Two men rob a gas station. The clerk gets a shot off and kills one of the guys. His buddy gets charged for his friends murder, even though there was video that proved the clerk was the shooter. The perpertrator is responsible for anything that might happen during a robbery. Is it fair?
2007-07-06 04:18:10 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
NOT FAIR!!
2007-07-06 06:59:25 · update #1
You just need to look up the "Felony Murder Rule" for an explanation. The rule goes back to the very beginning of recorded law. If someone dies in the commission of a felony all the participants of the crime are guilty of felony murder even if a victim kills a bad guy defending himself.
It is first degree murder and possibly a death penalty. The law is intended to discourage crime. Read up on it and you'll see the many justifications and why it's fair. Almost every state has such a law.
2007-07-06 13:04:56 · answer #1 · answered by Misanthrope 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they conspired together to commit the crime. They perpetrated the crime, the guy behind the counter was defending himself. Why should the perpetrator not be responsible for what happens during the robbery? They made the conscious decision to commit the robbery. The clerk likely didn't go to work that day thinking "hey I'm going to shoot someone" - the other two put him in that situation.
2007-07-06 11:45:51 · answer #2 · answered by Hockeyfan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This clerk should be given a medal. There was a case where a female black marine, recently out of her service was being threatened by her ex. it was late at night and she had her baby with her. She used her training to defend herself and her home and kid and shot the ex. The result? SHE went to jail. NOW refused to defend her saying that since she didn't become a victim she couldn't be used as a domestic violence statistic. The ACLU didn't defend her and certainly the Marines didn't. ONLY the NRA provided for her defense and got her out. If we encouraged self defense we wouldn't have to worry about robberies, rapes, home invasions and muggings. It's like how kids can do whatever they want knowing if someone tries to smack them they will get charged with abuse. Criminals NEED to fear getting shot. Why should we have to be good little victims and wait for the police when we can fight back ourselves?? TOUGH SHI$ for the guy who was killed.
Vin
2007-07-06 11:25:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the criminal is responsible for ANY death resulting from the crime.
If they didn't rob the store the clerk wouldn't have shot him.
It's as simple as that.
2007-07-06 12:04:15 · answer #4 · answered by anthrotistic 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is fair. The criminals are responsible for the consequences of the crime.
It's not exactly murder one, they're not charged as if they shoot the victim. They're responsible for the death.
You're lucky. In my country, the clerk would be in jail charged of "abuse in self defense".
2007-07-06 11:37:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very fair.
The concept of "Joint Venture" culpability is important to think about.
The two "friends" would have been too cowardly to attempt the robbery on their own. Therefore the combined effort helps them attain one false gonad to attack a poor clerk trying to save himself from the threat.
The "friend" died because the other muderous thief helped put the robbery into action.
Good riddance to Scum #2.
This is extremely fair - just think about it.
2007-07-06 11:24:20 · answer #6 · answered by Cumjunkie Doner 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It sounds like a legal bind. The cause of the one robber's death is the fact that he was involved in an armed robbery. The shooter , in this case was defending himself and his property from the robbers. It seems fair to me.
2007-07-06 11:29:18 · answer #7 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is fair.
The other perpetrator committed a crime during which his buddy was killed. If he hadn't tried the robbery, no one would be hurt but he chose to do so and his friend got killed as a result of his decision.
He caused his friends death.....
2007-07-06 11:23:20 · answer #8 · answered by Jack 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's fair. If they hadn't committed a crime, the events that resulted wouldn't have happened.
2007-07-06 11:26:04 · answer #9 · answered by MJ3000 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Anything resulting from a criminal act is the fault of the perp. That's fine with me and other law abiding citizens.
2007-07-06 11:22:33 · answer #10 · answered by notyou311 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋