Three Teen Burglars Charged With Murder After Accomplice Accidentally Killed

Understand that law.. and in certain circumstances I agree… not his one… reason being.. they had no intent either.

Intent is not the only way to get a murder charge.

Yep! I love this law! It’s also the type of law that can get someone multiple murder charges with just one death…..if a person dies in the commission of a felony, that’s felony murder. Example: Jessica Ridgeway case and the little creep getting 4 murder charges.

They were in the process of felony burglary, and were armed during the burglarizing. WTF do you mean they “…had no intent either?” I’d LOVE to hear your explanation.

My guess? I bet they will try and say they did not do enough to prevent people from breaking into the summer homes.

Curiosity got the best of me, and it turns out I wasn’t far off. Stankoski said the lawsuit names the Alabama Marine Police as defendants because officers could not reach the island to answer burglary calls in a timely manner and told residents they should take matters into their own hands. I have added that info into the article.

So just because people build houses in a stupid area then its the cops fault. It’s sad she died, but she shouldn’t have been there. If she would have thougt it through then she would still be alive.

Well, that apple certainly fell far from the tree.

Love? Come on, Wolf, I’m guessing that explanation would compel you to spend a few hours at the range visualizing certain posters.

Already do. LOL! I just wanted that one to explain her rationale in making that statement.

Wanna feel sorry for the girl but when you break the law shit happens. Teen or not if you come into my residence theres no guarantee you are leaving here with here with your life.

They won’t though. It sounds to me like they are decent people and they are probably desperately unhappy that they killed someone. Never mind the fact that they didn’t realise she was even there until after she had been hit.

Only an idiot fires a warning shot in the air.

I can’t help wondering why, if doing something stupid and illegal that leads to someone getting killed is “murder”, killing someone while drunk driving is “manslaughter”. So while I agree with the spirit of the law, the way it’s applied is rather fucked-up.

The law says this is murder, but the law is wrong; if anything, it’s manslaughter. People who do this should pay the penalty, but “murder” is the wrong charge. Not to mention almost completely pointless.

Because that creates a stray bullet. If you are going to fire a warning shot, then you should do so in the ground and away from the target you are warning.

I also think families in this situation can be preyed upon by others, like lawyers, in their moments of vulnerability and grieving. I always hope that they can snap out of it and withdraw their suit. It’s ridiculous and embarassing, and although I feel for them and their loss, it makes me less empathetic towards them.

He did shoot at the ground, just not the ground right in front of him. That’s stupid, too. It can richochet. He did the right thing, firing off into the woods at a low angle.

Thanks. That is what I assumed from Morbid’s response.

As tragic an accident as this is, the parents lawsuit is groundless. She could be considered an armed burglar in the act of repeated felonies who took a bullet trying to escape during the commission of these felonies. It’s hard to muster any sympathy for burglars who are killed in the commission of their crime.
People have the right to protect their property. Deadly force is harsh to be sure but if you’ve ever had your home burglarized,which I have, where your wife loses all here jewelry from child hood to now,well like I said it’s hard to muster sympathy.

He shot a bush, away from the two burglars he was warning. He had no idea two more burglars where hiding in it.

I agree with you. We’ve seen an expansion over recent decades of what crimes the charge of murder can apply to.

I see no logical reason to twist a centuries-old concept like murder, with which intent has always been a requirement. Supporters argue that the felony murder rule is a practical way to deter dangerous felonies. Only… it doesn’t.

As usual, European nations are beginning to abolish such statutes. America will catch up eventually.

Eh… I’m perfectly alright with them being held responsible for only their crimes. To charge them with anything for her death flies in the face of personal responsibility. She’s already paid the ultimate price for her stupidity. Unless they coerced her into participating, why should they also pay the price for anything more than what they did?

As I mentioned above, the felony murder rule was created to deter dangerous felonies. Fine job it’s done, huh?

As I understand it, “Intent” in the legal sense does not “malice.” It means, “the act was done intentionally”– here, the burglary– as opposed to, say, as a result of a epileptic seizure or similar uncontrollable activity.

Didn’t see that before I posted. Sorry for being redundant.

Actually, the concept is simpler still. When committing a crime of intent(burglary in this case), and you’re carrying a weapon; the law follows that you have the intent to use it upon another individual. That’s why it’s a legal enhancement to a relatively minor crime & a violation in it’s own right.

Never said what “weapon” I’d use… LOL!

Geez…someone likes herself an ellipses.

That’s true. But it doesn’t address felony murder charges, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Sounds like the men went out of their way to hunt down the burglars, and killed one of them. Probably not out of the realm of reason that even if police had been the ones to shoot a teenager hiding in the bushes that there would be a lawsuit from her family. Interesting information would be: how drunk were the men who shot ‘a warning’ shot into ‘the ground.’ Maybe next time try aiming closer to your feet and we won’t be motivated to feel bad for this girl who doesn’t appear from this write-up to be an actual burglar. The murder charge on the actual burglars would never fly if I were on a jury–I’d convict them for what they actually did–and not for the over-reaction of some shit-kickin hick with a gun. Good luck, prosecutor. You’re reaching here.

Interesting that the DA isn’t charging the men who fired their guns with reckless homicide. Based on the scenario described here, it would most certainly fall within the guidelines.

Once, yet again… They carried firearms while breaking into & burglarizing structures not their own.

Actually, there are many jurisdictions that have laws against discharging weapons in populated areas. It’s not a good practice in theory to fire a warning shot (anyone responsibly trained in gun use should have learned this), and it’s not legally advisable either (I’m trained in both).

Bottom line is: if you have a gun, you need to be responsible in its use. These kids were retreating; there was no apparent threat to the armed men. I’m the first to say that if someone is threatening me or my family in my home, I would not hesitate to use lethal force if necessary.

That said, with proper training, I also know how irresponsible (and harmful) warning shots can be. If the appearance of the gun isn’t enough to deter a criminal from advancing, you assess your force risk and take proper aim. These kids weren’t advancing, though. No justification in discharging a weapon.

Given the facts of the case, most jurisdictions I’ve had the pleasure if working with would have filed charges against the shooter.

My android’s autofill is making me sound illiterate, but I hope I’ve made my point.

You have no real concept of the law, do you? Firstly, we don’t know the details of the crime as it truly occurred. The fact that the police state that there was an “unrecovered .32″ these kids were armed with makes me very suspicious. It sounds like they are trying to build a case to justify the shooting. From what I’ve read on this case, there is ZERO evidence the men who went after these kids had any idea they were in possession of a weapon (which was likely taken in an earlier burglary to sell).

Having training and experience working with many localized law enforcement AND judicial agencies, I can tell you that many if them are outstanding, but not all. These parents probably feel (and IMO, rightfully so) that the only justice they can hope for would have to happen through civil action. But our judicial system is based on the ideology that everyone deserves fair and equal legal representation, and these parents have the right to have their case heard.

You never know…this could be a Good Ol Boy case where the defendents are getting railroaded. (It happens; I’ve had to recuse myself from cases because of it). To make blanket assumptions based on information the government releases is dangerous. Let’s remember those agencies have their own agendas, too (Duke La Crosse, anyone???).

Thanks for your response. I am very concerned about private citizens having guns mainly because I see how irresponsibly they drive, how they sometimes treat each other and their many not so well thought out “shortcuts for shortcuts.”

When you say populated areas, do you mean in urban, suburban or any general area where other people are thought to be at the moment such as in this article?

The ‘lil pissants didn’t need to brandish the weapon(s). The shooters didn’t need to be aware of any weapons in the possession of the burglars. And yet again, the carrying of a weapon during the commission of a crime in which someone is killed brings about the criminal enhancement of felony burglary and the extra charge(s) of murder.

Populated areas being areas.inhabited by others in close proximity (as in areas having neighbors next door etc.)..In rural areas, where people often own many acres of private property, there is a far less chance of injuring someone unintentionally with a warning shot, but it’s still bad business, unless you.are trying to scare if coyotes or such.

There’s been a move in many states in the last decade our doo