"Felony Murder" - what a JOKE! HAHAHA!

American "felony murder" laws. They NEVER fail to make me laugh.

>hypothetical situation
>be the driver
>".... I drive."
>remember some stories you read about Americans and felony murder laws
>drive 3 people to rob someone
>3 people get shooty-tootied with AR-15
>"oh shi-, I'm in da twouble now"
>suddenly remember that if you're caught, you'll be charged with their "felony murders" and sentenced to 20 years for each of the deceased
>IT'S TIME TO KICK ASS AND CHEW BUBBLE GUM, AND I'M ALL OUT OF GUM
>Grand Theft Auto mode, ENGAGE!
>"I'm going to run down some Caucasians, today."
>RPM level >9,000
>drive off
>speed around the city
>OHHHHH YEAHHHHH!!!!
>find first pedestrian
>ka-THUNK!!!
>"doesn't matter, I'm already going to prison for 60 fucking years"
>"let's do MORE of this!"
>find next pedestrian
>ka-THUNK
>their teeth get caught in your windshield wiper
>okay, THAT was amusing
>run down half a dozen more pedestrians before the radiator starts to leak
>blood, blood everywhere!
>police corner you
>yell out "I SURRENDER PEACEFULLY! I'M UNARMED!"
>be arrested
>taken to court for the felony murders of your three robbers
>get slapped with 60+ years in prison
>well, fuck
>also convicted of 8 hit and runs, 6 of which resulted in the deaths of the victims
>ah fuck it, you were going down for 60 years anyway

America, everyone. Isn't it fucking GREAT? AWWWW YEAHHHHH!

Other urls found in this thread:

judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/murder.html
unistudyguides.com/wiki/Self-Defence
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>implying every stretch of a charge that an aggressive prosecutor throws at a case like this will stick
no.

The driver is going to jail and will face the death penalty or life in prison.

Why?

She's part of a team that were committing a crime. Three people died during this, so they will charge her with murder.

Sucks for her! I would have never turned myself in.

If you knew you'd be going to prison for life if the police caught you, would you really intentionally mow down pedestrians at random?

Why not? Shoot a few while you're at it. Shoot one dozen. "Felony murder" gives you that option because, regardless of the consequences, you're fucked in a court of law either way. You lose all right to a fair trial from the moment you hear those first-few shots.

That sounds like a sure way to get caught. I can imagine hiding out as long as possible and selectively killing paedos or something, but it does strike me as the reverie of someone who's taken a few movies too seriously. In that situation, all I'd want to do is evade capture rather than kill people.

Throw in a terminal illness too though and I'll give you a rampage.

>Throw in a terminal illness too though and I'll give you a rampage

Sold! I hope you're understanding my point, however. "Felony murder" laws give those in such a situation very little to lose, and thus increases the risk of others being murdered enormously, as a consequence of future actions.

We've got the same laws, retard - "constructive murder."

Only limitation is that its only applicable to offences with a potential sentence of 25 years or greater.

you muppets always assume these vermin actually know the laws. these people are barely literate. what kind of fucking morons do a home invasion in the middle of the day in Oklahoma?

that's about as stupid as you get, everyone here is armed.

This is a silly argument. The same argument could be made for murder - if you're going to get caught, you might as well kill as many people as you can, it's all the same.

What this law does is makes people think twice about being part of a criminal conspiracy. "I was just the getaway driver" isn't an excuse anymore.

Bring me each citation and I'll happily deconstruct it for you.

Your time starts.... now.

"I was just the getaway driver" was never an excuse. You know what it is, however. "Aiding and abetting a felon," not using supposed psychic powers to pump a myriad of "mind bullets" into their bodies.

Feel free to attempt to disprove that, sonny. Five to ten years for sitting in a car, as opposed to sixy years for not physically murdering three of one's compatriots.

in Italy its the same, but only for the 'predictable' crimes other than the ones you agreed to commit. Say you help rob a bank by waiting outside, but your friends are all kitted with drum mag rpks and molotovs, well the judge won't believe your intentions were that peaceful, even if you were only the driver

>Murder is defined in s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in the following terms:
>Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.
>There are therefore four identifiable bases of liability of murder, involving:
>an intent to kill
>an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm
>reckless indifference to human life, or
>the commission of a crime punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for 25 years.

judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/murder.html

Your move.

The getaway driver is just as culpable for the crime as the people who went into the building. I don't see the problem with this law. It should make people think twice about participating in crimes where it's reasonably foreseeable that someone could die.

Excellent. I'm glad you found Wikipedia. Now let's see cases where "constructive murder" has been applied to, including sentencing for each defendant, and I'll happily examine and deconstruct each of those, also.

Thats the stupidest fucking argument i've ever heard.

People, including criminals, don't want to murder random civilians because 'oh well might as well since i'm going to jail anyway'.

Not unless you're a mass murderer, in which case, you're goal is to kill a lot of people in the first place.

>i'll happily examine and deconstruct each of those, also
>also
I'm not seeing any deconstruction yet, you cheeky aussie retard

>Wikipedia
It's actually from the judicial commission of NSW and cites the specific legislation.

Have some more, I won't bother greentexting the quote.

Constructive murder — degrees of seriousness

The common law offence of felony murder has been replaced by the fourth category of murder as set out in s 18(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900. The term “constructive murder” should generally be used in preference to “felony murder” to avoid confusion with the common law: R v Spathis; R v Patsalis [2001] NSWCCA 476 at [209].

In R v Jacobs (2004) 151 A Crim R 452 at [332] Wood CJ at CL said:

Constructive murder is not to be regarded as less serious, and thereby attracting a lighter total sentence or non-parole period than that which is appropriate for other categories of murder: R v Mills NSWCCA 3 April 1995. Just as is the case for the other categories, there are degrees of seriousness of constructive murder, and the determination of the appropriate sentence for any individual offence depends upon the nature of the offender’s conduct and the part which he or she played in the events giving rise to death: R v JB [1999] NSWCCA 93.

Aslett v R [2006] NSWCCA 360 was a case of constructive murder, the foundational crime being one of robbery armed with a dangerous weapon. The court observed at [21] that “[a] murder committed in these circumstances may be as serious as a murder committed with intent to kill”, but on appeal reduced a life sentence to a non-parole period of 28 years with an additional term of six years.

In R v Mills (unrep, 3/4/95, NSWCCA), Cole JA said:

As the trial judge made clear, taking a loaded firearm and using it as a threat whilst in the course of committing a serious felony is a most serious matter. It is to be greatly discouraged by sentences of this Court. The fact that the murder was a felony murder is no ground for reducing either the minimum term or the total sentence.

1/2

>reckless indifference to human life

There you go, faggot. Go fucking cry to people who give a shit, because we don't.

Gleeson CJ agreed:

The major premise underlying the argument of counsel for the appellant was that cases of felony murder involved a lower level of culpability than cases of murder involving intention to kill and therefore should receive a lower level of sentence than applies to intentional killing.

I would reject that premise. Indeed, it would be difficult to select a better case than the present for the purpose of demonstrating its falsity. This was a case where a young man with an appalling history of criminal offending used a loaded gun in an armed robbery. He came to close quarters with the surprised victim. As is highly likely to occur in such circumstances, the weapon discharged. For the sake of the appellant’s determination to get his hands on a few hundred dollars, an innocent person lost his life. This is a case of murder involving a very high degree of seriousness.

2/2

...wut

Did that actually happen?

>dude, I was just aiding & abetting lmao!

The American criminal code is draconian, jails are third world-tier, and so are the prisons.

Anyone of these burgers who claim otherwise are too fucking boring/pussy to have risked so much as getting to drunk in public, and thus have no life experience with this shit.

FUCKING NORMIES REEEEEEEEEEEE

Interesting. So by this rationale, the crime she physically committed would be equal to the physical crimes they committed, and the physical actions of the person who shot them dead. Let's examine that, shall we?

Physically, as in physically you're smearing yourself in peanut butter while masturbating and reading Guns'n'Ammo, she did nothing but pilot three people to a destination, using a vehicle.

Think about that. Really think about that. Those three people may not have been able to get to the destination otherwise, but in all likelihood they WOULD have. If she didn't drive them, somebody else might have.

Now while you're thinking about that, think about this. While events transpired in that destination, physically her hands might have been on a steering wheel. Or playing some music on a device. Or reading a magazine. Or one of a myriad of things that getaway drivers do while they're waiting. Those hands were NOT wielding a weapon. Those hands were NOT using said-weapon to maim or murder someone. Those hands were NOT pulling down the pants or dress of someone for her or others to sexually assault.

Those hands... physically... did NOTHING.

Thus, she should have been charged with aiding and abetting a felon. That is it. She drove those three deceased to a destination. That's a crime. She did NOT physically murder them with an AR-15 wielded by the son of the owner of that home, and she did NOT physically possess the bullets that tore through their bodies, mortally wounding them.

If you are unable to see this, if you are unable to grasp this concept of her physically being involved in nothing but transporting three people to a home to commit a felony (and receiving the appropriate sentence for it - no more than 10 years in prison) then you possess a lack of intelligence that is so dangerous to others, I honestly believe you should kill yourself before your stupidity claims the life of one or more people. Thanks for playing, insert coin to continue.

Why isn't the son who murdered those kids being charged? If he didn't do that, the situation would have never escalated from there.

What the hell? An innocent person can be charged with murder just for being somehow tangentially involved with the person who actually did the murdering?

I think most people would focus on escaping.

>she dindu nuffin, she was just the getaway driver for the robbery

The law is clear. Go sniff petrol, you abo scum.

It's not bad, m8. I did 3 years in federal prison. The only people who complain about it are drug dealers and niggers, the rest of us are fine.

>Hey bro I'm gonna go rob this house, and probably kill anyone who's inside if they don't have a weapon to stop me, want to be the get away driver, full well knowing that I'm intending on robbing and potentially killing someone?
>Fuck yeah, who cares if anyone gets killed!
You're literally aiding them in the crime knowing full well that they WILL violently hurt or kill someone if they are in the home. Being the "get away" driver should get you the same as the actual culprits, which in this case was a chest full of bullets

No, it's called felony murder. If you committed a felony in which someone was killed, and it was reasonably foreseeable that they could have been killed, then you are charged with murder.

I'm sorry that you are, quite literally, unable to equate the physical act of piloting and sitting behind the wheel of, a vehicle... to being shot dead inside a person's house by the owner's son. I'm genuinely sorry that you're unable to separate the two and make that distinction.

I'm positive that it's a direct result of your American education, but let's not excuse the fact that your lack of skill in this matter clearly indicates that you are uneducated, if not unintelligent also.

What were you in prison for?

If your commit a felon that results in a death some how then i would prefer you were seperated from me and society for at least 15 years.

self defense.

but when the criminal dies, why is it the driver's fault?

Someone who is being the driver for 3 youths with bright futures of college and church ahead of them isn't intelligent to know about the felony laws or think far enough ahead to plan out what you're suggesting would result from it.

It's not that bad, the only problem was I had to join the Aryan Brotherhood in there so now if I ever get pulled over the cops are legally required to bring backup.

murder

>Dude she just drived
She offered transportation to the burglars knowing full well they'd turn violent if anyone was inside the home. We're just lucky the son inside had a gun.

As for the "SHE DIDN'T PHYSICALLY DO NUFFIN!" argument they're clearly making an example out of her. Which will discourage future retards from being an accomplice

Offence: robbery in company, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Driver is liable under joint enterprise for the robbery in company, and therefore also liable for the constructive murder again under joint enterprise.

Stop posting any time retard.

>she should have been charged with aiding and abetting a felon
There is NO SUCH CHARGE.

THE CHARGE IS THE SAME AS THE FELON YOU ABET, BECAUSE YOU ARE CHARGED FOR THEIR OFFENCE UNDER JOINT ENTERPRISE.

Again, that's insane.

Nice goalpost shit you retarded kangaroo.

She was part of the criminal scheme that led to their deaths. If not for her driving, they wouldn't have been there.

Because she was involved in a felony in which someone died. That she was "just" the getaway driver doesn't lessen her role in the crime. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Not him, but I was in prison for possession of a quarter ounce of black tar heroin.

>if you punish people it will only make them worse

I can always tell who the "employees" or "wage earners" are.. especially the liberal ones.

>It's not bad, m8. I did 3 years in federal prison. The only people who complain about it are drug dealers and niggers, the rest of us are fine.

Have you seen the prisons in other countries, northern European prisons in particular?

Man, the UK has olympic sized pools, gyms, and almost unlimited rec time, multiple snacks and mealtime whenever they want. Also, their prison sentences are like 1/4th as long as ours.

How? It sufficiently punishes those who are criminally culpable for violent crimes. That the burglars were the ones who died is immaterial, it could have just as easily been the owner.

Fucking criminal, deviant, drunk, punk, nigger, bum, junky, faggot, filth, subhuman.
Fucking drunk degenerate chimping out in the street like a nigger or some brit.

>2 of the buglers were found in the kitchen
>the 3rd was found in the driveway

So do he chase and kill number 3? Doesn't that work against getting off for self defence?

They had knives and brass knuckles. They weren't bringing party favors. Also her admitting to being the getaway driver doesn't help sell the allusion they were good little pacos.

>buy someone a gun
>give them the target
>load the gun for them
>put it in their hands
>let them rest the gun on your back to steady their aim
>help bury the body
>lie for them to the cops and in court
>...........don't get charged with murder?

You pale niggers are disgusting

Be in the right for starters by not committing bad crimes then defend what is right against those who wish to stop you

Be the one getting shot at, not the one shooting innocent sheeple

>If not for her driving, they wouldn't have been there

[citation missing]

>death penalty
no fucking way
>life in prison
I'd guess she'll end up serving 10 if we're lucky. Then she'll get out and still have enough time left to shit out 4 welfare babies

One does usually use knives and other physical objects to protect themselves. Not that uncommon.

It's not that insane really. What do you think the plan was if the homeowners son was there without a gun, and he tried calling for help? They would have beaten the shit out of him best case, killed him most likely.
Now are you really going to pretend that the driver didn't know that someone would be beaten or killed if they were inside the house? The driver knowingly accepted that if anyone was in the house they'd probably be killed. Just happens to be that it was her friends who were killed instead

Nothing in the US is as bad as Britain's penal system.

DEAR RETARDS

IF YOU ASSIST FELONY LEVEL CRIMES WITH PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

YOU GET CONVICTED OF A FELONY

MURDER/ARMED ROBBERY ARE FELONY CRIMES THAT YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR KNOWINGLY ASSISTING

>protect themselves while robbing a house

Wasn't there a similar case with teenagers trying to rob a house? 4 teenagers wanted to rob some house, but before they actually started doing it one of them said he wasn't interested and left. One of the kids got shot and died during the robbing and the 4th kid that never even set foot in the house and had left was also charged with murder or accessory to murder.

That's some crazy shit.

You have no proof that they were robbing them.

She obviously added value to their scheme or she wouldn't have been involved. The only way her actions are defensible is if she had no knowledge of their plans.

>mother admits to being the getaway driver.

Yes, your post in all-capital-letters is quite convincing and rational, I'll be sure to post likewise in the future.

...

>Dude they just brought those weapons into the home they were robbing for self defense
Are you fucking retarded? If the kid didn't have access to the gun they would have fucking killed him

Bait

As an Australian, I'd like to say that this person is a fucking idiot and doesn't represent our general views, at all.

Last year in NSW, a dude beat a home intruder to death. He beat the murder charges, but was imprisoned during the whole trial. There was a petition to release him earlier, and no petition to keep him in.

>complaining about sending disgusting criminal subhumans to prison
>whining about punishing the driver when she participated in the crime, aided them by driving them there, and was going to aid their escape if they had stolen property or killed someone
I can't understand being this spineless.

Some times these tough on crime law do work out negatively and make matters worse. There was that teenager in California that was murder after the drug dealers that kidnapped him found out kidnapping got you automatic life in prison, if I remember right they were pretty chill with the kid up until that point even.


Either way most criminals are shitty human beings and I'm glad they're getting life in prison/needle whatever.

Thanks

Not in America.

It would here, though.

Her actions aren't defensible. She drove three teenagers to a house they had the intention of robbing. That is not the point. One of my points is, had she not driven them there, could you ever prove that they had absolutely no way, ever, of physically arriving at that destination? Could you prove that they would not have found another driver?

No. You can't prove this. Many criminals will find a way.

>Some times these tough on crime law do work out negatively and make matters worse. There was that teenager in California that was murder after the drug dealers that kidnapped him found out kidnapping got you automatic life in prison, if I remember right they were pretty chill with the kid up until that point even.

Wasn't there something about rape being in a similar situation? Where the punishment was eased on it so that the perps wouldn't just murder the victim to try to cover it up?

I might be mistaken here though.

>They broke into the house with weapons
>They had a get away driver who admits to being the get away driver
This has to be bait

Maybe you should have not joined a criminal enterprise knowing murder could be a foreseeable consiquemce

>what is coercion
>reaction image argument

idiot

Her actions aren't defensible. She was part of a criminal scheme that ended with 3 people dead. She was obviously their best option for getting to the house, or they would have taken another option. You can't reduce her culpability because the robbery "might" have been possible without her.

you wild pack of muslim leaf cocksuckers, if the law played your way. Everyone in the god damn caper crew would be the getaway driver knowing that they can reap the benefits of a heist without any of the repercussions.

The punishment fits the crime here.

...

It's people being retards with the
>she just a kid!
argument. She knew damn well what she was doing

lol righto, just so you know, when I enter your house later tonight with a knife, it's just in case You attack Me.

You trust me, right?

what do you expect from a beaner?

seriously? spics are nigger tier if it comes to critical thinking or morals

Do you have any idea what the restrictions on it would be? Like how long/far you can give chase, the threat level which has to be present? If he he's already ran out of the house, depending on how it all played out, it sounds like he's no longer an immediate threat. How does the law handle that?

You can't prove that they wouldn't have got there anyway if she didn't drive them there. If she didn't, it wouldn't have been her responsibility.

But she did drive them there.

>drive three teens to their death while you wait outside.
>get charged for the murders of the three people.

the sone was brutal as fuck but to tell the truth its probably what would happen to alot of people if they tried to rob an armed homeowner while he was home.

Who gives a fuck? It's just a dumb beaner.

This is a great story with a happy ending, quit yer whining.

>aussie

You probably just wanna hangout and drink some beer. Totally cool.

Mate you need therapy if that's your train of thought.
Did you injure animals as a child?

It's true. She was part of a criminal scheme that, because of extenuating circumstances, left three of the four perpetrators dead. Was her intention to have those three murdered?

NO.

Did she physically fire the AR-15 that left three of the four perpetrators mortally wounded?

NO.

Physically she piloted a vehicle. I'm genuinely sorry for anybody who's ever had to care for you, if you can not understand the laws of physics in this matter. You know what? I take that back.

You could not possibly comprehend the amount of fucks I do not give about you OR your fellow Americans who lack the basic education to understand how the laws of physics work, specifically with regards to law.

Not that I fully agree with it, but it's Oklahoma.

Look up "castle doctrine." And, that applies in a lot of states, also within certain jurisdictions within certain states.

In this case, I consider it a clean self-defense inside the house. Don't care if they were shot ion the face or the back.

Now, gets a little tricky when one of the perps is outside the house. Was he shot inside and managed to get out, then collapse?

Or, did the kid run outside after him and keep shooting into his back while he was running away?

We're on Sup Forums, so you're not going to exactly get rational thinking on this subject, but I think we can at least agree that those are different circumstances. One is very clearly self-defense, the other starts getting pretty gray zone into hunting and execution.

The jurisdiction you are in will determine if any charges, or what they might be.

People who get shot don't always turn into a body instantly. You watch too many movies mate.

Technically if a person is running away from you and is out of your property you shouldn't be allowed to fire at them at all.

It's better for her to be charged than the homeowner's son. She burned the coal now she pays the toll. It's that simple. She was probably the brains of the operation anyways.

>had she not driven them there, could you ever prove that they had absolutely no way, ever, of physically arriving at that destination? Could you prove that they would not have found another driver?

So? All this means is some other schmuck would get the first degree murder charge and while the debate of the mother being culpable would be harder to prove seeing that anyone that prove the validity are dead.

(QLD) CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 271

271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault
(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Relevant part:
>it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence
If it's not strictly necessary for you to do to defend yourself then it's not self-defence. That's it. And it's not if you BELIEVE it's necessary - this specific element is an objective test. This is also where the duty to retreat comes from. If you can run away then the only force necessary for defence is none.

As far as the specifics of the case, it depends. If you want to know more just go and look up some case law.

Or read this:
unistudyguides.com/wiki/Self-Defence

>people are only responsible for actions they physically commit

Using your logic, even shooting someone in the head isn't illegal because you're only pulling the trigger, you aren't physically putting the bullet in the person's head.

It's in Canadian law, too. If you rob a store with a buddy and the store owner shoots your buddy, you'll be charged with your buddy's murder.