Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Just making the point that these situations are extremely complex, and I'm glad I've never been on a jury that's had to deal with something like this.

I'd love to be. Every time I go to a jury summons I wear my Death Halloween costume complete with foam scythe to show my enthusiasm. Strangely I never get picked.

simonr1978 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

You say likely?

Is that based on the law itself, or the chances of a favourable Jury?

I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

I guess if the evidence is they were shot as a group, rather than (only positing here) say one by one the shooter will be OK - but if the evidence suggests the third man was shot whilst outside the building and after the other two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

I'm pretty sure part of the problem was that in that case Tony Martin had an illegally held shotgun which he claimed had been left in his car by an anonymous well wisher after he'd been burgled previously. IIRC He gave no warning and shot them in the back as they tried to flee.

Having Googled it, my example is ded wrong! That's wot comes of reading about it in you Gran's Daily Heil!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

Tony Martin. It was an important case for the public understanding of what they are and are not allowed to do in self defence. Of course certain parts of the media went out of their way to portray Martin as a hero and the conviction as a failure of justice, also complaining that the law was too vague and didn't support people being attacked. They were of course wrong. The one who died was shot in the back while trying to escape and neither burglar ever presented a threat to anyone's life or safety.
The shotgun was illegally held and Martin had history of being trigger happy. It was bad for all involved but was good for solidifying public understanding of their rights. It would be interesting to learn how a similar set of circumstances would play out with various states' laws.

(edit: that was a fast moving thread. Basically what simonr1978 said)

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

 AndrewC wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

It's joint enterprise whatever way you look at it.

I can understand the implications except the murder charge. I thought that in order to prove murder you had to show motive and planning. Neither of which is present in the deaths. Manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge I would have thought. She didn't set out to kill them.

Cheers

Andrew

I see your point, but she knew what was happening, drove them there, made no attempt to stop it or alert the authorities, so under the law, she has to take the burn for it.

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

There might have been no deaths if she hadn't agreed to drive them there.

And on another note, to the best of my knowledge of British law, or Scots law in my case, the homeowner is not obliged to issue any warning if defending themselves against intruders.

Agreed, she was part and parcel in the commissioning of the crime of burglary and larceny, with a side dose of aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon. Joint enterprise and all that, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. Had her friends killed the homeowner then she should have been charged, but it is the reverse in this case.

Her conscience (if she has one) will trouble her with the deaths of her friends(?) had she not aided them. But she didn't actually set out to commit murder.

As Jake said earlier she will probably plea out on a lesser charge, but I didn't think it a valid charge under joint enterprise.

Cheers

Andrew

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And on another note, to the best of my knowledge of British law, or Scots law in my case, the homeowner is not obliged to issue any warning if defending themselves against intruders.

As far as I am aware you are never obligated to ever give a warning, whether it be in your home or not. It comes back to the normal rules of appropriate, proportionate and reasonable. Fail those tests and you are going to jail. Of course different countries (and seemingly different states) have differing understandings of what any of those words mean.

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

You are as wrong as could be. Three guys were killed while committing a felony, hence the bodies. The alleged driver participated in that felony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oklahoma law allows a person to be charged with murder if they take part in a crime in which people are killed, even if the person does not take part in the slaying.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/29/deadly-oklahoma-home-invasion-getaway-driver-planned-break-in-prosecutors-say.html

Was a crime committed? Yep.

Did people die? Yep.

Not too hard.

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

There are no hairs to split here. We all agree there was a death, and as the law sees it this whole story is one event, so the deaths occurred during it. The felony (or Felonies actually). This includes multiple charges of conspiracy, multiple charges of assault with a deadly weapon, felony assault on a child, breaking and entering, burglary, and illegal weapons possession. She knew full well that the home was occupied and that her friends were going in armed. Therefore she had a reasonable expectation that violence would take place, and also an expectation of possible death. Add into this that she involved a minor, and that the potential victim was also a minor, and that will weigh heavily on her sentencing.

 AndrewC wrote:
Agreed, she was part and parcel in the commissioning of the crime of burglary and larceny, with a side dose of aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon. Joint enterprise and all that, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. Had her friends killed the homeowner then she should have been charged, but it is the reverse in this case.

Her conscience (if she has one) will trouble her with the deaths of her friends(?) had she not aided them. But she didn't actually set out to commit murder.

As Jake said earlier she will probably plea out on a lesser charge, but I didn't think it a valid charge under joint enterprise.

Cheers

Andrew

I hear you. The law in that state is that the actions or impacts of that crime matter. This is actually very old stare decisis, that everything that results from the act are part of it, even if unforseen. (for example they scare someone which is not normally life threatening but if the person is old and has a heart condition and dies well they wear that murder).

For another example, lets say Kronk goes to Europe and a baby boom erupts...oh wait thats another thread...

I feel terribly for the 19 year old in this situation who I imagine is going to need a bit of therapy after having killed 3 people.

I think that it was a legitimate shooting is not really up for debate - armed home invaders seem inarguable - but I bet he still feels pretty awful afterwards.

Feel absolutely nothing for the getaway driver being charged, she signed up to commit a violent felony and this is what reward that particular game hands out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Claymore (the Scottish kind not the point this end at enemy kind) or maybe a nice ash longbow? When was the last time some defended themselves with a halberd? That would be kind of cool.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Contrary to popular belief, British citizens are allowed to own firearms. They must be registered with the police, be kept in a secure box or safe (which is inspected by the police)

and it also involves mandatory training on their use and safety if memory serves.

I'm not a gun owner myself, preferring to place the security of my home in alarm systems, a pair of faithful hounds, and a good solid piece of wood.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

Anything they want as long as they know someone with a pig farm.


"You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig.""
-Brick Top

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, shotguns are legal is Britain.

Yeah, nearly every kind of firearm is legal in Britain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What are they going to defend themselves with in brittan though? A kitchen knife?

Claymore (the Scottish kind not the point this end at enemy kind) or maybe a nice ash longbow? When was the last time some defended themselves with a halberd? That would be kind of cool.

Halberds are too impractical for the close confines of your average British home.

A cricket bat is the preferred weapon of defence

So that sceen in lock stock and 2 smoking barrels where they have a guy go get them guns and he comes back with Napoleonic pistols and a bren gun is totally unrealistic. More or less he'd be coming back with .22 rifles and shotguns...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

The driver is a 21 year old woman who dropped off 3 males ages 16-18 at a home to commit a felony home invasion so she's an accessory to the lesser crimes and charges with murder because Oklahoma law lets you charge people with murder as a result of deaths caused in the commencement of a felony. The woman drove the boys to the felony so she bears responsibility at least in part for their deaths during that felony.

This really isn't a case of Stand Your Ground because it happened inside a residence it invokes the Castle Doctrine instead.

I'm honestly still a little confused about charging the driver with murder. I get she's an accessory to the crime, no question. And if the burglars had killed someone before getting shot, again, no question about being an accessory. But charging her for the deaths of her accomplices does seem odd.

And while I think shooter was certainly justified, it is sad that it ended with 3 people not even old enough to drink (hell, 2 barely old enough to drive) being killed. Perhaps doubly so because the shooter probably wasn't much older (he was the son of the homeowner).

I mean, these weren't hardened cartel assassins or chainsaw wielding mass murderers. They were stupid kids who picked the wrong damn house. Armed kids (sort of, a knife and brass knuckles), breaking into a home with obvious criminal intent, but kids nonetheless.

Then again, who knows what they would have done had the people at home not been armed.

I don't disagree with frazzles that it is sad they chose to do this and lost their lives over trivial property, but it is also sad that 3 young people are dead.

A knife can easily kill or do serious damage to a victim. Knives are nothing to sniff at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So that sceen in lock stock and 2 smoking barrels where they have a guy go get them guns and he comes back with Napoleonic pistols and a bren gun is totally unrealistic. More or less he'd be coming back with .22 rifles and shotguns...

To the best of my knowledge, gun crime, when it happens in the UK, is similar to what happens in the USA i.e the majority of it's done by handguns.

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Its quite common for surviving perpetrators who commit a crime during the course of which someone is killed to be charged with homicide. Especially if the crime was premeditated as this one clearly was. You set the chain of events in motion, you get slapped with responsibility.

So 2 criminals break into someone's house and they kill the homeowner. Both get charged with murder.

Same two criminals break into a house. The Homeowner kills one of them. The surviving criminal gets charged with murder for his friend, since he was responsible for the actions which led to his death.

Now its usually a lesser murder charge. You're not going to get 1st degree murder. But you might get 2nd or 3rd depending on how strong the case feels to the DA. Manslaughter isn't really as applicable, since thats for accidental death. A death that occurs in the course of another premeditated murder is much more serious than a purely accidental death.

Fething hell. What a stupid, senseless tragedy. Stay in school, kids! That way you won't find yourself eating lead in someone else's home in the middle of the night at sixteen years old. Jeebus.

Would it be wrong to wonder about his grouping?

 redleger wrote:
Would it be wrong to wonder about his grouping?

I'm thinking Vincent from collateral esq.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So that sceen in lock stock and 2 smoking barrels where they have a guy go get them guns and he comes back with Napoleonic pistols and a bren gun is totally unrealistic. More or less he'd be coming back with .22 rifles and shotguns...

Shotguns yes, .22 yes. Though we also have a large amount of .303 Lee Enfields around the place.

 redleger wrote:
Would it be wrong to wonder about his grouping?

Only if you award points for accuracy.

Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

Do you mind if I split hairs here? There were no deaths in the commission of a felony. There were deaths as a result of self defence. I would have thought there was a difference?

You are as wrong as could be. Three guys were killed while committing a felony, hence the bodies. The alleged driver participated in that felony.

I am trying to remember when that law was actually passed, because I want to say that it is somewhat recent (at least post-2000).

i would think that the reasoning behind the law would have been more along the line of "bad guys kill someone during a crime, everyone involved in the crime is guilty of killing someone even if they didn't pull the trigger" and less along the line of "bad guys get themselves killed during a crime, everyone involved in the crime is guilty of killing someone even if none of them did any killing". Even with our messed up legislature, I don't think that they were thinking "we are going to charge you guys for getting yourselves killed, that's what you get for surviving".

With that said, this isn't the first self-defense shooting where participants in the crime are charged, and many previously have been convicted under that law. The most high-profile one in Oklahoma I can think off was our Pharmacy Shooting quite a few years back (that was also a case of a really bad self defense shooting, the whole case was a clusterfeth). So regardless of it being the intend of the law or not, that's how it has been interpreted in the past and it has a few cases at least packing that decision up.

Other thoughts:

I don't have a problem with the shooting itself. The police should do their customary investigation to make sure that it was a good self-defense shooting, which it appears it was, and the guy needs to make sure he gets the appropriate follow up to help him through this experience.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Just a question, is this actually a "Stand Your Ground" case, I thought someone breaking in to your house fell under a different heading because the law wouldn't expect people to flee from their own homes.

As gun happy Americans are compared to the rest of the world, even in the rest of the world defending your home is usually fine.

There are arguments about that, see this source:

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/03/30/okie-district-attorney-cites-wrong-law-triple-homicide/

Do some states have a duty-to-retreat even inside the home? I could see where "stand-your-ground" could possibly be applied in a "he was in his home, he had no duty-to-retreat under the castle doctorine, and he was allowed to lawfully defend himself from intruders" kind of way though.