Controversial to Whom?
- Before they entered the darkened house, Justin Doyle and his friends checked to make sure it was empty. They knocked on the front door and cased the exterior. Then they threw a rock through the window.
The three teens knew the owner of the house they planned to burglarize that night in 2008 was in the hospital. They had not anticipated that his friend was asleep inside. Awakened by the breaking glass and fearful for his life, the man grabbed a gun from a dresser drawer. When one of the teens opened the bedroom door, the man fired.
The youngest of the three intruders, a slight 14-year-old in a red hoodie named Travis Castle, was killed.
Doyle, then 15, was charged with murder in his friend's death.
The "felony murder" charge, now under attack because, by golly, it's just not fair that people who didn't actually kill someone, are charged in the deaths of those people, usually their accomplices-in-crime. This hasn't been "controversial" that we can ever recall. In fact, it should be taught in every school andbroadcast in every media outlet, that if you participate in a crime that results in any death, you'll be charged in that death, based solely on your stupidity. This entire removal of personal responsibility is unacceptable.
Labels: dumb ideas
posted by SCC at 12:05 AM
74 Comments:
This is the group that is going to ruin this country, so these fucking clowns would rather see them punished with the book thrown at them for a 3 year sentence on a burglary.... Oh boy!!!! Yea tell that to some of the families these shitbags kill.
Poor felons!
Tough shit. Poor little criminals should have pled it out.
Too bad the homeowners friends only got one of the little b@$tards.
In the U.K. We are experiencing a similar situation with police officers being berated for stopping and searching the very demographic that commits most street crime. We are also seeing a judicial assault on a very useful law known as joint enterprise.
Of course our rime figures are rising, no one seems willing to explain why.
I agree, but also, one needs to explain the law to citizens. It's a bit difficult to understand, so thank you for explaining it. The reason for the law needs to be explained Ed too. This site is great. We need this to educate the citizens.
Meanwhile in Japan. If 4 people are in a car and driver is DUI, all 4 can be charged with DUI.
Liberals want the words "personal responsibility" removed from the English language. They are to be replaced with "someone else's fault".
It's fair.
Toni Preckwinkle's candidate for State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, also wants prosecutions for students fighting while on school property eliminated because having a police record can ruin the futures of the "honor students." Of course, the fights have escalated in terms of violence to the point where Anita Alvarez has been able to charge the youthful offenders as adults and file felony charges. For Foxx, it is just simple schoolyard nonsense and we all ought to look the other way and forget about it.
Why wasn't the Gentle Giant's partner, Mr Hands up don't shoot charged? Just Axin?
Probably has aclu written all over it. They are a cancer that needs to be excised immediately!!
"The youngest of the three intruders, a slight 14-year-old in a red hoodie named Travis Castle, was killed".
I'm totally digging the irony in Travis meeting his demise at the hands of someone exercising their rights as delineated in the Castle Doctrine.
"Police reform" and "criminal justice reform" are the liberal agenda and society will suffer. Less police action = more violence, death and mayhem by those segments of society incapable of comporting to civilized rules of behavior.
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
I am glad the person asleep in the home used a gun to shoot the invading burglars.
That said, I think it is a corruption of our justice system to charge any of the other burglars with "murder". Manslaughter is a more appropriate charge. Murder entails the deliberate, pre meditated intent to kill some one and then killing that person. If someone dies as a consequence of the commitment of a felony crime - that's manslaughter.
Our justice system is increasing changed to reflect emotion, frustration - try to charge people with crimes because certain groups in power don't like that person.
Conservatives, race realists, illegal alien restrictionists, anti Islamic extremist, traditional Christians these are increasing "out groups" and certain powers that be are perverting our legal system to make out of favor political/religious believes to be crimes like in Canada and the European Union
Hate Crimes
Thought Crimes
Creating a climate of intolerance etc.
Nah, Chicago has enough real murderers that need to be caught and prosecuted for murder - we don't need to prosecute burglars for murder.
A commenter on that article took the trouble to look up Justin Doyle on the IDOC site and found that he's listed as having a nice big swastika tattooed onto his chest, along with some run-of-the-mill gang signs.
Yet the Tribune only showed his 'memorial' tat to the guy he got killed on his heist. And is pushing the 'poor innocent's one mistake' crapola.
Funny, that.
This reminds me...
Should not Dorian Johnson have been charged in the death of Mike Brown? He also should have been charged with SOMETHING over starting the Hands Up Don't Shoot BS. His lies played a big role in the Ferguson Effect playing out in an inner city near you.
There ought to be another law that you cannot start a civil action against someone until any criminal charges against YOU are decided and if YOU are convicted of a felony you cannot file suit against the original victim and law enforcement who responded to the incident.
so, "castle" doctrine?
I can't wait to get out of here......
A life lesson others can learn from, although it's a bit too late for these kids probably.
Maybe there should be a vote on all existing laws in which all registered voters are allowed to vote on which laws they'd like to repeal. That seems like the only fair thing to do.
So 2 guys with guns rob a bank with guns, only 1 does tha talking so only 1 gets charged with robbery, that makes perfect liberal sense.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This kid was on a path to nowhere. If it wasn't this burglary it would have been something else. Just think of the atrocities he would have inflicted on society if he would have gotten possessio of the firearms in the house he burglarized. Ps. High rate of Hepatitis C and HIV in prison. Enjoy those prison tats while you can
Perfect example. Thanks SCC. This is what I'll be discussing at the dinner table tonight with my soon to be teenage kids.
But this is still Cook County, so no one will be found guilty of felony murder. I'll just say it's really sad that this poor young man's life had to be lost in such a senseless way. Just kidding! Rot in peace, you worthless piece of shit! I hope the rest of your family joins you soon. Nice shooting, Mr. Citizen. We need more citizens to arm themselves legally and end the lives of criminals.
This is what happens when society accommodates liberals/progressives. If you can't conform your behavior to the law . . . change the law
Damn the best laid plans of these thugs and burglars often go awry.
but i didn't do it in fact i didn't think it was gonna be an outcome so just forget about this death and give me freedom because i'm a juvenile or as a juvenile i was deprieved
Actually it's kind of dumb to prosecute people under laws they reasonably wouldn't have any idea existed. It's a little like the marijuana DUI situation -- you're guilty if you have it in your system, no matter how long ago you toked, and no matter if you were impaired or not. Ignorance of the law has been no defense or excuse, but in the regulatory police state in which we have over-criminalized our laws, nobody could be expected to "know" the law, and depending on the circumstances, reasonably ignorance of the law ought to be an excuse. So says the conservative federal appeals Judge Kozinski, anyway, and he's right. He has a lot of other interesting ideas to rein in you LE folks (and prosecutors are included in that). The article is called Criminal Law 2.0 and it appeared as the introduction to this year's Georgetown Law Review Criminal Procedure Project. Must-read for anybody involved in the criminal law. Read the stuff about the Phoenix detective -- makes the Chicago cases seem like small potatoes.
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
Okay, this has to be chumming.
If this knucklehead is even remotely serious, the retarded logic here is dazzling.
Nah, Chicago has enough real murderers that need to be caught and prosecuted for murder - we don't need to prosecute burglars for murder.
2/20/2016 08:26:00 AM
That's right, just drop them before they exit the domicile.
Wrong place, wrong time, wrong purpose, wrong guy to fuck with.
Don't break what's not yours, don't take what's not yours, and you won't get waked at Moonpie's Mortuary, Barbecue an' Grill.
Lawyer here. The felony murder rule is centuries old. It is not controversial. It is a bedrock principle of criminal law taught in every criminal law class in every law school. The (rather obvious) purpose is to prevent people from committing felonies. One of the examples in the caselaw taught in law school is that, if a criminal dies in the commission of a felony, his co-criminals participating in the felony are on the hook for his death.
This goes without saying, and I am preaching to the choir in this forum, but it is absolutely frightening to see how prosecutors, courts and legislatures are advocating for criminals to escape accountability for their actions in the name of "racial justice" (i.e., pandering for minority votes.) We are spiraling toward lawlessness and anarchy.
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
Looks like another idiot who doesn't understand actions, especially bad ones, many times have unintended consequences. Don't do dumb shit if you're not ready to pay the price. The law makes sense.
We get it, you're ready for Hillary.
If they would have killed the victim in his own residence in his own bedroom. do you think that all of the offenders should be
charged or just the one with the firearm that shot the victim ? When I read some of the posts from some of the persons who
possibly are police officers I am astounded. "Take a vote and let the people decide what laws need to be removed ?". A few of
you need to be re-instructed as to the law, and to the Constitution of the United States. Look into the powers of each branch
of government. All you un-liscensed lawyers and legal experts really need to get some basic knowledge. If you missed it
when taught at the academy pick up a book and get educated. It's the most important part of our job.
Just sick and tired of them all
Anonymous said...
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
Here is an idea..............don't break the law. There are consequences for actions.
If they weren't Burglarizing in the first place, the little darling would still be alive today drinking hot cocoa with his pals.
I can't be called a liberal by any realistic description of liberal but sometimes these kind of cases are a wild stretch.
I didn't see any cops that just happened to be on scene of the shooting of MacDonald charged with anything.
It somehow seems unfair to charge someone with a serious crime just for being there. Maybe it is time for the legislature to revisit this issue.
NAC
This is the ultimate goal of BLM. The excusing of their criminal behavior on all fronts. They want to allowed to commit whatever crimes they want with impunity, god forbid that they get a job. They already feel empowered, look at the crime rates by blacks throughout this country so far this year. It's exponential growth. It's getting worse and more violent. For those who are not the police, get a gun and learn how to use it. You are going to need it.
Anonymous said...
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
I can explain it to you, but I cant make you comprehend it. If the group of little bastards had not conspired to commit a felony (a failed felony), then the little jagoff would still be alive! The victim, who fired in self defense cannot be held accountable for the death. someone has to be held accountable so..... how abouth the crew who conspired to victimize a helpless citizen? Sounds fair to me. Would love to hear your response.... other than "it's a stupid fucking law"
"it's a stupid law"
A little history lesson:
Ever hear the saying "In for a penny, in for a pound?
A pound is an old British currency denomination similar to our dollar.
The concept is accountability. That if you join in with a band of ne-er do wells, since you are a willing participant in whatever criminal activity your band engages in, you own it all. Every criminal act by every cohort. This concept goes back at least as far English Common Law and the Magna Carts days.
Probably goes back even farther.
Not a silly law but a basic legal principle.
Just like personal responsibility USED to be.
To 8:20 am.
You homeless vagrant.
You have to be not to recognize the terms of basic civility.
You choose to commit a crime. Bad stuff happens. Your actions and choices created the bad stuff. You get all the the burden just like you wanted all the ill gotten gains. Noted more articulatly earlier, it's basic. Stay home. Play video games. Who cares. Choose to commit crime on others... you are all in on what happens.
Idiots.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Actually it's kind of dumb to prosecute people under laws they reasonably wouldn't have any idea existed. It's a little like the marijuana DUI situation -- you're guilty if you have it in your system, no matter how long ago you toked, and no matter if you were impaired or not. Ignorance of the law has been no defense or excuse, but in the regulatory police state in which we have over-criminalized our laws, nobody could be expected to "know" the law, and depending on the circumstances, reasonably ignorance of the law ought to be an excuse. So says the conservative federal appeals Judge Kozinski, anyway, and he's right. ....................
2/20/2016 01:17:00 PM
Blah Blah Blah another BLM legal mind.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I can't be called a liberal by any realistic description of liberal but sometimes these kind of cases are a wild stretch.
I didn't see any cops that just happened to be on scene of the shooting of MacDonald charged with anything.
It somehow seems unfair to charge someone with a serious crime just for being there. Maybe it is time for the legislature to revisit this issue.
NAC
2/20/2016 05:51:00 PM
The criminals didn't 'just happen to be there' inside someone else's home; they PARTICIPATED in planning and executing the felony. It's not like they were passersby.
Anonymous said...
I can't be called a liberal by any realistic description of liberal but sometimes these kind of cases are a wild stretch.
I didn't see any cops that just happened to be on scene of the shooting of MacDonald charged with anything.
It somehow seems unfair to charge someone with a serious crime just for being there. Maybe it is time for the legislature to revisit this issue.
NAC
2/20/2016 05:51:00 PM
They weren't "just being there".
They were participating in the commission of a crime.
"I didn't see any cops that just happened to be on scene of the shooting of MacDonald charged with anything."
MacDonald was an OFFENDER committing a crime. He was NOT a victim.
Sheesh!
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
Not too bright,are ya?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
I can explain it to you, but I cant make you comprehend it. If the group of little bastards had not conspired to commit a felony (a failed felony), then the little jagoff would still be alive! The victim, who fired in self defense cannot be held accountable for the death. someone has to be held accountable so..... how abouth the crew who conspired to victimize a helpless citizen? Sounds fair to me. Would love to hear your response.... other than "it's a stupid fucking law"
---
Here's my response. It's the law - he has to suffer the consequences until it's changed. I get it. But it's a JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE - get it? Now, all of a sudden the one kid is charged with MURDER? Get it? It's not hard my friend. It's not hard.
This is not a robbery gone awry where the victim suffers a heart attack and dies. This is a case of JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE of one of the offenders.
It's a stupid fucking law. It gets stupider every time I think about it. I just thought about it again, and it got 1.2x as stupid.
Ya, the kid fucked up. Charge him with residential burglary, not murder. No murder occurred here.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Lawyer here. The felony murder rule is centuries old. It is not controversial. It is a bedrock principle of criminal law taught in every criminal law class in every law school. The (rather obvious) purpose is to prevent people from committing felonies. One of the examples in the caselaw taught in law school is that, if a criminal dies in the commission of a felony, his co-criminals participating in the felony are on the hook for his death.
This goes without saying, and I am preaching to the choir in this forum, but it is absolutely frightening to see how prosecutors, courts and legislatures are advocating for criminals to escape accountability for their actions in the name of "racial justice" (i.e., pandering for minority votes.) We are spiraling toward lawlessness and anarchy.
2/20/2016 02:06:00 PM
---
I have no idea what race these kids are. And I get the BLM goal of making everything legal because too many blacks are in prison. And that nearly makes my head explode. It's the 'soft bigotry of lowered expectations' of the American left. I get that whole side issue.
And I am a lawyer too, member of the bar in the state of Illinois. And I am a long-time detective. So go fuck yourself.
And the question I would ask you is: Has there been any English case law that distinguishes between the robbery victim who has a heart attack (yes, charge all the offenders with murder I am on board), and an offender who is justifiably killed? That's the question I would ask.
What if one of the offenders fell off the roof of a house attempting to do a burglary and died? No crime right? SHould the co-offender then be charged with murder? Same same. Please discuss amongst yourselves.
This is my opinion. It's just an opinion. I am not on board with the BLM agenda of "set my people free at any cost" and I do feel, that, based on crime statistics, a certain race, in contrast to what Obama and Preckwinkle have stated, are actually UNDERREPRESENTED in prison. Don't get me started on that.
Kim Foxx will do away with the felony murder rule - her boss Toni Preckwinkle told her so. By the way, just saw that Loevy & Loevy, yes the same lawyers that have made a profession out of suing police officers is strongly backing the Foxx campaign:
Loevy, Arthur
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Loevy & Loevy 1040 N Lake Shore Dr
Apt 35B
Chicago, IL 60611-6168 $15,000.00
2/18/2016 1A
Friends for Foxx
$15 GRAND - NO SMALL CHANGE - GEE, I WONDER WHY LOEVY AND LOEVY WOULD WANT SOMEONE LIKE KIM FOXX AS STATE'S ATTORNEY
NAC, Not a Cop, Flounder
You are a liberal, you just decided to liberally view a law that has been on the books for a very long time and has been upheld in court.
These guys conspired to commit a felony (burglary). The cops in the Laquan McDonald case did not conspire to kill Laquan. The burglary happened within a private residence in which they had no legal right to be, the Laquan shooting happened on a public street that the police had every right to be on and were responding to a call. That is why the law applies to them.
Conclusion, you are still a grade A moron and a liberal. The more people like you make exceptions for people's bad behavior, the more it will increase. Let me put it in the simplest of terms so you understand, when you do bad things, bad things can happen to you.
NAF (Not a Flounder)
So if someone breaks into my home, murders me, whether it be 3, or 13, I as a citizen, think all, (3,or 13),should be arrested and convicted for first degree murder.
-Cook County resident
No, NAC....you ARE a liberal. Everything you post on here speaks volumes to that fact. Now be a good little liberal and go drink your kook-aid like obama told you.
Start teaching the little animals, K-5th grade about law, and what happen's 2 u
when u brake it?
Anonymous said...
I can't be called a liberal by any realistic description of liberal but sometimes these kind of cases are a wild stretch.
I didn't see any cops that just happened to be on scene of the shooting of MacDonald charged with anything.
It somehow seems unfair to charge someone with a serious crime just for being there. Maybe it is time for the legislature to revisit this issue.
NAC
The cops on the scene of the McDonald shooting are there because they are answering a call for service, (doing their Job).
They were not conspiring to commit a crime, like the burglar's were. The events happening after the shooting may require some investigation and possibly some charges after a fair look into all of the things that may or may not have happened afterwards. Your logic is more than flawed, you seem to have no thought process at all and are incapable of anything more than hate and assumptions prior to any investigation to determining of the actual facts.
Lawyer here. The felony murder rule is centuries old. It is not controversial. It is a bedrock principle of criminal law taught in every criminal law class in every law school. The (rather obvious) purpose is to prevent people from committing felonies. One of the examples in the caselaw taught in law school is that, if a criminal dies in the commission of a felony, his co-criminals participating in the felony are on the hook for his death.
This goes without saying, and I am preaching to the choir in this forum, but it is absolutely frightening to see how prosecutors, courts and legislatures are advocating for criminals to escape accountability for their actions in the name of "racial justice" (i.e., pandering for minority votes.) We are spiraling toward lawlessness and anarchy.
2/20/2016 02:06:00 PM
Well said Counselor. It's too bad that 99% of your contemporaries make the 1% like you look bad.
To "deleted again:"
Obviously, you're doing something wrong. Usually, people learn from their mistakes....you know, like "don't touch a hot stove," or "cross with the light, not against it," or even "don't rip of the dope tip."
If you get deleted more than once, you're doing it wrong, probably using "code words" and trolling for a reaction. Congratulations, you got your reaction.
You're smart enough to use a computer and notice things - now learn.
I suspect the main push behind this is to further discourage citizens from defending themselves. There will be a push for home owners to "deescalate" the situation. Personally I think the home owner should get a medal.
I'm a law-and-order kind of guy. Break into my house and I will introduce you to my shiny Colt Python. The felony murder rule make absolute sense when a citizen dies during any violent felony. But I'm not comfortable using the rule on juveniles who commit non-violent crimes (unarmed) and have no intent to hurt anyone, where only criminals are killed. Putting Justin Doyle into adult court to choose between a murder trial, or pleading to lesser charges (much worse than his actual crime of residential burglary) isn't very sporting. Had the 15-year-old punk gone to juvenile court for his actual crime, there was a good chance he could become a productive citizen one day, or at least be employed.
Sure, he still might have turned out bad. But as it is we're paying over $40K per year (Vera Institute) to incarcerate him. Justin is expected to serve 15 years, so that adds up. After 15-years, we will have produced a 30-year-old, heavily muscled and tatted felon. Unemployable, angry, and having few options, I don't expect he will become a productive citizen. Instead he will likely commit more crimes, perhaps violent crimes, and end up back in prison, once again at taxpayer expense.
In summary, I believe that the use of the felony murder rule in Justin's case is (1) unfair, (2) likely to result in even more crime, and (3) a 15 year burden on taxpayers at a minimum, probably more.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
it's a bullshit law - come on
it's one thing if they do a robbery and the victim dies - then I can see it, but in this case where one shithead is killed justifiably? How the fuck can that be murder? If it's justifiable for one guy it can't be murder for the other guy.
It's the law I get it - but it's a stupid fucking law - period.
2/20/2016 08:15:00 AM
Okay, this has to be chumming.
If this knucklehead is even remotely serious, the retarded logic here is dazzling.
2/20/2016 01:45:00 PM
Easy...
Don't do dumb shit.
Doing dumb shit is stupid.
Stupid should hurt.
The liberal apologists can't wrap their pointy heads
around this truth. Fuck 'em...
@ 2/20/2016 02:06:00 PM
-----------
Correct.
Felony murder rule is as old as the hills.
Only the 2-year olds at the Libune are stupid enough to call it new and contoversial.
And they wonder why no one reads their paper.
Blah Blah Blah another BLM legal mind.
2/21/2016 12:30:00 AM
Not BLM but go ahead, keep your mind closed to new ideas. Blah, blah, blah, you will be left behind.
Here's my response. It's the law - he has to suffer the consequences until it's changed. I get it. But it's a JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE - get it? Now, all of a sudden the one kid is charged with MURDER? Get it? It's not hard my friend. It's not hard.
This is not a robbery gone awry where the victim suffers a heart attack and dies. This is a case of JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE of one of the offenders.
It's a stupid fucking law. It gets stupider every time I think about it. I just thought about it again, and it got 1.2x as stupid.
Ya, the kid fucked up. Charge him with residential burglary, not murder. No murder occurred here.
2/21/2016 09:47:00 AM
Don't bother arguing with this guy. He doesn't get it and he never will. It's way to complex for him to get obviously. Very similar to trying to explain to the ACLU that they are mainly responsible for the recent crime increase. They'll never get it and neither does he. Evidently it is that hard.
Here's my response. It's the law - he has to suffer the consequences until it's changed. I get it. But it's a JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE - get it? Now, all of a sudden the one kid is charged with MURDER? Get it? It's not hard my friend. It's not hard.
This is not a robbery gone awry where the victim suffers a heart attack and dies. This is a case of JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE of one of the offenders.
It's a stupid fucking law. It gets stupider every time I think about it. I just thought about it again, and it got 1.2x as stupid.
Ya, the kid fucked up. Charge him with residential burglary, not murder. No murder occurred here.
2/21/2016 09:47:00 AM
Thank God you're not a copper, or if you are, maybe handing out radios in the District may be your skill level. Hopefully you have some clout for a merit promotion to Dic, because you ain't gonna make it by test score...Get it?
"It somehow seems unfair to charge someone with a serious crime just for being there."
Wrong, dogbreath. NO ONE gets charged "just for being there". They are charged because they were PARTICIPANTS in the crime.
Anonymous said...
Actually it's kind of dumb to prosecute people under laws they reasonably wouldn't have any idea existed. It's a little like the marijuana DUI situation -- you're guilty if you have it in your system, no matter how long ago you toked, and no matter if you were impaired or not. Ignorance of the law has been no defense or excuse, but in the regulatory police state in which we have over-criminalized our laws, nobody could be expected to "know" the law, and depending on the circumstances, reasonably ignorance of the law ought to be an excuse. So says the conservative federal appeals Judge Kozinski, anyway, and he's right. He has a lot of other interesting ideas to rein in you LE folks (and prosecutors are included in that). The article is called Criminal Law 2.0 and it appeared as the introduction to this year's Georgetown Law Review Criminal Procedure Project. Must-read for anybody involved in the criminal law. Read the stuff about the Phoenix detective -- makes the Chicago cases seem like small potatoes.
2/20/2016 01:17:00 PM
Based on your posting, I'm going to guess that you are under 35 years old, which means that I have been doing this job longer than you've been alive. I have put many, many bad people in prison, some for minor felonies, some for class X felonies, a few who actually received the death penalty. But then George Ryan gave them a free ride for the rest of their lives. I may be just a cop, but I'm not stupid. I graduated from Loyola University, John Marshall Law School (admittedly not a lawyer because I never sat for the bar) and a Masters from IIT. Part of American Jurisprudence is the fact that American citizens are educated enough to know the law. Every public school in America is required to teach a "civics" class, educating our youth about the three branches of government and their roles. It is also supposed to teach our youth how to research and read laws. Hence, the legal argument that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". As far as your DUI argument, if you "toked" and a subsequent blood/urine tests shows THC in your system, how can argue that you are not impaired? Maybe if you can cite some science to prove otherwise, but I'm thinking that if any trace of it is in your system, there is a level of impairment, no matter how slight.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So if someone breaks into my home, murders me, whether it be 3, or 13, I as a citizen, think all, (3,or 13),should be arrested and convicted for first degree murder.
-Cook County resident
Yes! Unless you can reach out from the grave and actually identify which of the 13 you do not desire to see prosecuted, we will charge all of them with your murder. (Well, in reality, the first one to sing on the others will probably get a pass.... that's a ghetto civics lesson for all you south and west siders! Do NOT listen to Loevy and Loevy! Listen to your detective. He/she will be more honest with you)
"Over-Criminalized our laws"..?
WTF? You're voting for Bernie, aren't you?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Here's my response. It's the law - he has to suffer the consequences until it's changed. I get it. But it's a JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE - get it? Now, all of a sudden the one kid is charged with MURDER? Get it? It's not hard my friend. It's not hard.
This is not a robbery gone awry where the victim suffers a heart attack and dies. This is a case of JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE of one of the offenders.
It's a stupid fucking law. It gets stupider every time I think about it. I just thought about it again, and it got 1.2x as stupid.
Ya, the kid fucked up. Charge him with residential burglary, not murder. No murder occurred here.
2/21/2016 09:47:00 AM
Thank God you're not a copper, or if you are, maybe handing out radios in the District may be your skill level. Hopefully you have some clout for a merit promotion to Dic, because you ain't gonna make it by test score...Get it?
2/22/2016 08:11:00 AM
---
YAWN. Another Sally Struthers online school graduate heard from.
anyway ...I was googling the rule and found this tidbit
The rule has been abolished in England and Wales[3] and in Northern Ireland.[4] In Canada, it has been held to be unconstitutional, as breaching the principles of fundamental justice.[5][6] In some jurisdictions (such as Victoria, Australia), the common law felony murder (called constructive murder) rule has been abolished, but has been replaced by a similar statutory provision in the Crimes Act 1958.[7] Similarly, in NSW, common law has been overridden and the question needs only be dealt with through statutory construction and application.[8]
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So if someone breaks into my home, murders me, whether it be 3, or 13, I as a citizen, think all, (3,or 13),should be arrested and convicted for first degree murder.
-Cook County resident
--
that's not the felony murder doctrine. that's accountability. That's never going to change. Felony murder rule is when they didn't intend to kill you but you die from a heart attack or something.
Thank you for the input from those who responded to the Cook County resident. I know if 3 or 13 people invaded my home and murdered me, they wouldn't all be charged and convicted.
The one of the 3 in this story shouldn't have been invading someone's home, he got what he deserved. The dead cohort would be alive too. Good law.
-Cook County resident
"Actually it's kind of dumb to prosecute people under laws they reasonably wouldn't have any idea existed. It's a little like the marijuana DUI situation -"
What a retarded viewpoint. Actually, it's a pretty stupid argument to make to try to make to defeat accountability of a friend's death. Instead of trying to claim ignorance of the law, which is not a defense= you could make up a cock-in-bull story about aliens trying to abduct you or something- certainly much more plausible than your, "Wow dude- me and my buddies were tokin' a big fat J, and like, wow, all of a sudden, we got the munchies and thought this dude's house was a corner grocery store, you know- like in the old days, so we wanted to get some flamin' hot Cheetos, and woah, when we tried to go inside, like the front door wouldn't open, like it was stuck or something, so we gave it a nudge, you know, like to open it, and all of a sudden- kaBLAM!- defense. In your case, the flawed mental capacity just might work though, when people in the jury box argue on your behalf during deliberations, "Yeah, but he really is that stupid!"
"it's a bullshit law - come on"
Then why did the legislature come up with it? Why has it been upheld as Constitutional by the courts? If YOU and the MEDIA don't like it, why haven't you gone to your legislator to get it repealed? Because there's really nothing controversial about it, is there?! It's a great law, and does what good laws are supposed to do- among other things- act as a deterrent.
"In summary, I believe that the use of the felony murder rule in Justin's case is (1) unfair, (2) likely to result in even more crime, and (3) a 15 year burden on taxpayers at a minimum, probably more."
With your logic, maybe we should be in favor of the death penalty in this case? When we worry about how the offender might feel after being incarcerated, then we might as well worry about how offenders will feel if we put locks on our doors. "They might get angry". So the fuck what? They are the criminals. Let's not worry too much about their feelings. We should be worrying more about the victim's feelings- not theirs. Fucking libtards.
Post a Comment
<< Home