So I just learned that in the USA there's a thing called "felony murder". For example:

So I just learned that in the USA there's a thing called "felony murder". For example:

>Be you, Tyrone, DeShawn and Bubba
>Go to the nearest 24/7 store ran by Pajeet Fukshit
>Steal 20$, some cigs and beer from him
>He calls the cops
>Cop car plows through 11 kids on his way to the store
>You, Tyrone, DeShawn and Bubba are now guilty for 11 counts of murder as well for stealing 20$, some beer and a pack of cigs

Another example:

>Be you
>In a standoff
>You surrender but your buddy continues the standoff
>The cops magdump him to the ground
>You're now guilty for his death

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
youtube.com/watch?v=Ei1Zlyj_Uug
twitter.com/AnonBabble

and?

I just found it kind of funny how cops can absolve themselves from responsibility by charging the perps for shit they didn't actually do

gotta fill them prisons goy

another example:

>decide to rob house with mate
>owner shoots and kills your mate within the legal castle doctrine
>you are charged with murder

what if someone gets the inspiration to organise illegal street races from need for speed or fast&furious? Are the companies who produced those two responsible?

How can general public even allow it?

Felony murder applies for if you assault a woman who is pregnant and you kill the child. In that case, you didn't intend to kill the child but, but you will be charged with murder because of it. It's about actions, not intentions.

>ameridumbs

you can't make that shit up

Another example is if you were robbing a store like you said, and your partner shoots and kills the cashier. You will be charged with felony murder as you were an accomplice to said crime, even if you had no intention of killing the cashier.

>Be Jimbo
>nick a microwaveable burger from a store
>Meteor falls out of the sky and destroys the store killing everyone inside
>It's your fault

Sounds like the sort of punishment thought up out of rash anger.

That being said, 'rash anger' seems to sum up the American justice system quite well nowadays.

kek, if the law actually works like this i have no words.

Commonwealth countries also have the rule of felony murder, except it's called "joint enterprise"

In the rest of the world this is two completely different things. An cop running over a 11 kids on his way to shoot your ass shouldn't make you an accomplish of that incident.

>A cop running over 11 kids wouldn't make you an accomplice
You compleatly misinterpreted the law even after I explained it. For that, I have no words.

And?

>Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police[12]

So yes you are guilty of killing the 11 kids.

Shhhh, let Euros laugh about things they don't understand. It gives them meaning in their meaningless lives.

Unitedstatian law system exist to put it's citizen into prison no matter what.

Very few jurisdictions use proximate death, and there has never been a case where it was interpreted that way.

>AmeristupidworthlessdumbsthatIhate
Kek fuck them all their so gay I wish they all died. Everytime I see one my blood boils

Here, you wouldn't be charged with murder in that situation because, well, you didn't murder anybody, neither directly nor through negligence.

It's a retarded law tbqh.

I don't have any opinion on it, I'm just explaing what it actually means.

>even if caused by a bystander

So if a bystander tries to block your escape with his giant SUV but ends up clipping a kid who then dies, you're the murderer?

>t. flyover

And I'm just pointing out I find that law retarded because of personal responsibility 'n' shiet. No implications implied.

If the bystander had no intention of hurting the kid then potentially as it was an accident that presumably wouldn't have happened had you not committed a crime.

A bystander tries to shoot at you but ends up killing two cops, you're guilty?

With that logic you can end up working your way through 40 people who all can be connected by a tiny incident or thing to a crime and and then they all end up in prison.

great law.

I seriously hope this is bait

Again, if it was not the bystanders intention and you were already in the act of commiting a felony, then yes, you could be charged as if you didn't threaten the bystander, they wouldn't have had the need to shot at you and those cops deaths could have been avoided.

Why does everyone on Sup Forums know so much about the United States?

When reading through this thread, this law starts too look like something that would fit in an old western style town to keep law and order.

Is that so?

I am running from cops, kick a sharp pebble on the street, truck drives over it, its tyre explodes which causes it to swerve and cause a massive pile up with 28 deaths. I am responsible?

No you can't, it's only extendable to those immediately in the vicinity. Who were in the process of commiting a crime

Every common law country has a similar stature, it's not only in the U.S.

No because that's too improbable to ever happen.
Essentially, the idea is that it deters you from ever commiting a crime because it puts you in a position of vulnerability because of all manner of things that could happen. So you can't "game the system" by figuring that you can be absolved from all responsibility for your accomplices actions. So instead of getting 2 months for robbery, you're going to get 20 years for being an accomplice to a murder.

So the entire anglosphere has this nonsense? It's even worse than I expected.

Not exactly as written, but similar concepts. Usually not for murder but for similar crimes as well.

Dunno, I still find it retarded that if you surrender in a stand off and your friend doesn't and gets magdumbed you're the killer.

because you're hilarious and you make us feel better about our countries

That's part of the problem with corporations and why they had to fight to become a thing in America
There's a diffusion of responsibility and ownership vs. a typical business owner

>On the early morning of March 10, 2003, after a night of partying, Holle lent his car to a friend and housemate,[2] William Allen, Jr.[5] Allen used the car to drop three men off at the house of Christine Snyder, where they removed a safe containing 1 pound (500 g) of marijuana and US$425.[5] During the burglary, one of the men, Charles Miller, Jr., used a shotgun he had found in the house to bludgeon Jessica Snyder to death.[2][5] Holle was 1 1⁄2 miles (2 km) away.[2]

the guy who lent the car almost got death sentence

...

Youre at very least an accomplice to murder
Or do you guys not have laws in which if you see a crime and don't report it you become an accomplice?

>A first world, modern country
>these laws
pick one

The guy who lent the car was charged because he knew why they were going to use the car though. That's the whole point. Had he not given them the car, they wouldn't have had the opertunity.

You NEVER lend your car
That's already a pretty big crime unless it's family or youre also in the car
Not to mention it's retarded because you're responsible for what happens with that car since you own it

>Or do you guys not have laws in which if you see a crime and don't report it you become an accomplice?

no, you can be tried for negligence but not for the original crime, that's retarded

>hurr i'm having a panic attack help me oh dear g-d the Tyrones are robbing the bank I am in help me dear d-g can't even speak i can't breath well oh dear jaysus

Later:

>Okay mister you're now responsible for this bank heist because we have no registered 911 call from you. Enjoy your 30 years in jail.

You can be charged with a felony in Germany for attending a fascist ralley even out of curiosity.

Every country has retarded laws

lol just steal a car nigguh

hahaha freedom laws

Not how it works

That's not what an accomplice means
A better example is

>Youre outside the bank
>You see the Tyrones robbing the bank
>You shrug and go on your merry way

>attending a fascist ralley
>out of curiosity
and i thought my life was boring.

There's nothing wrong with this.

That's pretty petty considering that I could google plenty of thing wrong with Italy right now and laugh at them. But I don't because I don't get satisfaction from that.

You for fucking real right now?

We have "concorso in omicidio" here which is probably closest to what you mean. You'd still have to be actively partaking in some form (i.e., you get that if you're driving a car and your friend Tyrone shoot somebody drive-by style).

Being tried for someone else's crimes is retarded.

No
Not reporting a crime is a crime in itself

this. Fuck the poors and the niggers.

Only in some states, but yes, it's called the Good Samaritan law.

Another example is if you saw a drug addict convulsing on the ground and you just left him there to die. You could be charged with not helping him or getting r help for him.

>You can be charged with a felony in Germany for attending a fascist ralley even out of curiosity.
Maybe because fascism is illegal in Germany and participating in those marches (even out of curiosity) makes them bigger and propagates fascism?
I mean, every country has some retarded laws from the past that haven't been changed
For example, Poland still has some retarded commielaws regarding bureaucracy that nobody bothered to change and are now stinging us in the ass

Accomplice is probably a bit strong for the situation I just described (the person walking by the bank)
But if you and Tyrone are robbing a store and Tyrone shoots someone you're an accomplice
You can normally get off the charge if you immediately turn yourself in

that's kind of stupid given that many events create bystander effect, are those bystanders who can number in hundreds now all accomplices to the crime?

using common sense seems like a crime in america

We have the same here.
He somebody got hit, by a car and there nobody but you to help and you don't give a shit you can be charge with "Non-assistance à personne en danger", though it's indeed no as bad as running over.

Its a provisional law that doesn't apply to the whole country and varies significantly. Here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

not helping an individual in need or not reporting a crime is also a crime here but you can't be held responsible for the original crime, it's negligence

We have law like that too, if you see someone robbing bank or house on fire you have to call the authorities. Its called obligation of citizen or something like that

In here it's called "non assistance to person in danger".

To me that's common sense

If I and Tyrone went in there with the intention of killing somebody, then yes, I'm an accomplice. If I and my friend Tyrone go to rob a store and he randomly shoots somebody because he's a fucking retard then I'll be tried for armed robbery, and he'll be tried for armed robbery and murder. That's what each one of us did, after all.

All it takes is one person
The law is meant to punish the bystander effect and get at least one person calling the authorities

Also I think the effects of the law are a bit different in a group anyway
Obviously not everyone needs to call the police

Example I always call the police when I see car crash (it's not because of that law either it's because I'm not a fucking douchebag)

I believe the law falls under a form of negligence

You'll be charged with an accomplice to murder yeah
You helped create the situation and you're not a victim

You can only be charged for the crime if you participated in commiting another crime iirc, because that would make you an accomplice. If you're a simple bystander, I highly doubt you'd be charged with the crime itself unless it was a very specific case where you knew the crime was going to occurs but chose not to help stop it before it did.

what the fuck? so if:
>my good childhood friend john asks to borrow my car for the weekend since his is in the shop
>unfortunately I have no idea that john is actually a sociopathic serial killer
>over the weekend john runs over a couple jogging on a country road with my car, throws them in the trunk, then rapes them to death at his home
>He gets caught
>I get convicted as an "accomplice" despite the fact I had no mens rea

sounds like common sense to me

WELL FUCK YOU BUDDY :DD THATS THE LAW

>>unfortunately I have no idea that john is actually a sociopathic serial killer
Then you can't be charged with a crime. You'll be questioned but you aren't guilty of anything.

If John told you "I'm going to kill a bunch of people tonight" and you still have it to him, then you can be charged.

>Implying these aren't great ideas to keep black criminal savages away from regular society

Allow Colin Flaherty to guide you
youtube.com/watch?v=Ei1Zlyj_Uug

Please name to me one country where the crime index does not go:
Black > Brown > White > Asian

Is there a single country, or city in the entire world that breaks this format? I have yet to find one. Countries I have checked:
Canada
Brazil
USA
UK
France
Sweden
Germany
Venezuela
Argentina
Chile
Spain

Not to mention South Africa is now 1000x worse that apartheid is gone.

but i do

Sounds like a sad existance desu

I joke about killing people all the time.

That's retarded tbqh. I took part in and armed robbery and for that, and that only, I should be tried. Especially because there's nothing I could possibly do to stop him from shooting out of the blue. If I just stay and do nothing there while he's slowly cutting people into little pieces, then I'm an accomplice.

Keyword "joke"

John in this case was completely serious when he said this.

>If John told you "I'm going to kill a bunch of people tonight" and you still have it to him, then you can be charged.

this creates the problem if you have no reason to believe him that he's telling the truth, you just laugh at it like it's just one of his retarded jokes but because he actually this time spoke the truth you're responsible for the rape murder

>dem excuses

Then it becomes a grey area of uncertain cause and any charges against you would need substantial evidence in court to support the claim you knew what he meant at the time.

That's when the lawyer enters

finding weird shit funny is a sad existence?
so spoke the voice of autism

Excuse? I explained what happened. He knew that they were going to kill someone but still lent them the car.

>Be American
>lend a car to your long time friend
>he says "I'm gonna SLAY some people tonight"
>think he meant slaying some pussy
>he commits a rape murder
>you're now an accomplice
>have to get an elder god tier lawyer to not land in jail for 5000 years
>you're now bankrupt

Lol I laughed desu

...

The jury could still convict you regardless of the lawyer if they're retarded enough though.

>be in vegas
>see cops looking like they're about to arresting two guys
>friend mimicks GTA and yells "he's got a gun, he's got a gun!"
>panic erupts and coppers slam them into the ground
>friend gets yelled at and almost gets arrested himself

We do not have this thing called, "Criminal Rights". Do the crime, do the time. Or just die, whatever.

price of freedom

Yeah they have to fill the for profit prisons somehow

Forgot that part out of my greentext