Boy arrested for murder after police shoot and kill his friend.

reply to post by SyphonX


oh yes of course... these laws don't apply to cops... they are all saints, and their gang is certified...

This is crazy.

How can you charge someone with murder because his mate pulled a gun and ended up getting himself shot ?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long while.

The 15 yr old is killed because he points a gun at a cop, that's understandable... but to charge the other kid with murder of his friend, who was shot by the cop... I just don't see the logic or reason behind that? I'm baffled.

If you commit the crime be ready to do the time.

Personally I think it's a shame that the kid will be doing time at our expense. We should be taking prisoners and making them work to pay off their incarceration.

reply to post by SalientSkivvy


Yes it's a very punitive law.
However he shouldn't have been committing a felony in the first place.

Originally posted by pplrnuts
Dont be a criminal and stuff like this wouldnt happen.

Yes?

by the sounds of it you don't need to be a criminal. you see your buddy from school and offer him a lift, you are stopped by the police and your buddy pulls a gun, the police shoot and kill him and charge you with murder.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

oh yes and the fascist cops are any less of punks... give me a break... not saying all cops are bad, but some of them are no better than the "criminals" ...

The thread isn't about the cops; it is about the law that lets an accomplice be charged with murder.

Originally posted by lifeform11

Originally posted by pplrnuts
Dont be a criminal and stuff like this wouldnt happen.

Yes?

by the sounds of it you don't need to be a criminal. you see your buddy from school and offer him a lift, you are stopped by the police and your buddy pulls a gun, the police shoot and kill him and charge you with murder.

what do you not understand about the fact that they committed ARMED ROBBERY. he was charged with murder because someone died during a CRIME being committed, that he was involved in. either read and understand the situation or sit in the corner with your dunce cap on.

reply to post by lifeform11


Here you will not be guilty of anything. The key is were you aware of the gun and the intent?

If you are innocent of the knowledge of the fact someone with you has the mental intent to commit an unlawful act, and you can prove it in court, you are simply a innocent person and will not be charged with anything.

If you were found to be involved with your friend in criminal misbehavior, or you had knowledge of the weapon and your friends mental issues that would cause him to use the weapon, then you could be guilty of a crime.

Felony murder is a way to make people that commit dangerous felonies pay for the consequences that occur as a result of their actions.

If you are interested in how this Kid can defend against the charge look up defenses to felony murder and see what options he has.

PLEASE READ THIS RESPONSE AGAIN

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The young man arrested was involved in an on going felony, Aggrevated Robbery.

The common law, and most state law statutes have what is called a Felony Murder Section.

To generalize the law, a person can be charged with Murder, if during the commission of, or in the immediate flight from a inherently dangerous felony ANYONE gets killed by Any other party.

It links the murder to the felony, making it like strict liability.

In a homicide someone is responsible. The way the law looks at it is BUT FOR the felons activities, the homicide would not have occured.

The DETERRENCE factor is that if you are a party to a dangerous felony, as a principle (one doing act), as a issue before the fact (master mind but not actual participant), or issue after the fact (hide them out, give them aid etc.) you are also liable for the homicide of anyone, that is commited by anybody during the ongoing felony.

So if one thinks (I am only the look out, so if something happens I am not guilty of anything) they are wrong. They are just as guilty of the crime as the ones holding the gun.

I found reading through the responses utterly ridiculous. The third reply who was for the prosecutors clearly defined the causation for such law to be established in a case with legal jargon. I acknowledge that. What I don't acknowledge is when people have the audacity to say that they did not know the law (especially in the case of the felony murder rule,) and so they should not be charged in respect for it.

ignorantia legis neminem excusat , "ignorance of the law excuses no one". It is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

This rule that I mentioned before did not just originate hundreds of years ago from Common Law but there are volumes and volumes of Case Law to this date that supports it.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by BrokenCircles

 

Technically no, he may not have had a gun but [color=E18B6B]whats your point?

There are times when one asks a question, but they really don't want an answer.
Regardless, I will provide an answer.

[color=50EBEC]I believe in innocent, until proven guilty.
You have clearly shown that you believe in-
[color=E18B6B]"This is what they said, so lock him up for 30 years." ~~JUSTICE!!!!

This was not my intention, and I have not tried to search for additional sources, but just from the one article which was linked in the OP, and the 2 additional articles that are linked from that original article, there are conflicting reports.

Originally posted by wardk28

[color=E18B6B]hopefully he'll spend the next [color=E18B6B]30 years in prison.

for [color=50EBEC]'ALLEGEDLY' taking a wallet and an IPod

Originally posted by wardk28
If you [color=E18B6B]want to break the law, shouldn't you check up on the laws you are about to break?

I have no clue what he [color=50EBEC]wanted to do.

Originally posted by wardk28

The law also keeps the case from being [color=E18B6B]tied up in court for years trying to sort out who should be charged for what in crimes committed.

This could possibly be relevant to this particular situation, if there was any question about who committed which crime. Thankfully, the officer admitted to shooting, and killing Tatioun Williams, so we don't have to worry about this.

Originally posted by wardk28
Law enforcement are taught to shoot to kill in the academy [color=E18B6B]if their life or the [color=E18B6B]life of another is [color=E18B6B]in danger.

[color=50EBEC]This is where it begins to get interesting.

When the officers told the teens to stop, Williams, who was holding the gun, [color=F88017]allegedly
turned in the officer's direction

HuffingtonPost

“(Williams) responded by turning and pointing a gun at the sergeants,” Costello told Judge Donald Panarese Jr. “One sergeant, [color=F88017]fearing for her safety, fired her service weapon, striking him in the [color=F88017]rear upper left shoulder.”

--according to Assistant State’s Attorney Chris Costello--.

ChicagoTri bune

An autopsy Thursday found he died from a gunshot wound to the [color=F88017]back and ruled the death a homicide.

MyFoxChicago

[color=82CAFA]I think I've got it figured out now. The officers yelled, [color=FBB117]"STOP" [color=82CAFA]and then he turned around, and pointed his gun directly at the officers. Fearing for their own safety, they [color=FBB117]shot him in the back.
[color=82CAFA]CASE CLOSED, bring in the next defendant.

The cop shooting the kid was "self defense", so there was no murder.

But somehow this law transmutes the legal homicide into an illegal one, and then redirects the blame of this newly classified murder onto the accomplice of a separate but non-violent crime (bank robbery).

This is a dangerous precedent. It is converting legal actions into illegal ones and then shifting the blame onto others.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon


Read my response

This is nothing new. I'm definitely certain there are hundreds of other cases where the same rule of law has been used to charge people with murder and so it is not setting any new precedent.

reply to post by nahsik

The VICTIM was part of the criminal group. He CHOSE to be a part of the felony (bank robbery). He CHOSE to pull the weapon out on the Police. He wasn't innocent, so why are we charging the other kid with a "murder" as if the victim was innocent?

This law and the people here who support it seem to think that the victim was innocent and that therefore all participants of the crime should be held responsible, but the victim wasn't innocent.

Comparing the homicide of a criminal group member to the homicide of an innocent bystander is apples and oranges.

The original intent of the law was to protect innocent bystanders, not to create a legal loophole for Police officers to artificially increase successful murder conviction rates.

Man I hope when they search/ed this kids house, that they don't find any DOWNLOADED copyrighted music and movies on his PC! He'd certainly end up locked up for a long long time, if they do

reply to post by nahsik


No, it is not setting a new precedent, but the responses here clearly outline how ridiculous and controversial it is. The letter of the law is allowed to change. It is not uncommon for laws to be reversed from public outcry alone, and the considering of the law by the court, from the controversy as such. In fact, that is how this law was applied, though in a negative and incompetent direction, in my opinion.

Don't say because the law is the way it is now, that it is somehow absolute and set in stone, and that by protesting it or questioning it, that is somehow "ignorance of the law". On the contrary, being aware of it, and taking offense to it, is clearly anything but ignorance.

I think the law itself is beyond ridiculous. It will not work as a deterrent, and it is not of any sound principles, to unjustly punish someone for an act they didn't commit, which wasn't murder in the first place, it was self-defense which is not murder.

Also, as someone brilliantly stated earlier, this law actually encourages police to shoot and kill more often. As the district can pursue harsher punishment on the other perpetrators if the suspect dies. What kind of bull# chaotic society is this supposed to enforce?

Originally posted by nahsik
Read my response

Originally posted by nahsik
PLEASE READ THESE TWO RESPONSES AGAIN

How about READ THE FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE!!

Originally posted by nahsik
It is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

Cop shoots kid in back.
Kids unarmed friend is charged with murder.

What you are saying, is-
"He should have known that he could be charged for murder, if a scared officer shoots his friend in the back."

reply to post by SyphonX

That's 100% correct. Self-defense is not murder. If there is no murder, then how can anybody be charged for murder?

This law overrides the self-defense clause which is insane.

reply to post by SyphonX


If you feel so against this then why don't you lobby for it to be changed instead of complaining on a forum such as this. Oh wait you won't. So nothing has changed.

And then your going to tell me that your making light of this issue, that people need to be aware of what is happening to American society. You speak but you don't take action. So nothing has changed.

We don't have to deal with the same premise here in Australia.

I'm going to have to side with the insanely corrupt justice system on this one. You commit armed robbery, you need to be shot. That is all there is to it. The second best is to spend life in prison. There should be no tolerance for thievery.

Sorry. It is rare that I side with the cops but, if those guys would have pulled an armed robbery on me, I would have shot them, or tried.