Kid who never fired a shot is up for felony murder charges...and I totally agree!

[7th trump]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/felony-murder-why-a-teenager-who-didnt-kill-anyone-faces-55-years-in-jail/ar-BBhZuAc?ocid=iehp

Wonder how many here are going to say I'm an idiot for agreeing to this?

After all it was his criminal idea that people were killed even though he didn't own a weapon nor fired a shot

[Hitch]

Basically, if you commit a criminal act that results in an accomplice that ends up dying, you get charged with murder.

This is what this thread will end up discussing. Personally, I disagree.

[palani]

BURGLARY, crim. law. The breaking and entering the house of
another in the night time, with. intent to commit a felony
therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.

.
.
.

4. - 2. At what time it must be committed. The offence must be
committed in the night, for in the day time there can be no
burglary. 4 Bl. Com. 224. For this purpose, it is deemed night
when by the light of the sun a person cannot clearly discern the
face or countenance of another 1 Hale, 550; 3 nst. 63. This
rule, it is evident, does not apply to moonlight. 4 Bl. Com. 224;
2 Russ. on Cr. 32. The breaking and entering need not be done the
same night 1 Russ. & Ry. 417; but it is necessary the breaking
and entering should be in the night time, for if the breaking be
in daylight and the entry in the night, or vice versa, it will
not be burglary. 1 Hale, 551; 2 Russ. on Cr. 32. Vide Com. Dig.
Justices, P 2; 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 1092.

If you look at the article the FELONY discussed is BURGLARY. The story states it was afternoon after school. NOT DARK.. NOT BURGLARY. Hence NOT A FELONY.

[Ares]

We were all kids once and did something stupid. Sometimes illegal as well. Growing up not far from where this kid did, I did a lot of stupid things that probably would of gotten me into quite a lot of trouble.

The killing was justified, you don't break into a mans home and not expect repercussions. The punishment however is not justified. At worst the kid should of gotten charged with felony burglary.

Supposedly the prison system in America is supposed to be about reform. How do you reform a person for a crime they didn't actually commit?

[woodman]

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Stupid kids, and most kids are stupid at some time or other, do stupid shit. Sounds like the punishment was already severe, at least for the two who were shot. One life has already been destroyed but what the hell, now the gov. can have 2 lives to destroy. This is not to mention the horrible guilt the shooter must feel even though he was righteous; Not only did he take one kids life but now the life of another is on the block because of his action.

[midnight rambler]

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

It appears there's a fake Christian* among us.

*it should go without saying that any 'Zionist Christian'/'Christian Zionist' is anything but a follower of Jesus

[Glass]

Well the point of the article was to say that the application of the law in this case is under review and it appears that the intent of the law is not to charge someone who didn't effect the death of another.

There are the concepts of intent and of consequences. Did someone form an intent to burgle. Yes. Could a reasonable person know that there could be consequences from their actions that could involve death or injury to them or a 3rd party - any other person. You would suggest yes. Especially in the US where you don't know who has a gun and who doesn't.

Does the punishment fit the norm for this type of crime? I don't know myself but I would have thought the numbers 15 - 20 might come up for this type of crime.

It will be interesting what the court concludes. Please be sure and keep us posted 7th.

[Hitch]

Well the point of the article was to say that the application of the law in this case is under review and it appears that the intent of the law is not to charge someone who didn't effect the death of another.

Off the top of my head, I think the deciding factor is if a person is committing a felony. For example, robbery. If you go up to someone, and try to take their wallet using force or fear, and they run away from you. Say they get hit by a car running away from you and get killed. You would be charged with murder, because even though you didn't kill them, they lost their life because you were committing a felonious crime.

Yet, say you jaywalk across the street absentmindedly, and a car swerves to miss you and hits a bystander and kills him. I don't think you would be charged with murder in that case, because jaywalking is a misdemeanor.

[7th trump]

BURGLARY, crim. law. The breaking and entering the house of
another in the night time, with. intent to commit a felony
therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.

.
.
.

4. - 2. At what time it must be committed. The offence must be
committed in the night, for in the day time there can be no
burglary. 4 Bl. Com. 224. For this purpose, it is deemed night
when by the light of the sun a person cannot clearly discern the
face or countenance of another 1 Hale, 550; 3 nst. 63. This
rule, it is evident, does not apply to moonlight. 4 Bl. Com. 224;
2 Russ. on Cr. 32. The breaking and entering need not be done the
same night 1 Russ. & Ry. 417; but it is necessary the breaking
and entering should be in the night time, for if the breaking be
in daylight and the entry in the night, or vice versa, it will
not be burglary. 1 Hale, 551; 2 Russ. on Cr. 32. Vide Com. Dig.
Justices, P 2; 2 Chit. Cr. Law, 1092.

If you look at the article the FELONY discussed is BURGLARY. The story states it was afternoon after school. NOT DARK.. NOT BURGLARY. Hence NOT A FELONY.

Couple of things Palani.

1. This is a statutes coorect?
Why are you posting a statute when you yourself dont beleive in statutes.

2. Is there any link to this "statute" for verification its a US statute and not any english speaking foreign country's law you are known to slip in?

[7th trump]

Well the point of the article was to say that the application of the law in this case is under review and it appears that the intent of the law is not to charge someone who didn't effect the death of another.

There are the concepts of intent and of consequences. Did someone form an intent to burgle. Yes. Could a reasonable person know that there could be consequences from their actions that could involve death or injury to them or a 3rd party - any other person. You would suggest yes. Especially in the US where you don't know who has a gun and who doesn't.

Does the punishment fit the norm for this type of crime? I don't know myself but I would have thought the numbers 15 - 20 might come up for this type of crime.

It will be interesting what the court concludes. Please be sure and keep us posted 7th.

Very good Glass......you're about the only one with the common sense to understand this.
Yes they were committing a felony....and the law of that state says those responsible are at fault of the deaths.
If they werent committing a crime then nobody would have been killed.

And knowing this forum it would split the forum to the "haves" and "the have nots"...........

This story is no different than a drunk with a car load of people crashing and killing the occupants as far as who is responsible.
Nobody was forced into the drunks car knowing he is drunk just as nobody was forced to rob the house knowig it wasnt a crime.

[palani]

1. This is a statutes coorect? Not Statute

Why are you posting a statute when you yourself dont beleive in statutes. No statutes. Common law. Since when did burglary drop the 'nitetime' element?
Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary ... the cites are common law ... court dicta. Stare decisis.

Is there any link to this "statute" for verification its a US statute and not any english speaking foreign country's law you are known to slip in? Not a statute. Why are you always looking for a statute to bury your brain in?

[Hitch]

Nobody was forced into the drunks car knowing he is drunk just as nobody was forced to rob the house knowig it wasnt a crime.

The house wasn't robbed, it was burglarized. There is actually a big difference. Robbery, through force or fear, is a violent crime. Burglary is a non violent crime. In this particular case, this is extremely important particularly in regards to intent and whether murder charges should apply.

[palani]

The house wasn't robbed, it was burglarized.

If it didn't happen in the night time there was no burglary involved.

I know it is hard overcoming things knocked into you from birth but words do have an actual meaning.

The crime might have been trespass. Or maybe they jaywalked to get to that particular house.

[Hitch]

If it didn't happen in the night time there was no burglary involved.

I know it is hard overcoming things knocked into you from birth but words do have an actual meaning.

The crime might have been trespass. Or maybe they jaywalked to get to that particular house.

You are incorrect, Palani. Time of day has nothing to do with it. To be convicted of burglary, three things (elements) must take place:

The unauthorized breaking and entry;
into a building or occupied structure;
with the intent to commit a crime inside.

[7th trump]

Not Statute
No statutes. Common law. Since when did burglary drop the 'nitetime' element?
Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary ... the cites are common law ... court dicta. Stare decisis.
Not a statute. Why are you always looking for a statute to bury your brain in?
Its reads as a statute and I bet its found as a statute otherwise its highly doubtful the courts could even try attaching it to a criminal.

[midnight rambler]

You are incorrect, Palani. Time of day has nothing to do with it. To be convicted of burglary, three things (elements) must take place:

The unauthorized breaking and entry;
into a building or occupied structure;
with the intent to commit a crime inside.

According to the public policy statutes?

The Death Cult has done a very fine job of brainwashing the masses right out of the law of nature and into believing whatever the infernal collectivist state has to say.

[7th trump]

You are incorrect, Palani. Time of day has nothing to do with it. To be convicted of burglary, three things (elements) must take place:

The unauthorized breaking and entry;
into a building or occupied structure;
with the intent to commit a crime inside.

Haha...palani!

I'd love to see you argue your conspiracy to a judge.....lol!

[midnight rambler]

Haha...palani!

I'd love to see you argue your conspiracy to a judge.....lol!

This is only one example where you place man's law in a superior position to God's law Donald Trump. You love the Death Cult with all your heart it would appear.

[Hitch]

This is only one example where you place man's law in a superior position to God's law Donald Trump. You love the Death Cult with all your heart it would appear.

I think man's law and God's law are in agreement, in this case. Not sure why you think the Death Cult has anything to do with Burglary.

God I'm sure would not approve of burglary.

[palani]

You are incorrect, Palani. Time of day has nothing to do with it. To be convicted of burglary, three things (elements) must take place:

The unauthorized breaking and entry;
into a building or occupied structure;
with the intent to commit a crime inside.
Take a look at the court cites given. Then consider STARE DECISIS, a key element of common law. Then ask how a court decision made 150 years ago can be considered overturned today whether by statute or not.

[palani]

I'd love to see you argue your conspiracy to a judge.....lol!

To you every position you don't agree with is a conspiracy and reason devolves to babble (aka argument). Reason is law and not argument.

[palani]

God I'm sure would not approve of burglary.

We KNOW God doesn't approve of BUGGERY either yet it is now LEGAL!!!

[Hitch]

We KNOW God doesn't approve of BUGGERY either yet it is now LEGAL!!!

Bad logic, palani. Buggery isn't legal, if there's a victim. Two guys can't do that out in public in front of kids.

With burglary, there is a victim as well. Please state an example of burglary where there is NOT a victim, then you can compare the two.

[EE_]

Bad logic, palani. Buggery isn't legal, if there's a victim. Two guys can't do that out in public in front of kids.

With burglary, there is a victim as well. Please state an example of burglary where there is NOT a victim, then you can compare the two.

Is it burglary when one burglar steals from another burglar?

[palani]

Bad logic, palani. Buggery isn't legal, if there's a victim.
Society is the victim.



Please state an example of burglary where there is NOT a victim, then you can compare the two.
Crime consists of elements. One element of burglary is that it happen after the sun sets.

In the daytime trespass is still a crime.

Now the article states that there was breaking involved. However if breaking was a crime then there is not a coppiceman out there who is not guilty of it.


BREAKING. Parting or dividing by force and violence a solid
substance, or piercing, penetrating, or bursting through the
same.

2. In cases of burglary and house-breaking, the removal, of any
part of the
house, or of the fastenings provided to secure it, with violence
and a felonious intent, is called a breaking.

3. The breaking is actual, as in the above case; or
constructive, as when the burglar or house-breaker gains an entry
by fraud, conspiracy or threats. 2 Russ. on Cr. 2; 2 Chit. Cr.
Law, 1092; 1 Hale, P. C. 553; Alis. Prin. 282, 291. In England
it has been decided that if the sash of a window be partly open,
but not sufficiently so to admit a person, the raising of it so
as to admit a person is not a breaking of the house. 1 Moody, Cr.
Cas. 178. No reasons are assigned. It is difficult to conceive,
if this case be law, what further opening will amount to a
breaking. But see 1 Moody, Cr. Cas. 327, 377; and Burglary.

[Hitch]

Is it burglary when one burglar steals from another burglar?

Not if one burglar is the fed government. :)

"intent to commit a crime" must be satisfied for it to be burglary. So, if you break into a burglar's home to take back your own possessions, that he stole from you, technically I don't think that's burglary. Your intent was not to commit a crime, but just to get your own stuff back.

[palani]

if you break into a burglar's home to take back your own possessions, that he stole from you,

Replevy in the night time?

[Hitch]

Society is the victim.

No, society is not the victim. If two men choose to bug each other behind the doors of their home, with nobody else knowing, there is no victim. Nice try at dodging my question.

I will ask again. Please state an example where burglary does NOT have a victim. Can you answer that?

[Hitch]

Replevy in the night time?

Time of day has nothing to do with burglary. Prove it does, you obviously can not.

[palani]

Please state an example where burglary does NOT have a victim. Can you answer that?

Local guy .. comes home blasted.... no key and kicks his own door in .. neighbors call the coppicemen ... they enter his house and find an AK47 ... "What's wrong with that?" I ask ... the policyman chief says .. "they found drugs too".

[palani]

Time of day has nothing to do with burglary. Prove it does, you obviously can not.
You do know what a court cite is don't you? Bouvier compiles his dictionary from the actual results of court cases. He gives the cites. I have even gone to the local law library and looked up some of them. They do exist.

Burglary requires breaking. Coppicemen break every time they knock down a door. Burglary requires NIGHT TIME. Now if you are in a system of law where these elements are no longer required then YOU ARE NOT AT COMMON LAW. So where are you? My opinion ... you are under a military government in occupied territory.

[Uncle Salty]

Just horrible to put the kid away for 55 years.

Give him six months for burglary.

The dead kids already paid a price.

[Hitch]

Burglary requires breaking. Coppicemen break every time they knock down a door. Burglary requires NIGHT TIME. Now if you are in a system of law where these elements are no longer required then YOU ARE NOT AT COMMON LAW. So where are you? My opinion ... you are under a military government in occupied territory.

Palani, I did look up common law definition of burglary, and you are correct. Under common law, burglary does require night time. Where am I personally? I absolutely know for a fact that I am under military gov in occupied territory. The US Coast Guard. I have no 4th amendment rights actually. Fortunately the USCG is just a bunch of kids who are friendly and mean well, want to help.

[7th trump]

To you every position you don't agree with is a conspiracy and reason devolves to babble (aka argument). Reason is law and not argument.

No not really....I just have found you add onto conspiracies. You use the law to continue the conspiracy where you should be using the law to see if the conspiracy holds any truth.
Most, if not all, of your arguments are based on someone else's ignorance of law.

Like your lawful money bullshit is the reason why everyone is taxed at source.

[7th trump]

You do know what a court cite is don't you? Bouvier compiles his dictionary from the actual results of court cases. He gives the cites. I have even gone to the local law library and looked up some of them. They do exist.

Burglary requires breaking. Coppicemen break every time they knock down a door. Burglary requires NIGHT TIME. Now if you are in a system of law where these elements are no longer required then YOU ARE NOT AT COMMON LAW. So where are you? My opinion ... you are under a military government in occupied territory.
You are caught playing games again.
Then why are you trying to use common law rules in a non common-law jurisdiction?

Why do you play these games?
What point are you trying to make?
If it isn't common law why are you making such a conspiracy out of it?

You just want to freaken argue that's all. Making a conspiracy where none exists......all over again!

[Glass]

Statutes are there to "fine tune" the common law. Common law and equity are generally merged now in terms of venue, however the bulk of victim crimes are common law. That is the foundation. The Statute application would still look to the common law where appropriate and where it is appropriate the Court and the people involved the matter should be aware of this. If anyone is not aware, any of the other parties can inform them of this by notice. Whether or not anyone takes notice is what needs to be seen.

[7th trump]

Statutes are there to "fine tune" the common law. Common law and equity are generally merged now in terms of venue, however the bulk of victim crimes are common law. That is the foundation. The Statute application would still look to the common law where appropriate and where it is appropriate the Court and the people involved the matter should be aware of this. If anyone is not aware, any of the other parties can inform them of this by notice. Whether or not anyone takes notice is what needs to be seen.

You are correct Glass....and I wasn't going to go there as it would be a whole new different level for Palani to understand.
And I don't think hes ready for it.

[palani]

I don't think hes ready for it.

You got THAT right!!!!

http://www.mossyoak.com/camouflage/img/obsession/obsession-1.jpg