Seems a bit of a stretch...

[Patroklos]

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?

Did anyone say this? Yes, they are also responsible, but we are not in the habit of putting dead poeple on the witness stand, it smells bad.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


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.

They're dead, what do you want to do to them?

The living person, as well as the dead people, are guilty of creating a situation that directly resulted in deaths that otherwise would not have happened. I do not see why we should waste money trying the dead people but suit yourself.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
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.

Yes, they are responible for their own actions. They should not be held responsible for the actions of others.

The home owner could have just as easily grabbed a knife, a bat or a stapler. Why should the robber be held responsible because gun was chosen by someone other than himself?

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The living person, as well as the dead people, are guilty of creating a situation that directly resulted in deaths that otherwise would not have happened.

Oh so very true; but the home owner is the one that made the choice to kill them. He didn't have to choose to kill them. He could have done something else. Why hold the robber responsible for the home owners choice?

[Wiglaf]

Because the home owner clearly would not have shot anyone if they hadn't committed a felony by entering his house and beating a kid until he couldn't eat anymore.

You are right that this makes committing a felony very dicey. The robbers cannot know exactly what they will be charged with because they cannot forsee the exact consequences that their actions will have (will the police shoot my accomplices or accidentally hurt an innocent person? who knows?). This has a good deterrent effect as well. It makes robbers think about what could result from their actions.

Example time: If I fail a kid on his paper, and he kills himself, I'm not responsible. However, if I commit a felony that very really might lead to violence -- eg, robbing a bank -- then everyone in that bank becomes my responsibility because I could easily see that their might be some complications and risk to others.

[Japher]

I fine with the law, mainly because I don't plan on ever breaking into someone else's house... and I'm white.

If you commit a crime, and the acts of that crime cause other crimes to be committed you should be held, at least partially, responsible.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Why should the robber be held responsible because gun was chosen by someone other than himself?

He chose to come unprepared to a gun fight.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Donegeal


Its similar to the OJ case.

In what way? OJ was convicted in a civil trial rather than a criminal trial primarily because teh burden of proof is lower in the civil system (and the prosecutors in the criminal trial were morons, but that's another issue). He got off because they couldn't prove the facts of the case -- they couldn't prove that he's the one who committed the crime.

The facts don't sound like they are at issue in this case: Three men intended to break into a home and rob the residents. They intended to beat the children in order to convince their stepfather to comply. In the process of doing this, two of the perpetrators were killed by one of the victims, this was not intended. The facts are not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not the "unintended actions" law should be applied in this case in which perpetrators died, when its usual application is in cases where victims or bystanders die.

Myself, I'm inclined to say that, while the letter of the law allows the state to pursue this prosecution, common sense would dictate that the prosecutor not do so. The issue is one of prosecutorial discression as someone else has discussed.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
He [OJ Simpson] got off because they couldn't prove the facts of the case -- they couldn't prove that he's the one who committed the crime.

Wow! Did you and I see the same trial? The facts were well proven, he got off b/c of jury nullification.

[aneeshm]

The one that got away - kill him.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He chose to come unprepared to a gun fight.

Never bring a sword to a gunfight.

[Krill]

Not unless you start 4 foot away from teh other guys back, anyway.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Wezil
Wow! Did you and I see the same trial? The facts were well proven, he got off b/c of jury nullification.

No, he got off on burden of proof after the investigator/prosecution were shown to be cheating or lieing with regard to few small bits of evidence, and significant doubt made about the veracity of some other bits. If the prosecution has been caught even once lying, it is very hard to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the evidence doctrine of Falsa in unum, falsa in omnia is is reasonable and fair for a jury to doubt all evidence presented by a person caught in any falsehood or deception. I am a lawyer, and a rather anti crimminal pro prosecution one, and I can not fault that jury.

[Wiglaf]

I am a lawyer,and I can not fault that jury.

Apparently you're a pretty bad lawyer. This is the jury that did not know the difference between blood type and DNA.

[Krill]

I'd assume he is no worse than the rest of the scum sucking profession