Seems a bit of a stretch...

[Patroklos]

Hughes did not attempt to rob the place with the intent of getting his partners killed.

They were certainly prepared for and willing to use deadly force (hitting the kid in the head with a baseball bat should be attempted murder), they set up the dominos, and knocked them down.

[Patroklos]

Although laws similar to this cover all such deaths casued by the underlying crimes, it is rare that they are used with for the deaths of accomplaces. They a typically used for the deaths of victems, hostages, respodners, and bystanders. Most commonlyit would be deaths caused during pursuit.

It might be that this charge was made to cut short the inevitable demands by the same derranged NAACP nuts to have the white shooter charged with murder. You know it would happen.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Patroklos


They were certainly prepared for and willing to use deadly force (hitting the kid in the head with a baseball bat should be attempted murder), they set up the dominos, and knocked them down.

What a country we live in. We'll do anything to obsolve ourselves of our own actions just so we can place blame on someone else.

[Pekka]

http://www.monkeydoo.com/view/videos/305/granny_machine_gun.html

Next time, grandma takes over and no one escapes

[Patroklos]

What a country we live in. We'll do anything to obsolve ourselves of our own actions just so we can place blame on someone else.

You probably don't realize this, but what a perfect comment to support the prosecutor

Holding a murderous home robber responsible for the consequences of his actions

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Pekka
Perhaps ridiculous if we look at the legal matters but karma is a *****, I don't have sympathy for people who barge into the homes of others and do these kinds of things. Shot in the back? Good. One got away,

Not having sympathy and prosecuting them for murder should be two different things.

I hate when people take sides on a debate based on who they have sympathy for.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I didn't mean to say that it was. The robbers were the ones at fault here though. You swing a bat at someones head you are asking to get shot.

At fault of what?

There is NOT one universal "at fault".

You can be at fault of something and not at fault of something else.

Heck, both sides can be at fault of the same thing or of different things.

This isn't a Disney movie with the bad guys and the good guys and we just have to find which is which. I don't think anybody is arguing that the robbers should get away clean, the argument is whether they should be prosecuted for murder.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Also, I call this a home invasion since the robbers engaged with the victims instead of just running when they realized someone was home. Or possible they knew there was someone home when they broke in. This is one where I can't see at all a civil rights group defending the minorities.

So is it home invasion or murder ? (or both?)

[Pekka]

Well I did mean that when it comes to legality of things, it's ridiculous. So what do you want? A cookie?

[DinoDoc]

My heart bleeds for the thief.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
the argument is whether they should be prosecuted for murder.

Why not?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

Three times in one day we have items where I don't side with the police.

The world will end soon.

It has been very well established that felons are responsible for the actions they and their fellow criminals commit during a crime. This is not much of a stretch at all.

Judging by your posts you have little understanding of the law, which makes me concerned since you have a gun and are supposed to enforce it.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Donegeal


I understand your point of view, but to me it seems more a civil matter rather than a legal matter. Hughes did not attempt to rob the place with the intent of getting his partners killed.

Its similar to the OJ case. He was found not guilty of criminal responability, but was found civily responsable.

I absolutely agree with Donegal.

Each of these three men was in it by its own decision regardless if he even thought of the risk involved in these actions or not. The only difference between these 3 people is, that 2 of them got their capital punishment at the hands of some bullets, whereas the third one survived.

I am for harsh punishment especially considering the brain damage they caused to the stepson, but it should be a punishment for the things the three men did and not a punishment under the hair raising assumption, that Hughes is personally responsible for the death of his 2 accomplices.

[Wiglaf]

Doesn't matter what his intent was . If you commit a robbery just out to get money, and someone dies because you were committing that felony -- whether the police shot that person, or you shot that person -- it's on you. It wouldn't have happened if you had not put everyone at risk in the first place by committing a serious crime without regard to their welfare.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Doesn't matter what his intent was . If you commit a robbery just out to get money, and someone dies because you were committing that felony -- whether the police shot that person, or you shot that person -- it's on you. It wouldn't have happened if you had not put everyone at risk in the first place by committing a serious crime without regard to their welfare.

So my accomplices who also decided by themselves to rob the house/bank are not responsible for their deaths? Only myself as only surviving member of the gang?

Yes, that sounds ridicuolus.