Not going to be a victim

[Nitrous]

Quote:
That's a Kingpin law for you. If I drive the getaway car for our bank robbery and someone gets killed, I get charged with murder. All acts during the commission of a felony....

And if you paid me to rob the bank... you get it too. Those laws were instituted to help bring down the top guy in an organization.

 

[Nitrous]

Quote:
I love her quote of "I'd do it again." [deadpan]

Yes. Yes she would. And don't worry too much about the dead guy. There's no shortage of drug addicts. Someone has already taken his place.

 

[EweSheep]

Quote:
Most states have laws that make all persons involved in a crime responsible for the injury or death of anyone during the course of that crime. One of the intruders was killed; that equates to murder in this case, and therefore according to state law, the accomplice can and should be charged. If you dislike that, work to get the sgtatute changed. Don;t expect many to be sympathetic to you, though. Consider it this way--what if instead of the victim doing the shooting, imagined that she or her infant were killed. Would you still think that the accomplice should not be charged with their deaths?

That makes sense, Sonoran, makes ALOT of sense! Thanks! Like Hitler and his croneys, one committed the horrible crime, so does the rest of his clan, directly or indirectly. WWII murders were not taken lightly either, if they were on the run to Brazil, you can bet someone will be chasing them. They won't be found quickly but eventually they will get caught.

That's a Kingpin law for you. If I drive the getaway car for our bank robbery and someone gets killed, I get charged with murder. All acts during the commission of a felony....

And if you paid me to rob the bank... you get it too. Those laws were instituted to help bring down the top guy in an organization.

Makes ALOT of sense too!

Thanks for giving me the hindsight. Hubby had to explain to me about this in WWII acts of crime and the reprocussions of the crime, either you are involved or not directly involved.

Like the Mary Surrat movie just out last year, she MAY have known about the actions of the assistination of President Lincoln by those men but at that time women are not that well respected or the customs they had, "say NOTHING" about it even when she overheard what they were doing. Women have been doing that for years until the times have changed. Would she have had the death penalty too because she was aware of the plan of action being committed? I have mixed feelings about it...Yes and No. I'd rather have her behind jail until further proof was found or serve out her time. At that time, people are looking for an end to the "witch hunt".
Was she an accomplant to the crime? I would say yes.

 

[halo]

I will never ever live in a state that doesnt have a Castle Doctrine. I feel that is one of our most important rights as human beings.

 

[TinyChickenLady]

Far as I'm concerned, that mother is a hero! She did everything right and then some. If I were in the situation, I can't guarantee that I would ask for permission before shooting. She deserves some recognition, an award. She's a good mother and a good citizen.
What the offender got, he had it coming. How dare you victimize a young widow and her child!!

Kay, I'm done or I'll rant.

 

[EweSheep]

Quote:
Not sure if our state has it. Probably not because it is illegial for us to carry guns.

 

[halo]

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

 

[goldtopper]

I just hope that she doesn't get sued civily by the dead dope head's family. Castle Doctrines and Carry Laws are good, but once you open a can of whoopazz on some deadbeat, their family usually comes a knockin. Money grubbin losers usually don't fall far from the tree.

 

[OwlLover]

Quote:
Most states have laws that make all persons involved in a crime responsible for the injury or death of anyone during the course of that crime. One of the intruders was killed; that equates to murder in this case, and therefore according to state law, the accomplice can and should be charged. If you dislike that, work to get the sgtatute changed. Don;t expect many to be sympathetic to you, though. Consider it this way--what if instead of the victim doing the shooting, imagined that she or her infant were killed. Would you still think that the accomplice should not be charged with their deaths?

x2!

 

[halo]

Quote:
I think this statute prevents that from happening:

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.