Boy arrested for murder after police shoot and kill his friend.

Originally posted by felonius
I'm so sorry it doesnt sit well with you. I'm sure your opinion would be different if one of these punks had put a piece of lead in your gut. When you had recovered, would you still be "oh, the poor lads".

Run a business in a rough neighborhood. Understand what its like when the closest law you have to protect yourself is the .45 tucked in the back of your pants and 5 guys come in to attempt to rob you.

Callous? No friend. Just reality. Age is meaningless in this story. Had they capped the cop, would you be among those going "Yeah! Kill the pig!"?

Nature is RED in tooth and claw. Make sure YOUR the one at the top of the food chain.

I agree with you - - but am an Obama supporter - - so I see no point in that slam.

There are 8 year old hardened criminals in juvenile lock up. Age is irrelevant.

I'm still confused, who is it that actually committed a murder?

Originally posted by blackrain17
Bad seed anyway, too bad this idiot is gonna cost the tax payers...

No he doesn't have to cost the tax payers anything, once he is inside.

I'm sure some one will cut costs and his throat.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
I'm still confused, who is it that actually committed a murder?

The police man who opened fire and shot the dumbass who pulled a gun.

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The young man arrested was involved in an on going felony, Aggrevated Robbery.

The common law, and most state law statutes have what is called a Felony Murder Section.

To generalize the law, a person can be charged with Murder, if during the commission of, or in the immediate flight from a inherently dangerous felony ANYONE gets killed by Any other party.

It links the murder to the felony, making it like strict liability.

In a homicide someone is responsible. The way the law looks at it is BUT FOR the felons activities, the homicide would not have occured.

The DETERRENCE factor is that if you are a party to a dangerous felony, as a principle (one doing act), as a issue before the fact (master mind but not actual participant), or issue after the fact (hide them out, give them aid etc.) you are also liable for the homicide of anyone, that is commited by anybody during the ongoing felony.

So if one thinks (I am only the look out, so if something happens I am not guilty of anything) they are wrong. They are just as guilty of the crime as the ones holding the gun.

That's the way the law has been written. He should have said no when his homie said let's go rob with the gun I have. The boy that lived knew his friend had a gun. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Now he will go a way for a long time (unless his lawyer can how find a way to blame this on societies actions).

Originally posted by ADVISOR

The police man who opened fire and shot the dumbass who pulled a gun.

edit on 29-5-2011 by ADVISOR because: I need the practice

That isn't murder. The police officer shot and killed the armed criminal out of self-defense. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human. The police officer did not commit murder. So I'm still confused about who was actually murdered.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

That isn't murder. The police officer shot and killed the armed criminal out of self-defense. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human. The police officer did not commit murder.

You are somewhat correct. It wasn't murder.
Apparently, the coroner has determined that the cause of death was homicide.

Definition of Homicide-

1: a person who kills another
2: a killing of one human being by another

An autopsy Thursday found he died from a [color=deepSkyBlue]gunshot wound to the back and ruled the death a [color=deepSkyBlue]homicide.

www.myfoxchicago.com...

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I'm still confused about who was actually murdered.

15-year-old Tatioun Williams

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Homicide isn't necessarily murder. Yet someone was arrested for murder in a situation where no one was murdered.

And is homicide even the correct term to use? Tatioun Williams was lawfully killed in an act of self-defense by the police officer when Williams drew a firearm with the intent to shoot the officer. Were the officer's actions somehow illegal? While that might be considered homicide (a human killing another human), it is not murder unless the police officer's actions were illegal.

Tatioun Williams, the armed robber who was shot dead by the police officer because he drew a firearm on the officer, was lawfully killed. So I'm still confused about who was actually murdered.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by purplemer

 

It is a travesty of justice but in their minds the young man would be alive were it not for their combined actions and so their decision to commit the crime was what got the one guy shot and so the survivor is responsible for the murder or death. It is an unwarranted and preposterous stretch of the circumstances and a convenient way to absolve oneself of guilt for shooting a child. By this reasoning anyone shot by police during a robbery could also be changed with shooting themselves.

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The young man arrested was involved in an on going felony, Aggrevated Robbery.

The common law, and most state law statutes have what is called a Felony Murder Section.

To generalize the law, a person can be charged with Murder, if during the commission of, or in the immediate flight from a inherently dangerous felony ANYONE gets killed by Any other party.

It links the murder to the felony, making it like strict liability.

In a homicide someone is responsible. The way the law looks at it is BUT FOR the felons activities, the homicide would not have occured.

The DETERRENCE factor is that if you are a party to a dangerous felony, as a principle (one doing act), as a issue before the fact (master mind but not actual participant), or issue after the fact (hide them out, give them aid etc.) you are also liable for the homicide of anyone, that is commited by anybody during the ongoing felony.

So if one thinks (I am only the look out, so if something happens I am not guilty of anything) they are wrong. They are just as guilty of the crime as the ones holding the gun.

So many people here agree and star that?
Guys, you can doublespeak and lawyerspeak me all day and it still remains nonsense

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Homicide isn't necessarily murder. Yet someone was arrested for murder in a situation where no one was murdered.

I never said that the 2 were the exact same, but there is not much of a difference.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

is homicide even the correct term to use?

It is the correct term for me to use, since I was not the coroner whom determined this. Homicide is the ruling for the cause of death that is stated within this article.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Tatioun Williams was lawfully killed in an act of self-defense by the police officer when Williams drew a firearm with the intent to shoot the officer. Were the officer's actions somehow illegal?
.....it is not murder unless the police officer's actions were illegal.

Were you there?

How can you be so sure that you know all of the exact details of this specific event, and the manner in which they transpired?

How do you know what this young man's actual intent was, before he was shot in the back?

Everything that you are stating, as if it is a guaranteed fact, is no more than assumption.

Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction,

Gunshot wound to the back

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Tatioun Williams, the armed robber who was shot dead by the police officer because he drew a firearm on the officer, was lawfully killed. So I'm still confused about who was actually murdered.

This will not change. You will continue being confused, because you are not actually trying to understand. You are just trying to make a point.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Tatioun Williams, the armed robber who was shot dead by the police officer because he drew a firearm on the officer, was lawfully killed. So I'm still confused about who was actually murdered.

I think murder is by intent.

The kid who pulled the gun on the cop - - had intent to murder the cop.

The armed robbery was with intent. They could have murdered the victim because they were armed.

I can see where they can imply intent as the cause of what happened.

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The young man arrested was involved in an on going felony, Aggrevated Robbery.

The common law, and most state law statutes have what is called a Felony Murder Section.

To generalize the law, a person can be charged with Murder, if during the commission of, or in the immediate flight from a inherently dangerous felony ANYONE gets killed by Any other party.

It links the murder to the felony, making it like strict liability.

In a homicide someone is responsible. The way the law looks at it is BUT FOR the felons activities, the homicide would not have occured.

The DETERRENCE factor is that if you are a party to a dangerous felony, as a principle (one doing act), as a issue before the fact (master mind but not actual participant), or issue after the fact (hide them out, give them aid etc.) you are also liable for the homicide of anyone, that is commited by anybody during the ongoing felony.

So if one thinks (I am only the look out, so if something happens I am not guilty of anything) they are wrong. They are just as guilty of the crime as the ones holding the gun.

I agree with your analysis, however by extension, take a specific cause and effect scenario like the economy (or lack thereof). Bernake et al and Wall Street through criminal manipulation of the monetary system directly cause a prove-able effect of an increase in violent crime. Therefore, Bernake et al is culpable of indirect causality, masterminding, aiding and abetting and/or an associate (or maybe he his bunch are simply @ssclowns and puppets) to any increased violent crime. By Bernake et al and Wall Street showing that they can commit heinous financial crime through fraud, malfeasance and criminal misrepresentation, they thereby directly promote an increase in financial crime and would therefore be again culpable of indirect causality, masterminding, aiding and abetting or an associate to any increased financial crime. In either event, they (meaning the decision makers at least) should be charged collectively with however many counts of murder, rape, assault, fraud...etc. are above the "curve."

If it works charging the little guy with murder, it works for the big guys too.

Cheers - Dave

Just to take an opportunity to share my thoughts on this.

The application of the felony murder rule is different across many jurisdictions. While generally uniform in the United States (thanks the the overarching Federal interpretation) this rule appears to have been abandoned by England and Wales and in Northern Ireland (it was abolished in the late 50's I think.)

However, I think the outrage here is misplaced. On one hand we have a doctrine of affirming the inviolate nature of risking human life in the commission of felonies, on the other we have murder lacking intent to kill being elevated to a capital crime.

I would be perfectly happy if the latitude to escalate the potential punishment is warranted by matters a judge and jury designate as egregious, callous, wanton, or otherwise totally socio-pathic. But it seems that these laws and their application are being used by zealous and sometimes vainglorious prosecutors as preemptive punishment and best, or theatrical staging at worst. Frankly, I think it is one of numerous ways the justice systems effects its presence in our society as a ruling authority.

In the words of ... somebody.... crime doesn't pay.

Originally posted by BrokenCirclesI never said that the 2 were the exact same, but there is not much of a difference.

There is very much a difference. Murder, killing in self-defense, accidentally killing someone, etc may all still be classified as a type of homicide, but it's the context in which each is presented under that determines whether or not the action is murder, self-defense, or an accidental killing.

Without distinguishing between the different types of homicide, everyone could technically be charged with murder if they killed someone. So the context is important, as is being able to distinguish between the different types of homicide and killings that take place.

Originally posted by BrokenCirclesIt is the correct term for me to use, since I was not the coroner whom determined this. Homicide is the ruling for the cause of death that is stated within this article.

Homicide is a very generic term to use since it does mean a person killing another person. That said, the way it sounds implies murder. I doubt people really distinguish between homicide and murder, when homicide really isn't murder at all.

Homicide is the act of a human killing another human. Murder is the unlawful act of killing another human. Killing someone in self-defense is the lawful killing of someone who was trying to kill you. And soldiers on the battlefield typically aren't charged with murder despite the fact that they commit acts of homicide on a regular basis when they kill enemy combatants. But technically that is not murder. Murder is a very defined type of homicide.

Originally posted by BrokenCirclesWere you there?

How can you be so sure that you know all of the exact details of this specific event, and the manner in which they transpired?

I can't. I just go by what I read. Two armed robbers were running from the police. One of the armed robbers withdrew a gun and was shot and killed by the police officer that he drew the gun on. The article implied that the killing by the police officer was in self-defense. But regardless of whether or not it was, that doesn't change the fact that the police officer killed the armed robber. But the actions of the police officer transferred from the police officer onto the living, unarmed robber, so he was arrested by the officer for murder... when it was the police officer who killed someone.

That sounds absolutely whacky to me. I'm trying to make the best sense of the scenario that I can while pointing out that it's freaking ridiculous.

Originally posted by BrokenCirclesHow do you know what this young man's actual intent was, before he was shot in the back?

While his intent doesn't change the fact that another person is being blamed for the actions of the police officer, the article stated that one of the armed robbers was removing a firearm. If I were the officer, I could only interpret that gesture in so many ways... but keep in mind these punks robbed someone at gunpoint, so I doubt their intentions were good.

Originally posted by BrokenCirclesEverything that you are stating, as if it is a guaranteed fact, is no more than assumption.

Everything I assumed came directly from what I read in the article. If you want to discuss this from a different standpoint, I would love to hear your perspective on this story. But it still won't change the fact that the homicide is being pinned on someone who didn't kill anyone. Which is what I was discussing from the get go.

Originally posted by BrokenCirclesThis will not change. You will continue being confused, because you are not actually trying to understand. You are just trying to make a point.

It won't change because there isn't a direct answer that can be given that will allow my opinion to change. Although I'm open to it.

I'm opened to hearing a direct answer that somehow makes sense of a law that makes it okay for a police officer to kill a criminal and then pin the homicide on someone else as if it were murder, which would imply that the police officer committed murder and would technically be getting off scotch free.

This makes sense to you?

reply to post by Annee


Annee,

off topic

I'm no fan of bush 1 or 2, clinton or the rest.

How can you still be a fan of obama after everything he's done?

Granted, the GOP hasnt done us much for favors lately either.

Originally posted by AnneeI think murder is by intent.

The kid who pulled the gun on the cop - - had intent to murder the cop.

The armed robbery was with intent. They could have murdered the victim because they were armed.

I can see where they can imply intent as the cause of what happened.

I can see that too. But isn't that attempted murder? Which is a separate charge from murder. From what's being discussed in this thread, the kid was arrested for murder and not attempted murder, which would make more sense.

Despite the law being what it is, I can't make sense of how he can be arrested for murder if neither he, nor his accomplice physically murdered someone. The cop did the killing.

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Annee

 

How can you still be a fan of obama after everything he's done?

Yes off topic. I don't understand your point.

" . . . after everything he's done?"

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

Huh? You act like you disagree and I guess I could have been clearer but read it again, maybe a little slower and you'll see we are saying the same thing.

Ah, I missed the phrase "in their minds"... and so I thought those words were actually in your mind. Corrected then!

reply to post by DYepes


I don't really have any sympathy for the criminals. Well, maybe a little. But what they did could have resulted in the murder of an innocent human life. You do realize what armed robbery is, right? Have you ever had a gun pointed at your face where you feared for your life and didn't know if you were going to die or not, all because some punk(s) wanted your valuables?

That's what armed robbery is.

However, I also agree with you that armed robbery is not murder, and that this particular charge against the criminal doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by DYepes


If you want anyone to respect your opinion about wanting dead cops then you should respect the opinion that I'm glad your friend died. On topic, when you commit a crime such as armed robbery, you lose your rights to be treated as a citizen. While it would have been ideal for them both to be brought to court and tried, the kid decided to pull a gun on a cop. At that point he lost all rights and got what he deserved. Im also glad the other kid is getting charged with as many charges and possible.

Also, you seem to have some sort of serious defect with your keyboard. Might want to call the Geek Squad.