parole because he lent his roommate his car--and the roommate subsequently used that borrowed car in a robbery and murder. It's questionable as to whether he knew his roommate's intentions. Holle testified that he thought his roommate had been joking. While it seems to me that Holle should face some kind of penalty, facing the same penalty as those who were on the scene and participated in the actual act of violence doesn't seem like "justice", especially if you can't establish that he knew the people borrowing his car were going to go off and commit an act that had a reasonable likelihood of resulting in serious bodily harm or death.

 

[Bonesinium]

I don't have any problems with felony murder rule most of the time, because it can protect people from being prosecuted in the course of defending themselves. Say for example a woman is getting mugged on the street, she whips out a gun and shoots the bastard attacking her, but a bullet goes through the guy and kills an unseen toddler somehow. There is no way in hell that she should "eat" the legal liability for that bullet because she wouldn't have launched it to begin with if the mugger didn't attack her. The entire incident was caused by the mugger's actions and he should eat the entire cost of it.

-Mike

While I mostly agree the concept that this somehow protects the victim like in the scenario you describe is just not true. It does not preclude her from also being charged. Felony murder rule or not the decision to charge or not charge her remains the same. Only specific exemptions for self defense would help protect her. And likewise this is wholly separate from a felony murder rule.

What it does do is give MORE options to charge people. And whenever there are more options there are more chances to misapply or abuse them.

 

[drgrant]

Felony murder rule has been eliminated in most other places whose legal systems originate in English common law like ours does. It's also omitted from the US Model Penal Code, and has been abolished in some states. Reason being that you can have someone facing murder charges even if they have only the most tenuous of connections to the criminal act that precipitated the killing. Make the link tenuous enough and a reasonable person would say that the penalties wouldn't constitute "justice", considering the person's level of foreknowledge and the level of understanding of the consequences that might result. (mens rea)

Some of the cases really read like law-school hypotheticals. There's a case where someone (Ryan Holle) ended up sentenced to life without parole because he lent his roommate his car--and the roommate subsequently used that borrowed car in a robbery and murder. It's questionable as to whether he knew his roommate's intentions. Holle testified that he thought his roommate had been joking. While it seems to me that Holle should face some kind of penalty, facing the same penalty as those who were on the scene and participated in the actual act of violence doesn't seem like "justice", especially if you can't establish that he knew the people borrowing his car were going to go off and commit an act that had a reasonable likelihood of resulting in serious bodily harm or death.

That's obviously an example of how it can go horribly wrong, but it wouldn't be that hard to modify the law to have it only apply in a series of closely correlated events/actors. I would not be surprised in some locales if this constraint already exists in case law.

-Mike

 

[Bonesinium]

Felony murder rule has been eliminated in most other places whose legal systems originate in English common law like ours does. It's also omitted from the US Model Penal Code, and has been abolished in some states. Reason being that you can have someone facing murder charges even if they have only the most tenuous of connections to the criminal act that precipitated the killing. Make the link tenuous enough and a reasonable person would say that the penalties wouldn't constitute "justice", considering the person's level of foreknowledge and the level of understanding of the consequences that might result. (mens rea)

Some of the cases really read like law-school hypotheticals. There's a case where someone (Ryan Holle) ended up sentenced to life without parole because he lent his roommate his car--and the roommate subsequently used that borrowed car in a robbery and murder. It's questionable as to whether he knew his roommate's intentions. Holle testified that he thought his roommate had been joking. While it seems to me that Holle should face some kind of penalty, facing the same penalty as those who were on the scene and participated in the actual act of violence doesn't seem like "justice", especially if you can't establish that he knew the people borrowing his car were going to go off and commit an act that had a reasonable likelihood of resulting in serious bodily harm or death.

Yep. Like wise the kid who was involved in either buying or selling a small amount of marijuana and the person he was doing the deal with killed his friend. He got charged with murder. I feel I'm off on the fact here but the point being he was more a victim than anything and ended up considered a killer. Am I actually talking about the same person as you?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

SMH ,,,,WOW

 

[drgrant]

The person being attacked in this scenario is not committing a crime but defending one self. Not the same as being the initiator of the crime.

Yeah, but unless there are protections in the law for it, a douche prosecutor could charge her with involuntary manslaughter. At least with FMR the mugger eats the death of the child by proxy and it takes that question off the table.

Fun recent example... this broad was cheating on her husband, in her driveway with another man. Her husband caught them ****ing in a car parked in the driveway. She screamed "rape" when she saw her husband, her husband pulled out a gun and shot the guy. The prosecutor ended up charging her with manslaughter or something instead of her husband.

I can see how FMR can go badly but if you are going to get rid of it, there better be something in place to protect people legally in these incidents.

-Mike

 

[rivet_42]

Am I actually talking about the same person as you?

Possible. You can google the name "Ryan Holle". There's been plenty that's been written about his case, including a Wikipedia article. Some folks want to abolish the felony murder doctrine and he's kind of the poster child for it.

 

[mark056]

Felony murder rule has been eliminated in most other places whose legal systems originate in English common law like ours does. It's also omitted from the US Model Penal Code, and has been abolished in some states. Reason being that you can have someone facing murder charges even if they have only the most tenuous of connections to the criminal act that precipitated the killing. Make the link tenuous enough and a reasonable person would say that the penalties wouldn't constitute "justice", considering the person's level of foreknowledge and the level of understanding of the consequences that might result. (mens rea) Some of the cases really read like law-school hypotheticals. There's a case where someone (Ryan Holle) ended up sentenced to life without parole because he lent his roommate his car--and the roommate subsequently used that borrowed car in a robbery and murder. It's questionable as to whether he knew his roommate's intentions. Holle testified that he thought his roommate had been joking. While it seems to me that Holle should face some kind of penalty, facing the same penalty as those who were on the scene and participated in the actual act of violence doesn't seem like "justice", especially if you can't establish that he knew the people borrowing his car were going to go off and commit an act that had a reasonable likelihood of resulting in serious bodily harm or death.

Hole got screwed most likely but he was offered a plea bargain which would have netted him 10 years, probably less with time off for good behavior. He opted for a jury trial. He took a chance and lost big time. The whole trial lasted a day.

File this one under WTF wrong with Florida.

 

[Bonesinium]

Yeah, but unless there are protections in the law for it, a douche prosecutor could charge her with involuntary manslaughter. At least with FMR the mugger eats the death of the child by proxy and it takes that question off the table.
-Mike

Except it doesn't. It does NOT mean she could still also be charged. While there wouldn't be much logic in doing so it does not mean the law prevents it. So it does NOTHING to prevent it. Our judicial system does not work on logic.