Murder?

[Dr. Cheese]

Brandon Ross Charged With Murder After Police Fatally Shoot 15-Year-Old Companion


This kid is an armed robber for sure, and he needs to be punished (and educated,) but the cop killed his accomplice. I think this is a very dangerous precedent. This is not the same as blaming the suspect for running over someone in a getaway car, or causing the cashier to die from a heart attack.

[Febs]

You know what's a good way to avoid getting charged with felony murder? Avoid engaging in felonies.

In any event, why would this be a "dangerous predecent"? The shooting of an accomplice by police is far more foreseeable to the felon than the death of a cashier due to a heart attack.

[Relic]

Did the officer deliberately aim for the accomplice though?
I dunno, not enough detail yet for me to form a strong opinion either way.
I guess it comes down to the adage: stupid games = stupid prizes. The real tragedy is that a 15's life is now forfeit and a 16 year old is pretty much doomed when given a different path in life, they might have had potential to do something with their lives...

Anyway, I'm a little off target - the murder charge is a little odd in this case. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. I guess if it were proven to be a deterrent it would be a great thing but I'd wager that it really has no effect at all.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by Relic

Did the officer deliberately aim for the accomplice though?

Williams was the accomplice. According to the report:

"When the officers told the teens to stop, Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction, Fox Chicago reports. Fearing for her life, the officer shot the 15-year-old, killing him."

[Gard]

Involve yourself in an armed robbery, expect the potential for things to turn against you - and in a very permanent fashion. It doesn't matter if you're the armed individual, if you're on the wrong side of the equation, you're fair game. There were many possible outcomes, even after things went south for the perpetrators, like the one with the gun dropping it, the one without the gun surrendering, etc, etc. Neither chose that path, apparently, and one paid the ultimate price for the stupidity of both.

Murder?

I won't even read the article - because it isn't. Period.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Febs

Williams was the accomplice. According to the report:

"When the officers told the teens to stop, Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction, Fox Chicago reports. Fearing for her life, the officer shot the 15-year-old, killing him."

That's why I don't see it as murder by the 16 year old. His accomplice pulled a gun on a cop, and got shot. That is a totally justifiable police shooting. More to the point, the 15 did it of his own volition, as far I can tell. If it can be proven that the other kid forced the dead one to go on the robbery, there might be a case, even then, I think it's a stretch to charge the surviving accomplice with murder.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

That's why I don't see it as murder by the 16 year old. His accomplice pulled a gun on a cop, and got shot. That is a totally justifiable police shooting. More to the point, the 15 did it of his own volition, as far I can tell. If it can be proven that the other kid forced the dead one to go on the robbery, there might be a case, even then, I think it's a stretch to charge the surviving accomplice with murder.

My apologies for my earlier post (and stupidity for not reading the article before posting ).

Now I fully understand.

Yes, the law is clear, ANYONE that is killed in the commission of an armed robbery gains the perpetrator a murder charge. I'm good with that.

Don't want to get charged with murder? Don't do something stupid.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by Gard

Murder?

I won't even read the article - because it isn't. Period.

Well, it is murder, because it is defined that way by the legislature in a statute which is based on a millenium of common law tradition. You can disagree with whether or it should qualify as murder, but to say that it "isn't, period" is simply wrong.

Edit: posted while you were typing your follow-up post.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Febs

Well, it is murder, because it is defined that way by the legislature in a statute which is based on a millenium of common law tradition. You can disagree with whether or it should qualify as murder, but to say that it "isn't, period" is simply wrong.

I misunderstood, I thought the OFFICER was being charged!

I read the article now, and see that the other robber is. Yeah, it's murder, cut and dried, IMO.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Gard

Involve yourself in an armed robbery, expect the potential for things to turn against you - and in a very permanent fashion. It doesn't matter if you're the armed individual, if you're on the wrong side of the equation, you're fair game. There were many possible outcomes, even after things went south for the perpetrators, like the one with the gun dropping it, the one without the gun surrendering, etc, etc. Neither chose that path, apparently, and one paid the ultimate price for the stupidity of both.

Murder?

I won't even read the article - because it isn't. Period.

I don't think anyone would argue that the surviving kid made a life changing bad decision by committing an armed robbery. An armed criminal is never a sympathetic figure, but I think we should all be concerned about the racheting up of charges. This kind of precedent could easily be used to snare people involved in things that are much more lightly regarded than armed robbery.

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

I don't think anyone would argue that the surviving kid made a life changing bad decision by committing an armed robbery. An armed criminal is never a sympathetic figure, but I think we should all be concerned about the racheting up of charges. This kind of precedent could easily be used to snare people involved in things that are much more lightly regarded than armed robbery.

As far as I know, any death in the commission of an armed felony has been a murder charge for decades, without any "ratcheting" going on.

I agree that one must be careful with "slippery slope" potentials in the law, but this is one I have to agree with - if you're going to do something as stupid as an armed felony, you need to pay the consequences when a life - victim or otherwise - is lost. Don't want to get charged with murder? Don't put yourself in the position to be so charged.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

I don't think anyone would argue that the surviving kid made a life changing bad decision by committing an armed robbery. An armed criminal is never a sympathetic figure, but I think we should all be concerned about the racheting up of charges. This kind of precedent could easily be used to snare people involved in things that are much more lightly regarded than armed robbery.

As long as it is only attached to Felonies, which are, by nature serious crimes, surely it shouldn't be an issue?

In this case, I have no sympathy what so ever for either of the criminals. That probably has a lot to do with the relatively mickey mouse laws we have over here...

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

As long as it is only attached to Felonies, which are, by nature serious crimes, surely it shouldn't be an issue?

In this case, I have no sympathy what so ever for either of the criminals. That probably has a lot to do with the relatively mickey mouse laws we have over here...

I am thinking of situations like drug cases or some other felony situation that is not violent, and in which people who are not considered "hardened criminals" might be entangled.

In cases like this, there would be a potential for selectively harsh enforcement of the laws.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Ah right, I only knew felonies as being serious crimes, was making the assumption they were all violent. My mistake!

[Gard]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

I am thinking of situations like drug cases or some other felony situation that is not violent, and in which people who are not considered "hardened criminals" might be entangled.

In cases like this, there would be a potential for selectively harsh enforcement of the laws.

Doc, if someone is carrying a gun, and they are involved in a felony, and during the commission of that felony someone is killed, it's pretty clear that it was a violent situation.

Trying to "bootstrap" that to a non-violent action is comparing apples to oranges - and if someone does try, I'll be standing right next to you screaming "FOUL!". Not the same thing here...sorry...

[kingpin2512]

It has been this way for a long time. I agree with you Gard. Don't want this to happen, then don't do something this stupid. I was taught this law awhile back. It makes sense to me.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Brandon Ross Charged With Murder After Police Fatally Shoot 15-Year-Old Companion


This kid is an armed robber for sure, and he needs to be punished (and educated,) but the cop killed his accomplice. I think this is a very dangerous precedent. This is not the same as blaming the suspect for running over someone in a getaway car, or causing the cashier to die from a heart attack.

Courtroom Tweets: Preliminary hearing for Carl Entrekin, charged in Michigan State Police Trooper Jeffrey Werda's crash death | MLive.com

1) Guy flees from cop. (cop A)
2) A different cop 10 miles away (cop B) hears the call and speeds in pursuit
3) Cop B rushing to call at 110+ MPH crashes his car. He gets ejected because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, and dies.
4) Guy gets charged with first degree manslaughter.

Now -
The cop was 6 miles from the chase when he crashed
Was never involved in the chase
He was going ~120mph (in violation of state police policy)
He wasn't using his lights (in violation of state police policy)
He wasn't wearing his seatbelt (violation of state police policy and state law) - but they're charging the guy fleeing with manslaughter.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

As long as it is only attached to Felonies, which are, by nature serious crimes, surely it shouldn't be an issue?

It can - depending on how we define felonies.

For example, here in Michigan the bar for a property felony has been dropping for years.

Grand theft is anything over $1000.

When the law was passed in 1961, it was $1000.
Today - it's $1000.

In 1961 you had to steal the equivalent of ~$7,000 in 2010 dollars to qualify as a felon, now it's only $1,000.

[Munjibunga]

Not murder. It's the law.

[40Hz]

If you commit a felony, you're generally held responsible for any and all 'collateral damage' (human or property) that occurs in its wake. There's nothing new about it. And legal precedent has long been established for that.