# Never Bring A Knife To A Gun Fight, or "I'm charged with what?"



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bber-shot-dead-man-tried-stick-ATM-knife.html



> 'Robber' shot dead by man he tried to stick up with a knife at drive-through ATM
> Justin Slivinski, 24, of Oviedo, Florida, was killed Friday night when he and accomplice Austin Lee Harvey, 19, tried to rob a man at knife-point at a local drive-through ATM
> The unnamed man shot Slivinksi two times
> Slivinksi and Harvey both have records of multiple criminal arrests



But here's the fun part:



> Harvey was arrested Saturday afternoon and now faces attempted armed robbery and murder charges.
> 
> Police say the murder charge was added because robbery attempt contributed to Slivinski's death.



Yes, you read that correctly.  If you commit an armed felony in some states, and your crime results in a death, you can be charged for it; even if you personally did not do it.  In this case, to add insult to injury, not only is his armed-robber buddy dead, but he gets charged with murder for it.  HA!

It's the same legal philosophy that allows arsonists to be charged with murder if there is someone in the building who dies, or if a firefighter dies fighting the blaze they set.  They may not have meant to kill anyone, but it happened due to their crime, so they get to swing for it.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 19, 2012)

I think that is completly resonable. His friend would not be dead if not for thier own actions.  I've seen this a few times.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm not so sure I think that's reasonable...eh, but I'm not too excited about the matter. It seems both accomplices took the same risk.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 19, 2012)

Crime just doesn't pay. Laws are twofold, there is punishment and there is deterrent. The guy dead is punishment and the accomplice  serves as a deterrent for those that are followers in crime.


----------



## chinto (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bber-shot-dead-man-tried-stick-ATM-knife.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



many states have what is called "FELONY MURDER"  and you do not have to be armed to be charged. if you commit a felony and some one dies of a heart attack or something they can charge you with it...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

chinto said:


> many states have what is called "FELONY MURDER"  and you do not have to be armed to be charged. if you commit a felony and some one dies of a heart attack or something they can charge you with it...



I have no problem with that...this case does seem to stretch the logic, though. They both intended to rob someone. If they had both been severely injured at the hands of the intended victim but lived, would each be sentenced for causing grave bodily harm (indirectly) to the other? It doesn't ring right to me.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 20, 2012)

Actions have consequences.  If the action is illegal and predatory, resulting in the death of another human being, then holding the criminal accountable for that death is not a stretch, in my opinion.  Even if the human dying was a co-conspirator in the crime.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 20, 2012)

I may be wrong, but I don't think most states punish for another participant in an illegal endeavor getting killed.  But if the guy who lived has been in almost constant trouble with the law, it would probably be considered a handy way to get a bad guy off the streets a little longer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think most states punish for another participant in an illegal endeavor getting killed.  But if the guy who lived has been in almost constant trouble with the law, it would probably be considered a handy way to get a bad guy off the streets a little longer.



I don't know how many states have these laws, but I've seen a number of times it has been applied.  When I used to live in Colorado, there was a notable case of a young woman who drove the 'get away' car for her boyfriend, who was killed trying to murder a police officer.  She did not kill her boyfriend, but she was convicted of murder because she was a felony accessory to the crime in which her boyfriend was killed.  She got life in prison and many felt that was wrong, that she did not deserve it.  Some of that might have been because she was young, attractive, and many felt she had fallen 'under the spell' of her criminal boyfriend and should not be made to pay for his actions.  Eh.  I thought she got what she deserved.  Actions have consequences.  People may be young, dumb, impressionable, and not understand that notion, but they're not therefore immune to them.


----------



## Kukage (Nov 20, 2012)

I understand the theory, but this is stretching it a little me thinks. 

Given the nature of society I could see someone disarming a perp with a gun, gun goes off in the process and they end up getting charged because someone got shot in the process.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

Kukage said:


> I understand the theory, but this is stretching it a little me thinks.
> 
> Given the nature of society I could see someone disarming a perp with a gun, gun goes off in the process and they end up getting charged because someone got shot in the process.



That would be a little different because the person doing the disarming is (one would suppose) not engaged in a felony at the time.  That's not to say that Good Samaritans don't sometimes get shafted, but I haven't heard of a person being charged with murder in such a situation.  

In the most common situation in which murder is charged even though the person didn't intend to murder anyone is arson.  In most state that I am aware of, if someone dies as the result of an arsonist's fire, the arsonist can and often is charged with murder.  A person who tried to take the gas can away from them and the fire started anyway would not be so charged, I think.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 20, 2012)

As far as I know, the person being charged has to be a willing participant in the original crime.  There's a saying, don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.  Don't want to be brought up on murder charges, then don't be a predatory criminal.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When I used to live in Colorado, there was a notable case of a young woman who drove the 'get away' car for her boyfriend, who was killed trying to murder a police officer.  She did not kill her boyfriend, but she was convicted of murder because she was a felony accessory to the crime in which her boyfriend was killed.  She got life in prison and many felt that was wrong, that she did not deserve it.  Some of that might have been because she was young, attractive, and many felt she had fallen 'under the spell' of her criminal boyfriend and should not be made to pay for his actions.  Eh.  I thought she got what she deserved.



I agree she got what she deserved, but not _how _she deserved it. Whether or not she was under his influence, there was no intent to murder him--and even manslaughter seems a stretch to me. Convict her for what she did--and I'm fine with considering her equally guilty of attempted murder of the cop--but not for what she didn't do (kill her boyfriend). This logic is too tortuous to sit well with me.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Don't want to be brought up on murder charges, then don't be a predatory criminal.



There's a reason we have different categories of crime. I'm for charging people only with the crimes they commit. Arson leading to unintended deaths? Entirely foreseeable--manslaughter with aggravating circumstances, heavy penalty (life in prison works for me). Call it a degree of homicide if you like. Committing arson with an accelerant and catch your accomplice on fire? Foreseeable--OK. But robbing someone and your accomplice dies when the victim defends himself, or driving a get-away car while someone in it is shot (if that's how it happened)? Charge the person with what they did. Where is the murder in this?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 20, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I'm not so sure I think that's reasonable...eh, but I'm not too excited about the matter. It seems both accomplices took the same risk.


Consider, your daughter, or whomever, is confronted by two rapists, and she blows one of the guy's brains out. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the other guy would be mad about it, and maybe want to retaliate. It would be far better for him to be mad about it, behind bars.


----------



## Kukage (Nov 20, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Consider, your daughter, or whomever, is confronted by two rapists, and she blows one of the guy's brains out. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the other guy would be mad about it, and maybe want to retaliate. It would be far better for him to be mad about it, behind bars.



I think a better answer is to teach her to make sure they are both put down at the same time unless there are witnesses and the perp(s) have surrendered and are screaming "Don't shoot me!"

Fortunately these people are generally cowards and usually won't confront victims in the presence of witnesses.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Consider, your daughter, or whomever, is confronted by two rapists, and she blows one of the guy's brains out. Wouldn't it be safe to assume the other guy would be mad about it, and maybe want to retaliate. It would be far better for him to be mad about it, behind bars.



The Kitty Dukakis thing is not a very pleasant way to start a conversation, but I'm not arguing that the amount of years given is unfair--just that the logic is convoluted. I don't want to live with a system where we rationalize convicting people of crimes they didn't commit because they "should" be behind bars.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 20, 2012)

arnisador said:


> The Kitty Dukakis thing is not a very pleasant way to start a conversation, but I'm not arguing that the amount of years given is unfair--just that the logic is convoluted. I don't want to live with a system where we rationalize convicting people of crimes they didn't commit because they "should" be behind bars.


All I am saying is that social dynamics are being taken into consideration when laws like these are written.
Sean


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Fair enough--I see the point but would rather have it be more straight-forward. Increase penalties rather than contort meanings, I'd say.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 20, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think most states punish for another participant in an illegal endeavor getting killed.  But if the guy who lived has been in almost constant trouble with the law, it would probably be considered a handy way to get a bad guy off the streets a little longer.


It's not always done -- but, at least as far as I know, most states do still have a felony murder rule, and it could be applied to a case like this.  (Obviously... since it has been.)


----------



## chinto (Nov 26, 2012)

yep and a few states have gotten rid of it.  mainly because of injustice from it.  If I remember right there is a guy doing 25 to life because he lent his car to some one and went to bed. that some one  robbed a store and killed some one and they charged him because it was his car used. he had no knowledge before hand or even after until arrested! even the main defendant apparently said so!  So yes you can use it in ways that I think the legislatures did not intend or foresee.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I agree she got what she deserved, but not _how _she deserved it. Whether or not she was under his influence, there was no intent to murder him--and even manslaughter seems a stretch to me. Convict her for what she did--and I'm fine with considering her equally guilty of attempted murder of the cop--but not for what she didn't do (kill her boyfriend). This logic is too tortuous to sit well with me.



I hear what you're saying, but felony murder charges are not uncommon, and they're based on logic that, while perhaps tortured, is not too difficult for me to follow. If I intend to commit a criminal act, and someone dies as a result of that act, I don't think it matters whether or not I actually planned to do that.  If so, a person could get off if they robbed a store, shot the storekeeper, but argued that the gun was defective and just 'went off' all by itself.  Doesn't matter, does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder



> The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 26, 2012)

The difference for me is whether it's your accomplice in the crime that dies. Is anyone really bothered by that? If the shopkeeper dies, I'm Ok with charging them all as responsible for his death--in fact, I favor that. But if your criminal buddy dies, I'm less Ok with it. Suppose A talks B into committing a crime with him, and A dies--charging B for his death seems unfair.


----------

