[USA] Felony Murder: the murder charge where you don't kill anyone

[cheesyboy]

Ever heard of "Felony Murder"?

I hadn't. But apparently, it's quite the thing in USA.

(Apparently we had such a law, under common law, here in UK but it has long since been abolished)

Felony murder: why a teenager who didn't kill anyone faces 55 years in jail
Blake Layman broke into a house unarmed. The homeowner opened fire, injuring him and killing a friend. But Indiana law means he is officially a murderer

They ran through the kitchen, Layman pocketing a wallet on the kitchen table without stopping to think why it would be left there if the house was empty. They had a look around the spare bedroom and then indicated to each other it was time to leave.

That’s when the shooting started. Layman heard the boom of a gun and scrambled to hide in the bedroom closet. Danzele Johnson fell into the closet beside him. When Layman looked down he saw Johnson’s shirt stained red with blood. Layman crouched down in terror, and noticed that he too had been shot and that blood was streaming down his right leg.

Rodney Scott was not, as the boys had assumed, out of the house. He had been asleep upstairs and when he heard the commotion of the break-in grabbed his handgun. Not knowing that the intruders were unarmed, he let off a couple of rounds that put a bullet through Layman’s leg and hit Johnson in the chest, killing him.

......

He recalls that a couple of hours after his arrest, he was told by officials at the county jail in his home town of that he was being charged with “felony murder”. “I was shellshocked,” he told the Guardian. “Felony murder? That’s the first I’d heard of it. How could it be murder when I didn’t kill anyone?”

The charge was not a mistake. At the end of a four-day trial in September 2013 in which they were all judged as adults, Layman, Sharp and Sparks were found guilty of felony murder. (Quiroz pleaded guilty under a plea deal and was given 45 years.) Layman was dispatched to the prison, still aged 17, to begin his 55 years in a lock-up cell.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/felony-murder-teenager-55-years-jail-indiana

Effectively, the law seems to say that burglary is such a forseeably dangerous pursuit that someone's death is a likely result, ergo any death resulting from the action is placed upon the burglar as murder.

55 years in prison, too! And he was aged 16

Seems a very onerous law, a particularly in this case, where it was a perpetrator who died.

 

[vanandjuanunited]

Actions have consequences. If he didn't break it it wouldn't have happened therefore he was responsible for the outcome

 

[dirtychinchilla]

That's so messed up. They also have a similar charge in America where you take responsibility for someone else killing someone else, as long as you were part of their group. So you have people who were in a gang, but innocent of murder, being charged for murder because their mate did it.

 

[hurfdurf]

So your title is incorrect, because it could be very easily argued that his actions resulted in the murder of his friend.

 

[stulid]

Seems logical to me.

 

[Tefal]

That's so messed up. They also have a similar charge in America where you take responsibility for someone else killing someone else, as long as you were part of their group. So you have people who were in a gang, but innocent of murder, being charged for murder because their mate did it.

which is very sensible really.

You take part in a group crime you are all equally responsible for the outcomes.

It's just RICO for non monetary actions.

 

[Amp34]

No, the person that shot two unarmed men is the murderer.*

It's scary that a country seen as so progressive (relative) has so many draconian laws. When stories like this come out it really does show how backwards later of US culture are.

I'm glad that in the UK/Europe we don't have such attitudes (or at least the judicial system doesn't).

* yes there is the self defence angle but at the very least the defender should be investigated in such open and shut cases.

 

[Tefal]

No, the person that shot two unarmed men is the murderer.

It's scary that a country seen as so progressive (relative) has so many draconian laws. When stories like this come out it really does show how backwards later of US culture are.

err no the person who shot two criminals breaking into his house while fearing for his life an property is not a murderer.

Once the men were incapacitated he did not make any follow up attacks to finish them off or anything, he notified the authorities.

if he had then shot the guy as he lay wounded then yes he'd be a murderer, as it is he simply defended himself.

 

[Greboth]

That makes no sense, being charged with murder where your actions lead to the death of another I can understand like dangerous driving where a passenger gets killed. If 2 people enter a house both of their own free will how is either one responsible for the other?

 

[Amp34]

err no the person who shot two criminals breaking into his house while fearing for his life an property is not a murderer.

Once the men were incapacitated he did not make any follow up attacks to finish them off or anything, he notified the authorities.

if he had then shot the guy as he lay wounded then yes he'd be a murderer, as it is he simply defended himself.

See edit for clarification.

The reality he shot two unarmed "boys" with no warning. It may not be murder (although in the UK he may have been tried for that) but the thief certainly wasn't a murderer.

 

[jsmoke]

He wont actually do 55 years they will appeal and get a reduced sentence.

 

[cheesyboy]

err no the person who shot two criminals breaking into his house while fearing for his life an property is not a murderer.

Once the men were incapacitated he did not make any follow up attacks to finish them off or anything, he notified the authorities.

if he had then shot the guy as he lay wounded then yes he'd be a murderer, as it is he simply defended himself.

In USA, the householder would never be investigated for murder in a case like this. Their self-defence laws are different.

In the UK, he may well have been charged. We know about Tony Martin.

But even in USA, it doesn't seem especially equitable that two (or four, in this case) criminals can commit a crime, one get killed in the process (not by the others), and the others be guilty of his murder. It's crazy.

 

[cheesyboy]

He wont actually do 55 years they will appeal and get a reduced sentence.

Thanks for the contribution. Even a half or quarter sentence seems a little overboard, don't you think?

 

[stulid]

Do the crime, get everything coming to you.

 

[Mynight]

It seems a rather stupid law. Although the burglar didn't murder his accomplice you could easily argue he was negligent in preventing the murder of his accomplice.

The USA is well known for the stereotype of everyone having a gun. They should also know invading someone's property allows the resident to defend themselves. By bringing the accomplice along he's negligent in his death but he's not the murderer he helped it happen though.

Still think murder is the wrong word.

 

[cheesyboy]

Do the crime, get everything coming to you.

Even serving a sentence for a killing you didn't commit?

Well, I guess that's the law, everything's hunky dory, yeah? We just accept laws as being just and equitable by simple virtue that they are the laws?

 

[Malevolence]

Seems fair to me.

 

[VoG]

No, the person that shot two unarmed men is the murderer.*

* yes there is the self defence angle but at the very least the defender should be investigated in such open and shut cases.

He wasn't to know they were unarmed tho, given the fact that in the states guns are so prevalent they're for sale in local supermarkets, from a home owners point of view your probably safer just assuming a burglars going to be armed & act accordingly.

 

[stulid]

Even serving a sentence for a killing you didn't commit?

Well, I guess that's the law, everything's hunky dory, yeah? We just accept laws as being just and equitable by simple virtue that they are the laws?

Yes, don't go breaking into peoples houses and commit other crimes. You take the responsibility for your actions.

 

[cheesyboy]

Yes, don't go breaking into peoples houses and commit other crimes. You take the responsibility for your actions.

But his action wasn't to kill his friend. His friend made his own choice to enter the property - is getting killed not entirely his own responsibility? Surely by your logic it is?