• mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is probably “felony murder”. The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of felony, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder for that person. This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.

    Classic example: you and a friend decide to hold up a bank. It goes sideways and a bank security guard shoots and kills your friend. You are guilty of murder because your friend died because you both decided to commit a felony.

      • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        The white ones with white skin and Confederate flags? Oh see, that’s…that’s different… because they’re wh- …patriots?

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hmm, never thought about it like that. I guess that whole mob could be on the hook for killing Ashley Babbitt. I guess it’s a good thing for them there’s no federal felony murder rule.

      • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        3 months ago

        Exactly cops died and yet they all got light sentences. The system is fucked and should be torn down. He is a kid and should be getting help not prison.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        J6 was a crime against the federal government on government property in the District of Columbia.

        The feds do have this felony murder law, but it seems to be narrower in scope than many state laws. For instance, the case where law enforcement shoots a perp did happen at the capitol, but it seems like it can’t be charged as felony murder under the federal version of the law.

        Also, the federal law lists specific crimes only that can be used as underlying felonies, and I suspect that “obstructing an official proceeding” and even “insurrection” are not specifically on that list. Possibly, the feds would have had to charge and convict on simple burglary to apply felony murder.

        I don’t think any felony murders were actually charged. And a great many J6 defendants were charged with no felonies at all, so they would not be eligible.

          • mkwt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Burglary doesn’t actually require you to steal anything, but yes they did, and yes the feds probably could charge burglary on some of these defendants.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      It is a stupid law being applied in the most ridiculous way, by being punished for the police’s actions.

      • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        But several in the group, including Washington, fired shots at Millbrook police officers who responded Feb. 23, 2015,

        They fired at the police and one died as a result. They were all charged with murder.

        Seems the law is being applied correctly.

        As for the law itself I’m pretty torn on this. If someone dragged my kid along to a crime and they died as a result I’d have no problem with them getting charged for their murder.

        • Ezergill@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?

          • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s exactly why I’m torn. Be pretty hypocritical not to allow it to be applied the other way right?

            And it was 25 years anyway for the crime plus it seems there was a lot more going on in this case including a couple other murders.

            • qarbone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No, it’s not hypocritical because you’re missing (or ignoring) intent. Someone pressures your relative into doing a crime, reluctantly. Now the other criminal gets killed and your reluctant relative is on the hook for a murder they didn’t commit during a crime they didn’t really want to be a part of.

              That is in no way comparable to a mastermind gathering a bunch of stooges for a suicide mission and getting them to commit death by cop.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              No there wasn’t. That was a separate case that we don’t know the disposition of. That commenter brought them in but in any court that kind of argument is banned unless they were convicted or it’s part of the matter before the court.

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              You are missing the point of the argument. Prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation anyway; except in extreme circumstances. This type of law and sentence only exists to feed the for-profit prison system.

              Most importantly! Why the fuck are common thieves being put in prison for life when the Boeing execs — whose premeditated fraud directly killed of hundreds of people — are chilling with the plutocracy on their 3rd yacht?

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The top comment makes it seem like Smith wasn’t some unwilling participant in the burglaries

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Which has dick all to do with the murder charge. It is not normal to charge someone for a murder they didn’t commit.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Hey, don’t blame me, I’m just replying to them. I wasn’t the one to bring it up

                And what if someone dragged your kid along to a crime, then got themself shot and your kid now has to spend basically their whole life in jail?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Which, to be clear, is a fantastic way to charge people for the police hurting them. And not okay under most moral systems.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        The thing that’s fucked is not the idea of chains of causation. Courts deal with that all the time.

        The fucked up part about felony murder in many states is that it bypasses mens rea or intent elements and jumps straight to murder 1 sentencing.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          No. You can see in this very case. Our guy robbed the place but he wasn’t the one who decided to charge the police with a gun. That was the proximate cause of the officer shooting and one person made that decision. If we’re going to go further back then where do we stop? His parents? His teachers? His community center sports coach? His friends who weren’t present? After all we’re talking about decisions leading to decisions now. What was the deep cause of the cop firing his weapon? Did his dad get fired, requiring the family to find money in other places? Do we charge the dad’s former boss in that case? After all in that theory case our guy wouldn’t have been at the robbery at all without that firing.

          Blaming anything or anyone not involved in the act is the height of rationalization for longer sentences brought by racists and executives in the prison industry.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            He wasn’t the one who charged the police but he took part in the crime that lead to that act, he could have stopped the crime from happening or not taken part in it, he chose to join in and that resulted in the death of his friend, he’s responsible for it by being an informed party, just like anyone who knew they were planning it and that didn’t denounce them before it happened.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Oh yes, so we should also arrest anyone who plausibly knew they would commit this crime and charge them with murder too. /s

              There was one person who made the decision to fire a gun and it wasn’t this guy.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not murder to shoot someone who is charging at you with a deadly weapon.

        And there is no question about this being what went down. There’s body cam footage.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of feeling, and someone dies as a result a cop murders somebody, then you are guilty of the cop’s murder.

      FTFY

      This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter… in order for police to pin their murders on minorities despite all reason and case history.

      FTFY.

        • 9bananas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          if it isn’t murder, then why is the kid charged with it?? that makes the entire thing even MORE ridiculous!

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            “Felony murder” is a different animal. It’s kind of like how even though “rape” is generally defined by a lack of consent, there is also “statutory rape”, which one can be charged with, even if the sex was consensual.

            To summarize how “felony murder” works:

            The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer. The felony murder rule applies only to those crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous,” as the rationale underlying the felony murder rule is that certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether. Thus, when a person participates in an inherently dangerous crime, he or she may be held responsible for the fatal consequences of that crime, even if someone else caused the actual death.

            In this case, the “inherently dangerous” felony was armed robbery.

            • 9bananas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              that’s a ridiculous concept from start to finish:

              “you stood near a cop when he killed someone, so now you’re a murderer even though you objectively didn’t kill anyone and we know who the actual killer is”

              this is completely insane.

              it’s not “a different animal”, it’s insanity.

              just insanity.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                “you stood near a cop”

                What disingenuous bullshit, lol. A bystander would never get charged with this, only other people actively committing the same felony with the criminal that died (and it doesn’t matter if they were killed by a cop or died any other way, including accident, if it happened while committing a dangerous felony, all of the criminals committing it are responsible), fuck your goalpost move attempt.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Your argument only holds up if the cop isn’t also tried for that murder. I’m not even an American citizen so I don’t know if that’s the case.

        Doesn’t matter if the cop would be tried though, as cops are already immune to the law in america. They don’t need to convict other people for that. I don’t think at all that the purpose of that law is to protect cops.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Your argument only holds up if the cop isn’t also tried for that murder.

          The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of officers accused of excessive force

          The two cases concerned police officers accused of using excessive force when responding to domestic disturbances. In one, officers used beanbag rounds and a knee on the suspect’s back to subdue him; in the second, officers shot and killed the suspect after he approached them while raising a hammer.

          Both decisions the court issued Monday were unsigned. No justices dissented.