"Make My Day" Case Stirs Serious Debate

[mekender]

Sorry for the threadjack .... why aren't arkythehun's user profile and stats showing on his post in this thread?

Account deleted/banned?

[Jered]

http://newsok.com/cousins-found-guilty- ... z1LFKqLcYF

The 2 adults that sent the kids into the store were convicted of 1st degree murder... The pharmacist is still pending trial.


An interesting legal question occurs to me... If the pharmacist is found to have acted in lawful self defense, making what happened not a murder... Then do the two that were just convicted get their convictions overturned on appeal. How can you be tried for murder if the "victim" was not murdered but killed as a justified homicide?

Not that I think that these two should get anything other than a speedy execution, just an interesting legal question...

Under the felony murder doctrine if the parents were pertuatuing a crime which resulted in someone's death they can be charged with murder. The pharmacist could be not guilty of murder and the people who put the kids up to it could.d be.

[mekender]

http://newsok.com/cousins-found-guilty- ... z1LFKqLcYF

The 2 adults that sent the kids into the store were convicted of 1st degree murder... The pharmacist is still pending trial.


An interesting legal question occurs to me... If the pharmacist is found to have acted in lawful self defense, making what happened not a murder... Then do the two that were just convicted get their convictions overturned on appeal. How can you be tried for murder if the "victim" was not murdered but killed as a justified homicide?

Not that I think that these two should get anything other than a speedy execution, just an interesting legal question...

Under the felony murder doctrine if the parents were pertuatuing a crime which resulted in someone's death they can be charged with murder. The pharmacist could be not guilty of murder and the people who put the kids up to it could.d be.

Again though, how can you prosecute one person for murder when it is ruled that the "victim" did not die because of a murder but as the result of a justified homicide? Would not a valid defense for the people charged with felony murder be that the death was not a murder?

I realize what the law says and I actually agree with it, I just think it is a legal paradox.

I believe there is another case in FL where a teen was shot in the head by a homeowner, the homeowner was justified and cleared. The teen's accomplices are being charged under felony murder and are arguing in their defense that since the death was not a murder, they shouldnt be charged. I saw a similar thing on an episode of The Defenders (s1e6) a couple of months back.

[Aglifter]

A) You'd be amazed at the gap between the mores of normal society, and judges, politicians, prosecutors, etc. I realize everyone thinks they know the difference, but once you actually start associating w. them...

B) Don't care about the details of the self-defense shooting. The hobgoblin proved himself to be a killer - that he was incompetent, or that he got himself wounded, is irrelevant. The citizen should be under NO OBLIGATION WHAT SO EVER to run any risk to himself, on behalf of the goblin - he's not a cop, he has no back-up, and he has neither the training, or the ability to safely pat the goblin down to ensure he's disarmed, etc.

As a possible explanation - pharmacist shot one, didn't know what the rest were up to, and was worried about what the injured goblin might do when the others came back - as such, injured goblin still posed a threat.

IMO, once you violate the social contract to that extent, you lose all protections that contract proffers against the actions of society at large.

(EG, the First amendment means the government doesn't prosecute you for saying things - it doesn't mean someone shouldn't take advantage of the Fighting Words doctrine and knock your teeth loose for protesting a funeral.)

[Yogimus]

Murder 2, both on the pharmacist and the other robber.

[Matthew Mayner]

IMO, once you violate the social contract to that extent, you lose all protections that contract proffers against the actions of society at large.

True but the social contract also states that you don't go and get another gun and shoot a guy who's lying on the ground.

Bad form ole chap.

[Precision]

Although I agree with AG in theory, Matt is correct. It is terribly bad form.

Once the attacker is incapable of further attack, they shouldn't be executed. Considering the time gap where the pharmacist was able to run around grab a second gun (off person) and come back and pump several bullets into the guy on the ground. Terrible form. I don't think he should be up on murder one. He would not have pulled either gun if the goblin hadn't attacked. I think the most he should be facing is murder two.

Even that is sketchy, but slippery slope syndrome tells me he needs to face some kind of charge, even if he beats it in the end.

[Dub_James]

I can see Ayoob writing something on this one.

[Evyl Robot]

I understand we just had a law passed that will protect actions like the Pharmacist's in the future. Apparently, they basically took the whole 'make my day'/castle doctrine law and extended its coverage to place of work in addition to home. Basically, if someone is there with criminal intent, they have volunteered for the death penalty, and it doesn't matter how many times you shoot them.

[skb12172]

Although I agree with AG in theory, Matt is correct. It is terribly bad form.

Once the attacker is incapable of further attack, they shouldn't be executed. Considering the time gap where the pharmacist was able to run around grab a second gun (off person) and come back and pump several bullets into the guy on the ground. Terrible form. I don't think he should be up on murder one. He would not have pulled either gun if the goblin hadn't attacked. I think the most he should be facing is murder two.

Even that is sketchy, but slippery slope syndrome tells me he needs to face some kind of charge, even if he beats it in the end.

Then why not some form of Manslaughter? Unless they were trying to shock him into a lower plea, just to get a conviction, while leaving themselves enough wiggle room to make sure the conviction is still a felony.

Although I agree with AG in theory, Matt is correct. It is terribly bad form.

Once the attacker is incapable of further attack, they shouldn't be executed. Considering the time gap where the pharmacist was able to run around grab a second gun (off person) and come back and pump several bullets into the guy on the ground. Terrible form. I don't think he should be up on murder one. He would not have pulled either gun if the goblin hadn't attacked. I think the most he should be facing is murder two.

Even that is sketchy, but slippery slope syndrome tells me he needs to face some kind of charge, even if he beats it in the end.
Although I agree with AG in theory, Matt is correct. It is terribly bad form.

Once the attacker is incapable of further attack, they shouldn't be executed. Considering the time gap where the pharmacist was able to run around grab a second gun (off person) and come back and pump several bullets into the guy on the ground. Terrible form. I don't think he should be up on murder one. He would not have pulled either gun if the goblin hadn't attacked. I think the most he should be facing is murder two.

Even that is sketchy, but slippery slope syndrome tells me he needs to face some kind of charge, even if he beats it in the end.

You are assuming a great deal. Again, without the training, back-up etc. of a police officer, how do we know what kind of threat the Goblin still posed? A bit of Monday morning quarterbacking here, methinks...