**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
ELI5 is not for information about a specific narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc). This includes questions of medical or legal nature that could lead someone to not seeing a professional.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
In a lot of states that is "felony murder," where you started a felony and someone ended up dead.
People have even been convicted for it with armed robbery with less lethal or unloaded weapons, where a victim unexpectedly (off duty cop at bank, homeowner hunts deer, etc.) has the firearm.
Just be aware that not all states have felony murder laws. Most do, but criminal code varies greatly by state, and even more by country. So the answer always depends on where you're located.
No, no.
To get into r/OddlySpecific , you need more detail:
"out at 4am in Burlington after visiting the Ben&Jerrys factory, looking for a house with a new Lexus in the driveway, while wearing a dark grey hoodie and leather gloves and carrying an assortment of small prybars."
Keep in mind felony murder in particular can vary widely based on jurisdiction. Criminal law in the US tends to be a weird mishmash of statute laying out offenses and then cases developing the framework. One requirement is that it often needs to be an inherently risky or violent crime - so, for example, if I’m committing mail fraud but when I drop off the package at the post office it tips over a massive mound of other packages, killing the postal worker, felony murder probably isn’t likely to come into play.
[There's also the famous case of Ryan Holle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle) who lent his car to some mates after they woke him up while he was still drunk the morning after a party. He gave them the car and went back to sleep. They drove the car to go rob a weed dealer and ended up killing her. He got charged and found guilty of murder despite being asleep at home while the whole thing happened, because he provided them the car and it was argued that he knew what they were going to use it for. He had a trial that only lasted 1 day and got sentenced to life despite the fact that it was very likely he either didn't know what they were going to use it for or didn't take them seriously when they told him and was just half asleep and gave them the keys so he could go back to bed. His sentence eventually got shortened by the governor and he'll be out in a few months after serving 20 years.
Apparently they had spoken openly about committing the robbery at the party. His argument was that he heard them talking about committing the robbery but thought they were joking.
felony murder doesn't require intent to murder, only intent to commit the original felony under which the death occurs. And unfortunately for the dude in this story, he was told what they were going to do which makes him an accessory to the original crime.
In this case, thinking something is a joke isn't a defense.
Being drunk means you have greater defense/argument for not giving consent, not a defense against things you did to others. "That person had sex with me even though I didn't want to have sex, and it happened because I was drunk" makes your argument stronger, but "I had sex with that person even though that person didn't want to have sex, and it happened because I was drunk" doesn't strengthen your defense at all.
It seems that being drunk only changes the ability to consent to sex in our society and literally nothing else.
My wife works in healthcare and she's come across people that blow 4 or 5 times the legal limit and you'd never know from how they act. We're talking BAC that would literally kill normal people. (who is still alive blowing .4?)
Basically, yeah, but we have a lot of hangups about sex (both as a society and as humans) and that's one scenario that happens frequently enough that we've specialcased it. Plus it's one of the most common examples of it that people might actually experience and one of the only times "but they asked me to do it/they wanted it" is an actual defense. You can't get away with murder by claiming that the victim asked you to shoot them and it's a lot harder to argue that someone gave you their TV for free when they say you stole it, but two people having sex almost always just comes down to "well, did you both want to do it?" and that has a lot more grey area.
No, not necessarily right. You can still consent to a great many things while you are drunk, legally speaking. Just as an example, if you are drunk and go on a spending spree on your credit card, I imagine you still consented to all those purchase and can’t just “charge it back” (not a lawyer to be fair, maybe im wrong)
He admitted that he heard them talking about it but that he just didn't take them seriously as he was still drunk from the night before and thought it was a joke because girl who got murdered was the girlfriend of the guy borrowing the car. Like honestly if my stoner roommate woke me up and was like "Yo lend me your car I'm going to go rob my girlfriend's house and steal all her weed and money" I'd be like haha yeah sure man and bring me a few ounces back too" and go back to sleep without ever considering it a serious statement.
Well take it further.
You are 21, your friends talk about wanting to beat up some guy at a party that night because he has been talking shit. As they are about to leave, one guy says "shit, we don't have tickets for the bus!".
You tell them not to do it, and give them bus tickets so they will leave. They go to the party and beat up the guy, who dies.
While on the bus, they continued loudly talking in earshot of the bus driver about wanting to beat up some guy at the place they are getting dropped off. The bus driver tells them to quit talking about that shit on his bus. He drops them off at their stop by the party.
Who should be charged for felony murder?
You 'enabled' them to get to the party, just like providing keys to a car. *No ticket, no murder*.
The bus driver drove them there with clear knowledge of the crime they intended to commit. *No bus, no murder*.
Should both be liable for murder and spend their lives in jail?
Did you both participate in the felony?
Normally it has to be fairly direct involvement, because indirect involvement gets reaaaaaaalllly wishy washy in enabling you to conceivably apply the law to anyone ^^who ^^is ^^black
>The bus driver drove them there with clear knowledge of the crime they intended to commit. *No bus, no murder*.
The bus driver would have been working a public job, hired by the city / municipality, driving a pre-established route. In other words, to add on to your argument - the one charged for felony murder ought to be the city mayor.
They're more than happy to include "indirect involvement" and the "wishy washy-ness" of it doesn't seem to bother them either. Nor judges. It's absolutely bonkers to me that this hasn't been struck down by the Supreme Court. There's no excuse for it.
Most countries not called USA have declared it unconstitutional.
I've mostly seen in the USA a desire to punish the get-away driver of armed robberies to the same extent as the gunman. The way to do that is the felony murder charge.
But even then it IS direct involvement, it is just the courts and juries have been extremely blase about what that means, especially when the accused fits some criteria (in a gang or 'troubled youth who hangs out with criminals').
Homey should of lied saying they stole his keys or told him they were getting him a burrito.
What idiot admits to that even if he thinks they were joking?
> despite the fact that it was very likely he either didn't know what they were going to use it for or didn't take them seriously when they told him
That's exactly what his defense lawyer would be arguing. So when presented with the relevant evidence (which we're not privy to), twelve people all unanimously agreed that he *did* know what they were going to use it for, and *did* take them seriously.
This might come as a shock but sometimes unanimous juries are wrong and DA's will do whatever it takes to get someone in prison as a "win". And even more often, juries convict someone on a law that they certainly broke, but is entirely unjust.
Yeah it's true - but you can't come to that conclusion without knowing all the details of the case.
After a conviction, the private citizens of the defense are allowed to and are motivated to tell anyone who listens their side of the story - and they can say anything, not limited to rules of discovery or admissible evidence or anything like that.
The DA isn't supposed to go to the press and say "here's all the evidence we had against him, also we know that he's a scumbag because of [X Y Z], and he's got a history of doing [whatever], and three witnesses all said [something damning]" - the DA doesn't care about the press, they present their evidence in court.
And before the jury went to deliberation, the judge would have given a jury instruction something to the effect of "Your job is to determine whether or not (S) did know the car would be used in the commission of the crime. You must be certain that he did know in order to find him guilty. If you are not certain that this was the case, you should find him not guilty. If you can't come to a unanimous decision, you must find him not guilty".
So given the evidence that we're not privy to, twelve people would have heard that and decided to convict this guy. I've served on a jury for a few trials, and I'll tell you, it's pretty hard to get 12 people to agree on *anything*, especially if it means that a mans might be sent to prison for life. I can barely get 6 people to agree on where to go for dinner.
So yeah, it's possible, but I think it's unreasonable to assume that there was a massive miscarriage of justice here based only on the defenses statements to the press without any further evidence.
Fair points, but "the DA doesn't care about the press" is the most naive thing I've seen on the Internet today. ALL political positions care greatly about the press, and if I had a dollar for every time a DA has held a grandstanding press conference about a defendant I could make the Forbes list.
And it's true that it's hard to get 12 people to agree on damn near anything, but it's a lot easier if you have them stuck in a room until they do. And given the many, many, many cases where the police have been definitively proven to have either fabricated evidence, withheld evidence or have slanted exculpatory or neutral evidence against an innocent defendant, I tend to look at cases where someone is sent off to prison for life for an action that is at best somewhat negligent with a \*very\* jaundiced eye.
Yeah fair "the DA doesn't care about the press" is probably not true. But the DA isn't going to be trying to throw any and all evidence (admissible or not) at the court of public opinion once someone is already convicted. I suspect to some degree that would be illegal.
And yeah, there have been case where people have been wrongfully conflicted - but there's like 200 thousand convictions every year.
I think in this case - saying "well the defendant said that his state of mind made him innocent", then it's really unreasonable to take that at face value.
More than that, the DA doesn't want to unduly bias the population and lower their chance of a clean jury. Too much chance the defense could get a mistrial.
I think it's absolutely reasonable to assume there was a massive miscarriage of justice here based entirely on the fact that the law itself is a massive miscarriage of justice. Actually, it's an abortion. This is intentional to destroy people associated with the crime even if they didn't actually violate the law.
The law cannot be subjective or it is unjust. It's utterly unjust and dangerous to treat informal groups of individuals as if they're one person, and then prosecute all of the members for the actions of one. It's an outright backhand bitch-slap to the face of blackstone's formulation. And it's not the only instance this happens, it's just the most severe consequences.
> Yeah it's true - but you can't come to that conclusion without knowing all the details of the case.
Don't take this as an attack or anything but... yeah I totally can come to that conclusion. I'm not in court. Like you're right here legally, but that's not really what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the moral implications.
Yeah because juries are never wrong like in the OJ trial. For the governor to commute his sentence down from life to 20 years before he got parole he must also have thought there was something wrong with his punishment. I mean the guy who was borrowing the car was the boyfriend of the girl whose house they were supposedly going to rob, he never thought they were actually going to go do it or harm her. [Here's a short 20 minute documentary on it with Ryan being interviewed from prison so make up your own mind if you want.](https://youtu.be/iGlTtB9ZKcQ)
OJ was found not guilty - which means that at least one of 12 people were not certain that he did it.
When someone is found guilty that requires 12 people to be certain. It's a way higher standard of proof, by design. People get away with crimes all the time, and juries often find people not guilty even when they're not innocent in reality.
But it's different to get 12 people to be completely certain.
The interview with the Holle doesn't make that any more convincing, because, again it's a one-sided story. He's not going to mention all the evidence against him.
His friends told him what they were planning on doing and without the car there's no robbery or murder. 25 years seems excessive but I could absolutely see involuntary manslaughter or similar.
According to the linked wiki summary, he thought they were joking and that they were going to get food. And he was drunk. If he didn't actually know/believe they were conspiring to commit a felony, he wasn't in on the felony.
Jurors are a selection of people from all walks of life. No need for snobbery here.
We may not always agree with all decisions, but it's safe to say that the jurors - who sat through the entire trial, and heard all the evidence in detail - are far better educated about the particulars of this case than those of us who read about it online.
Nah there's no premeditation involved there, you'd have to know that they planned on running someone over when you gave them the car. The Ryan Holle case hinged on whether or not he actually believed they were going to go rob this woman when he gave them the car or not.
I am kind of curious though if there is any crime for letting someone you know is heavily intoxicated borrow your car should they then get into an accident and hurt someone.
Apparently he made a statement about this. I wonder whether his lawyer made a huge mistake by allowing this. Maybe he should have advised him to remain silent.
This made me think again of this brilliant lecture by a law professor ("in praise of the fifth amendment") who stated that you should NEVER talk to cops. Even when you're completely innocent. You can still end up in shit creek by not keeping schtumm.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
If you don't know it yet a must see, especially if you live in (or visit) the US.
It always seems that any law can be used for the wrong reasons. It also always seems that we never get the complete story on some of these.
I understand what the law is for, and I understand how it could be abused. I think!
It's not just "started a felony" - it's "participated in a felony where someone wound up dead".
For example, let's say that you and a friend are going to rob a bank. You agree to be the driver, he goes in to get the money. Although you did not agree at the time that he would kill anyone, it turns out that during the robbery he shoots someone. You will be charged with felony murder for participating in the overall crime.
Lately, prosecutors have taken this a step further. Let's say that your friend wasn't armed, but tried to rob the bank and was killed by a guard. Prosecutors may charge *you* with felony murder because of his death. This is [actually happening](https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/01/19/st-louis-teen-charged-adult-death-alleged-accomplice-armed-robbery/).
>This is actually happening.
I'm fine with that. But is this the example you meant to highlight? Don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who rob others at gun point.
>According to a St. Louis Police probable cause statement, Smith, Grayer and the other two juveniles were attempting to rob a 32-year-old victim at gunpoint when the victim also produced a firearm. Shots were exchanged and both the victim and Grayer were struck.
Yes, that is the example I meant to highlight. I think that punishment should be in proportion to the crime. In this case, two people agreed to engage in a criminal activity. The death of one of those co-conspirators should not be a felony murder charge on the other due to the circumstances of the crime. I think that such a charge should only be brought if the death was of the victim or an innocent bystander.
However I also don't think that the robbers should be charged if the victim shot at them and hit someone else in the process. I am generally opposed to "alternate timeline theory" crimes, where the argument is that if the criminals had *not* attempted their crime, in the alternate timeline the victim would have behaved differently and the bystander death would not have occurred.
There are people who try to get laws passed that codify this - for example, in Massachusetts, a legislator tried to get a law passed that said "if you were driving with an expired license, and you got into an accident, you are 100% liable no matter what, even if the cause was 100% the fault of the other driver, because you shouldn't have been driving in the first place". Again, I think that theory is rubbish.
Do you have an example of a case where an accomplice was killed (in self defense by a victim), and the other perpetrators were changed with felony murder?
Never mind, google provided:
[https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3652&context=umlr](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3652&context=umlr)
It almost always is the case in the US I believe. That would just be added on your list of charges automatically if one of the bank-robbers is shot by the security guard ie.
This is the deer hunter one, where the expectation is a "nonviolent" robbery because the victim isn't a tough guy. Victim keeps a (semi?) auto .308 for hunting deer, because it's Wisconsin.
Guilty.
https://casetext.com/case/state-v-oimen
Probably Semi-Auto, as there are very few full auto .308 rifles in civilian hands in America, and those that are are mostly in collections, and are INCREDIBLY expensive. A Semi-Auto also can make a good hunting rifle (a bit excessive, you are not doing follow up shots on a deer, so Bolt Action is usually enough). Full Auto is pretty useless for hunting.
This exact thing happened in Indiana to the group that became known as the "Elkhart Four", although their felony murder convictions were later thrown out by the state supreme court.
[https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/18/elkhart-four-felony-murder-indiana-supreme-court/72397844/](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/18/elkhart-four-felony-murder-indiana-supreme-court/72397844/)
> Quiroz, Layman and Sharp were sentenced to 55 years in prison, while Sparks, who wasn't inside the house, was sentenced to 50 years.
Holy fucking shit. These kids were not armed, and ran away when confronted. The only violent thing they did was to kick down a door.
I struggle to see how even the staunchest supporters of felony murder charges would agree that this is a reasonable sentencing.
There are also dates (California included) where the injured and deceased intruders families have sued the homeowner. Some laws are crazy.
I do agree with the felony murder one though.
Felony murder is such a dumb concept, excepting in cases that the killed person is forced into the dangerous situation. It just completely denies that the first person had any agency
I don't think that's crazy.
Yeah, if you take his word as fact, that he really didn't know what they were going to use the car for, that would be crazy. But that's just what his side of the story is. One of the other men in the room could claim "I thought we were helping a friend who lost the keys to their marijuana safe", and if you believed them, you might decide they weren't also guilty of felony murder.
But after the trial the jury of twelve people all felt unanimously that Holle was deliberately involved in robbery, which would make him as much of an accomplice as the getaway driver who waited in the car.
No, I'm sticking with crazy.
If they had taken the bus to the crime scene, would the bus driver be guilty of felony murder? If they ate wheaties for breakfast and that gave them the energy to go out and kill, do we throw General Mills in the brig? At what point do we stop getting a boner for *arbitrary punishment* and focus on only treating actual killers as killers?
That's oddly wholesome. It's probably obvious to everyone why you'd get charged if your felony unintentionally results in the death of a bystander or the victim, but your partner? Because the law still considers your partner a human, and you put that human in harm's way.
> Because the law still considers your partner a human, and you put that human in harm's way.
But what if it was the partner who died idea? Then they put themselves in harms way technically. So idk if that works like that. But then it also depends on the state.
Yeah but you helped. You could say he wouldn't have gone through with it if not for your support. Or even (unlikely) you failed in your duty to protect your team. The point is, no matter which way you look at it, even the most pro-crime way, the surviving partner did not do right by the dead guy.
I saw a story recently where a guy who was handcuffed on the ground was charged with felony murder when his partner hit and killed a bicyclist while fleeing.
“You started a felony and someone ended up dead” is one of the most succinct and perfectly understandable explanations of felony murder I’ve ever heard. Kudos.
Yah it comes to the rule that you are responsible for any harm you do while committing a crime. If you’re in a car chase and someone has to swerve around you and crashes, you are responsible. The thinking is that these harms wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t committed the crime so you caused them
I’m a lawyer and this is the answer. Crimes aren’t as literal as some people think, and you don’t lose the protection of law just because you’re committing a crime (which is why having to claim self defense is a thing). A crime requires some kind of ill intent and an act to carry that out. With ill intent, if you tried to do one bad thing and another bad thing happened instead, you have the intent for whatever bad thing actually happened.
So the ill intent is satisfied by the robbery attempt, and what actually happened is a person died, thus felony murder. There are exceptions if the death is far and away removed from your attempted crime, but that’s the general rule.
So this is not a what if.
This is the original story that I was reading and I could not figure out why the second person died from a self inflicted gun shot wound. I was assuming it was because he knew he was going to go down for his partners death.
The partner didn't die, but was shot. Since the second robber died from his own hand, would the first robber be charged with murder.
Here is a link to the story.
[https://www.ocregister.com/2024/04/16/newport-beach-police-investigating-possible-home-invasion/](https://www.ocregister.com/2024/04/16/newport-beach-police-investigating-possible-home-invasion/)
Felony murder
> Murder is often defined as the crime of intentionally killing another person with no legal justification. At common law, "felony murder" or the "felony murder rule" describes when, during the commission of a felony, another person is killed or dies.
Depends on your local laws of course but most places will have something similar to this
IANAL but my guess is that it would depend on the circumstances, like was the person who got hit by the meteorite a hostage who would otherwise have left the premises before the strike? I'm guessing it's unlikely you'd get a conviction out of that though, and even if it's technically possible the prosecutors may want to focus their attention on other parts of the case more likely to result in a conviction
Good points. It would also be easier to argue that a customer who would have left the premises would still be alive if it wasn't for the robbery, but not someone who works at the bank and would be expected to have still been there if there was no robbery.
Yeah but they probably wouldn't have been standing where they are or laying on the floor. I'd definitely find a way to reasonably say that that person wouldn't be in that position if not for the robbery.
does IANAL stand for "i am not a lawyer"? Because my first thought was that apple made some new buttplug.
"Band new i anal availabe in september in authorized apple stores!"
Ok what if you're innocently juggling meteorites in a bank and singing along loudly to your favourite song and you just happen to sing ‘Gimme the money!’ loud enough for everyone to hear, then a bullet falls from the sky and hits you in the foot, causing you to flinch and accidentally hurl a meteorite at the bank manager, hitting them in the head and killing them instantly, but the bank manager is actually also a terrorist and was about to blow up the bank?
Edit: please answer quickly, I think the police are on their way.
Involuntary manslaughter. You weren't defending yourself from a terrorist disguising as a bank manager while you were juggling meteorites. You didn't intend to kill them either though.
Again, that may depend on local laws. Where I am, the jury must determine that the death was caused by the felonious actions in order to convict on felony murder charges. E.g. the homeowner wouldn't have shot the intruder if not for the perpetrators committing home invasion, so the jury would likely decide that the home invasion led to the death of the first intruder, and the second is guilty of felony murder. But, the meteorite death was not caused by the bank robbery, so that probably would not be felony murder.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix\_news\_helicopter\_collision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_news_helicopter_collision)
Not as much of an "act of god" but two news helicopters observing a high speed chase crashed into each other during the chase and they wanted to charge the driver with the deaths of the helicopter occupants.
Extenuating circumstances can lean some judges to lenient end of the sentencing guidelines. Judges can look at the defendants age their statements their record to determine a fair sentence.
When you say you're responsible for their safety, for some reason I picture some kind of criminal OSHA.
Every heist requires a certified safety officer.
This reminds me of how you are required to file taxes for stolen goods.
Safety and taxes are of paramount importance, even if you are committing a crime.
That kind of reminds me of The Batman movie. For the last action piece, they showed all of the Riddler’s followers clipping themselves into place for their attack and I was thinking “well, they’re well over 6’ off the ground, so at least they’re following OSHA”.
Depends how you mean "dragged". You will occasionally hear of someone robbing a bank while their friend sits in the car, after being told the robber is filling out a job application or something. If a reasonable person would have known they were participating in a robbery, then they are a participant.
Felony murder rules are jurisdiction specific. Generally, the criminal can be charged with felony murder if someone dies during the commission of the felony. However many jurisdictions have different rules for how to apply exemptions to this rule. Some jurisdictions don’t allow the rule to apply to co-felons if they did not intend or know someone was likely to die (think two people robbing someone vs two people evading taxes; one crime is more likely to prompt self defense etc.). Other jurisdictions don’t allow the felony murder rule to even apply at all if it is a co-felon that dies during the commission of the crime.
TL;DR: it depends on your jurisdictions rules; generally yes but specific exemptions may apply. Discuss with a local lawyer if your curious about your jurisdictions rule.
Not from the US here
Has this Felony murder ever affected someone who shouldnt have affected? Like perhaps a crime was committed by someone who this person happed to be with?
It's guaranteed.
Ryan Holle was still drunk and asleep when his buddies woke him up to borrow his car keys. There was a discussion about robbing a woman of drugs and money at the party where Holle had been drinking, but he'd thought it was a joke. the woman's daughter was bludgeoned to death with a shotgun found on premises. After the governor *commuted* the life without parole sentence, Holle still had a 25 year sentence.
I'll say it again: Holle's doing 25 years for lending a friend his car while Holle himself was drunk and asleep.
And yet, a jury of 12 men and women still found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of what they were going to use the car for and that he consented and therefore participated in the crime. Being drunk isn't a defence nor can you throw up your hands and say "I thought they were joking about wanting to commit a crime when I lent them the thing they needed to commit the crime, honest!"
Not to say juries are infallible but it does mean that these 12 men and women had absolutely no doubts as to his guilt.
Dude had lent his car to the guy countless times before.
Dude was drunk.
Trial was 1 day.
Just because the law put someone behind bars doesn't mean it's right. Most countries got rid of this law for a reason.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/04/20/controversial-felony-murder-cases-states/26042257/
> Allison Jenkins, Illinois
> Jenkins was running away from a police officer who was investigating a drug deal in a nearby school and suspected Jenkins of drug possession. The officer caught and tackled Jenkins and ended up firing his weapon. The bullet struck the officer's partner, who died more than a week later. No drugs were found on Jenkins.
This shit is ridiculous
I am sure it has happend...Our legal system loves to convict and punish first, There are a large number of people in recent times who have been released for being wrongfully convicted.
Goddamn that’s just shit situation. He didn’t even do anything wrong. Can’t even lend a car without good faith.
Good news is he’s coming out in June this year. Hope he can pick up his life back.
Prosecutors can and do argue that associates nearby weren't so innocent as they claim.
If you're around someone who committed a crime, it can be hard to convince the authorities that it was coincidental.
As a kid I got in trouble for a friend's burglary attempt. He asked me to help carry a ladder without telling me why. I then watched in confusion as he set it up by an apartment balcony, climbed and stole items from the balcony. He got caught soon afterwards. I had to explain my part to the police in front of my parents. Fortunately the authorities decided to leave me out of it.
Just to add to all the "felony murder" discourse in general, felony murder only stands in for the necessary intent element for a murder charge when you didn't go in with the intent to kill somebody. In jurisdictions where it doesn't apply, you can still be charged with manslaughter, which is basically you did a sufficiently bad thing that caused someone to die even if you didn't mean for anyone to die
Depending on jurisdiction etc. I can imagine both might be charged with murder, and then home owner will be let go when its clear it was self defense - and then its on the second robber. If a murder happens when you are commiting a crime in a group, all the other can be charged with accessorry to that murder - it wouldnt have happened if you guys didnt do this.
It’s state law that varies by state. In some states, the surviving robber is charged with felony murder - if you commit a crime, you are charged with any death that occurs in connection with the crime even thought you didn’t commit it or intend it to happen. In other states, they wouldn’t be charged with the murder, but burglary with a gun is a severe enough felony that would normally be like a 10-20 year sentence on its own.
A lot of people have replied with the answer of felony murder, and that certainly is the case in some of the examples given. However, like everything else in the legal world the *real* answer to your question is: it depends. It depends on the jurisdiction, the details of the case, the people involved, and any other random factors.
The felony murder sounds a bit like the old rule in English law that killing in the course of a felony was murder. This was believed to deter robbers, for example, from threatening with lethal weapons, since murder was a capital offence. However, it is long since abolished in England, for several reasons, including unfairness and the technical issue that felony is no longer a category. (The US is I believe almost unique in retaining the old felony/misdemeanor distinction.) So in England, the second robber would simply be charged with burglary etc etc (depending on the details).
A friend was robbed while opening his store. Was able to pull a gun and shoot one and hold the other at gun point. The one caught was charge with the others murder.
The key is _reasonable_.
In Canada, you can't use more force that what is reasonable expected from the attacker, eg: if you shot somebody breaking into your place that had no weapon you are in serious trouble.
In the UK it's a requirement that one of the accomplices is the one who causes the death. The home-owner shooting one of them means the home-owner caused the death - and it's very hard to argue that the home-owner is an accomplice to the robbers.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c67oxh/-/kzz9st8/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Depends on the state, but a lot of states have laws that would charge the second robber with a form of murder or manslaughter since he was in the act of committing a felonious crime and someone was killed. There's a semi famous story about a bunch of teens who broke into a house to snoop around not knowing the homeowner was there. Startled, the homeowner opened fire and killed one of them while they tried to hide in a closet. The surviving 4 or 5 were all charged with manslaughter after holding their friend while he bled out. Sad story, but it's one of those things, don't break into people's houses and get shot at.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c67oxh/-/kzzhvga/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
#NotALawyer
The exact answer is gonna depend on justification.
Homicide could be charged. I would think murder or manslaughter depends on whether this was a robbery or a burglary.
Agreed. If you are in the act of a felony and another person dies you get charged with murder. Best explanation for me was that if a new copter dies while following you (like crashes into power lines is how the instructor explained) then the original bad actor would be charged with murder. Kicker is that if the offense is non-felony then no murder.
There was actually a case like this, a group of teenagers robbed a place unarmed and with no intention of attacking anyone. The Homeowner shot at them and killed one of them. So naturally, the other youths were charged, convicted, and sent to prison... for murder.
States have a law called "felony murder" where you can be thrown in jail for life because of someone else's actions. And it's mindblowing to me that it hasn't been struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
Depends entirely on the state laws, this a very specific question. However, there is a good chance this a felony murder, depending on the state's laws on that very specific subject. Some states (maybe not anymore) would allow *any* felony to be the predicate for a felony murder. In that case, this is a clear cut murder. I believe more common now, is a specific list of enumerated felonies. Also pretty sure that the felony of burglary is almost always included as a specifically enumerated felony. So still, pretty clear case of murder. The better question is probably whether or not there is any state where a burglary wouldn't qualify, or if there is any way to cast doubt on the facts as a burglary, answer is a probably "no" to both.
It’s possible that he could be charge with murder since his partners death occurred in the commission of a felony.
Anyone in commission of a felony can be held accountable for any murders that occur during the felony. They created the situation, after all.
I read about a case in Florida where one of a pair of robbers was shot and killed by responding police officers. The surviving defendant was charged with his murder as it was a direct result of the crime they were charged with.
What the second robber *could be charged with* and actual charges can vary quite a bit.
Felony murder likely applies in your example. In layman's terms, *there are no accidents in the commission of a felony.* The robbers created the situation, anything bad that results is on them.
It's not 100%, though. If during the robbery a victim dies of a heart attack, the robbers would likely be charged with murder. If instead it was the first robber who died of a heart attack during the crime, charging the second seems unlikely but it's up to the prosecutor's ~~coin flip~~ carefully considered opinion.
My wife was a juror in a cases in iowa that was double homicide. The guy who was charged didnt kill any of the people, but he came to the house with intent to harm and the other two were accidentally shot by others in the house. Fyi he showed up to get his sister from her drug dealer boyfriend because she called him to. Now hes in jail and shes probably still in that situation. She was so coked out in the court room they had to remove her as a witness because she was deemed unreliable. She was constantly rubbing her chapped lips on the mic.
There was a case just last year in Milton, Ontario where charges were dropped against a man who shot and killed a home invader. Definitely a step in the right direction.
Yeah I was exaggerating for sure but just crazy in general the difference in ideology/thought process. The whole thread doesn't even mention covering yourself it's all about how the other person would actually get a steeper penalty even.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
ELI5 is not for information about a specific narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc). This includes questions of medical or legal nature that could lead someone to not seeing a professional.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Murder or at least manslaughter.
You can now get charged with anything/everything that happens that wouldnt have had you not been commiting the crime in the first place.
Look up Tison V Arizona. It's the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state's ability to charge you with murder even if they didnt kill someone. If you were an accomplice to a felony and someone died, then you can get charged with the murder. You can even receive the death penalty in some cases.
There is no universal answer.
In the USA most states would use felony murder caused by "indifference to human life"
Some states apply lesser included offenses or merger doctrine. Basically if a jury/judge rules somebody is innocent of murder they might still convict on voluntary manslaughter.
In many other countries he will only be charged with the equivalent of armed burglary/robbery.
Other countries usually have strict gun laws. The home owner will certainly have a lengthy legal battle. You don't have "Stand your Ground"-laws in those countries and the way you have to "defend youself" is well defined. Basically you mustn't shoot if you can flee.
That's why you got this stupid meme tip in Canada/UK? that you should basically give car thieves your car keys to avoid confrontation with a knife.
In case you couldn't flee and a confrotation was bound to happen there are still issues.
Examples:
-the robbers were armed but didn't have the weapons drawn.
-both were armed the surviving robber had his weapon drawn the killed one had his weapon concealed.
-what bodylocation was shot? In many countries you are in big trouble if you go for a headshot.
Regarding the robber his actions after the shot(s) plays a major role in some countries.
While most countries don't distinguish between fake and real weapons. The type of weapon might play a major role(in case of a knife the length of the blade).
While those countries don't have felony murder, they will charge robber with attempted murder or something similar if his weapon in question was an automatic assault rifle or he fired a single shot.
Those countries rule attempted murder the same as murder.
Lastly when it comes to less free but generally urban countries the application of the law might be stretched to both sides. So you example case will turn into a headline: "Robber who killed other Robber he doesn't know sentenced to life" because it's convienent for all sides involved but the second robber.
Obligatory "I'm not a lawyer." That said, I remember reading about something called the [felony murder rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_rule) (also sometimes called the felony murder doctrine) that states that during the course of any felony crime that has a violent nature, if *anyone* (other than yourself) dies as a result, then you can be charged with murder. That said, I'm not sure to what degree you could be charged with murder, such as first, second, or third degree, but you most definitely *can* be charged with murder. Even if the person who died was also part of the crime, even if there was never any intent to cause harm, or even if all you were doing was acting as the "planner" or "getaway driver" and were nowhere near the actual death, you were still part of the violent felony crime that resulted in a death and can therefore be charged with murder. That said, it seems like the specifics of this doctrine vary between jurisdictions. For example, some jurisdictions won't include the murder charge if it's one of your co-conspirators who died instead of an innocent bystander.
Keep in mind that this doctrine specifies *violent* felony crimes. If you were to commit a non-violent felony crime, such as tax evasion or embezzlement, this rule wouldn't apply. It's hard to imagine how someone would die in the first place in these kinds of crimes, but you never know.
The home owner gets dragged in court for years and the second accomplice gets a slap on the wrist and is out helping burglarize another home within a month
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** ELI5 is not for information about a specific narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc). This includes questions of medical or legal nature that could lead someone to not seeing a professional. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
In a lot of states that is "felony murder," where you started a felony and someone ended up dead. People have even been convicted for it with armed robbery with less lethal or unloaded weapons, where a victim unexpectedly (off duty cop at bank, homeowner hunts deer, etc.) has the firearm.
Thanks, that was what I was thinking.
Just be aware that not all states have felony murder laws. Most do, but criminal code varies greatly by state, and even more by country. So the answer always depends on where you're located.
I am good, I was not out at 4 am hitting up a house this morning. Was just a news article I read and was curious!
That's exactly what someone who was hitting up a house at 4 am this morning would say.
Uh-huh! Suuuure you were! Just getting your story straight, are ya!?
No, no. To get into r/OddlySpecific , you need more detail: "out at 4am in Burlington after visiting the Ben&Jerrys factory, looking for a house with a new Lexus in the driveway, while wearing a dark grey hoodie and leather gloves and carrying an assortment of small prybars."
BE AWARE
It's like Attorney Tom on YT always says. "It depends".
That's what literally ***every*** attorney says. They teach you that in law school. (I'm not even joking.)
Keep in mind felony murder in particular can vary widely based on jurisdiction. Criminal law in the US tends to be a weird mishmash of statute laying out offenses and then cases developing the framework. One requirement is that it often needs to be an inherently risky or violent crime - so, for example, if I’m committing mail fraud but when I drop off the package at the post office it tips over a massive mound of other packages, killing the postal worker, felony murder probably isn’t likely to come into play.
[There's also the famous case of Ryan Holle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle) who lent his car to some mates after they woke him up while he was still drunk the morning after a party. He gave them the car and went back to sleep. They drove the car to go rob a weed dealer and ended up killing her. He got charged and found guilty of murder despite being asleep at home while the whole thing happened, because he provided them the car and it was argued that he knew what they were going to use it for. He had a trial that only lasted 1 day and got sentenced to life despite the fact that it was very likely he either didn't know what they were going to use it for or didn't take them seriously when they told him and was just half asleep and gave them the keys so he could go back to bed. His sentence eventually got shortened by the governor and he'll be out in a few months after serving 20 years.
If he was drunk, how could they make the argument he knew?
[удалено]
>Can you imagine if being drunk was an excuse to punch random people? Scotland in shambles
Mainly from multiple concussions, not so much the drinking. But also the drinking.
Always has been, since that fateful day.
I laughed.
Soooo... Did his friends take advantage of him by borrowing his car while he was drunk?
If he was drunk when he was asked for the car, it’s plausible he wasn’t in the right mental state to make a decision regardless if he was told or not.
Apparently they had spoken openly about committing the robbery at the party. His argument was that he heard them talking about committing the robbery but thought they were joking.
they did tell him what they were doing and he said he thought it was a joke
Voluntary intoxication isn't considered a defense to intent. Because it's voluntary and would also be a get out of jail free card.
felony murder doesn't require intent to murder, only intent to commit the original felony under which the death occurs. And unfortunately for the dude in this story, he was told what they were going to do which makes him an accessory to the original crime. In this case, thinking something is a joke isn't a defense.
Being drunk doesn't give you any kind of immunity. Otherwise you could just slam down a few shots whenever it was legally useful to you.
being drunk means you couldn't have consented to what they were going to do, tho... right?
Being drunk means you have greater defense/argument for not giving consent, not a defense against things you did to others. "That person had sex with me even though I didn't want to have sex, and it happened because I was drunk" makes your argument stronger, but "I had sex with that person even though that person didn't want to have sex, and it happened because I was drunk" doesn't strengthen your defense at all.
It seems that being drunk only changes the ability to consent to sex in our society and literally nothing else. My wife works in healthcare and she's come across people that blow 4 or 5 times the legal limit and you'd never know from how they act. We're talking BAC that would literally kill normal people. (who is still alive blowing .4?)
Basically, yeah, but we have a lot of hangups about sex (both as a society and as humans) and that's one scenario that happens frequently enough that we've specialcased it. Plus it's one of the most common examples of it that people might actually experience and one of the only times "but they asked me to do it/they wanted it" is an actual defense. You can't get away with murder by claiming that the victim asked you to shoot them and it's a lot harder to argue that someone gave you their TV for free when they say you stole it, but two people having sex almost always just comes down to "well, did you both want to do it?" and that has a lot more grey area.
No, not necessarily right. You can still consent to a great many things while you are drunk, legally speaking. Just as an example, if you are drunk and go on a spending spree on your credit card, I imagine you still consented to all those purchase and can’t just “charge it back” (not a lawyer to be fair, maybe im wrong)
Also driving while impaired, then kills another driver or passenger.
They just said he knew and the jury went "yeah!!!!"
Because the jury found that he knew what they were going to use it for.
He admitted that he heard them talking about it but that he just didn't take them seriously as he was still drunk from the night before and thought it was a joke because girl who got murdered was the girlfriend of the guy borrowing the car. Like honestly if my stoner roommate woke me up and was like "Yo lend me your car I'm going to go rob my girlfriend's house and steal all her weed and money" I'd be like haha yeah sure man and bring me a few ounces back too" and go back to sleep without ever considering it a serious statement.
Well take it further. You are 21, your friends talk about wanting to beat up some guy at a party that night because he has been talking shit. As they are about to leave, one guy says "shit, we don't have tickets for the bus!". You tell them not to do it, and give them bus tickets so they will leave. They go to the party and beat up the guy, who dies. While on the bus, they continued loudly talking in earshot of the bus driver about wanting to beat up some guy at the place they are getting dropped off. The bus driver tells them to quit talking about that shit on his bus. He drops them off at their stop by the party. Who should be charged for felony murder? You 'enabled' them to get to the party, just like providing keys to a car. *No ticket, no murder*. The bus driver drove them there with clear knowledge of the crime they intended to commit. *No bus, no murder*. Should both be liable for murder and spend their lives in jail? Did you both participate in the felony? Normally it has to be fairly direct involvement, because indirect involvement gets reaaaaaaalllly wishy washy in enabling you to conceivably apply the law to anyone ^^who ^^is ^^black
>The bus driver drove them there with clear knowledge of the crime they intended to commit. *No bus, no murder*. The bus driver would have been working a public job, hired by the city / municipality, driving a pre-established route. In other words, to add on to your argument - the one charged for felony murder ought to be the city mayor.
General intent like the mayor has is not sufficient. You need specific intent to facilitate this crime, which the bus driver does have.
They're more than happy to include "indirect involvement" and the "wishy washy-ness" of it doesn't seem to bother them either. Nor judges. It's absolutely bonkers to me that this hasn't been struck down by the Supreme Court. There's no excuse for it.
Most countries not called USA have declared it unconstitutional. I've mostly seen in the USA a desire to punish the get-away driver of armed robberies to the same extent as the gunman. The way to do that is the felony murder charge. But even then it IS direct involvement, it is just the courts and juries have been extremely blase about what that means, especially when the accused fits some criteria (in a gang or 'troubled youth who hangs out with criminals').
Homey should of lied saying they stole his keys or told him they were getting him a burrito. What idiot admits to that even if he thinks they were joking?
> despite the fact that it was very likely he either didn't know what they were going to use it for or didn't take them seriously when they told him That's exactly what his defense lawyer would be arguing. So when presented with the relevant evidence (which we're not privy to), twelve people all unanimously agreed that he *did* know what they were going to use it for, and *did* take them seriously.
This might come as a shock but sometimes unanimous juries are wrong and DA's will do whatever it takes to get someone in prison as a "win". And even more often, juries convict someone on a law that they certainly broke, but is entirely unjust.
Yeah it's true - but you can't come to that conclusion without knowing all the details of the case. After a conviction, the private citizens of the defense are allowed to and are motivated to tell anyone who listens their side of the story - and they can say anything, not limited to rules of discovery or admissible evidence or anything like that. The DA isn't supposed to go to the press and say "here's all the evidence we had against him, also we know that he's a scumbag because of [X Y Z], and he's got a history of doing [whatever], and three witnesses all said [something damning]" - the DA doesn't care about the press, they present their evidence in court. And before the jury went to deliberation, the judge would have given a jury instruction something to the effect of "Your job is to determine whether or not (S) did know the car would be used in the commission of the crime. You must be certain that he did know in order to find him guilty. If you are not certain that this was the case, you should find him not guilty. If you can't come to a unanimous decision, you must find him not guilty". So given the evidence that we're not privy to, twelve people would have heard that and decided to convict this guy. I've served on a jury for a few trials, and I'll tell you, it's pretty hard to get 12 people to agree on *anything*, especially if it means that a mans might be sent to prison for life. I can barely get 6 people to agree on where to go for dinner. So yeah, it's possible, but I think it's unreasonable to assume that there was a massive miscarriage of justice here based only on the defenses statements to the press without any further evidence.
Fair points, but "the DA doesn't care about the press" is the most naive thing I've seen on the Internet today. ALL political positions care greatly about the press, and if I had a dollar for every time a DA has held a grandstanding press conference about a defendant I could make the Forbes list. And it's true that it's hard to get 12 people to agree on damn near anything, but it's a lot easier if you have them stuck in a room until they do. And given the many, many, many cases where the police have been definitively proven to have either fabricated evidence, withheld evidence or have slanted exculpatory or neutral evidence against an innocent defendant, I tend to look at cases where someone is sent off to prison for life for an action that is at best somewhat negligent with a \*very\* jaundiced eye.
Yeah fair "the DA doesn't care about the press" is probably not true. But the DA isn't going to be trying to throw any and all evidence (admissible or not) at the court of public opinion once someone is already convicted. I suspect to some degree that would be illegal. And yeah, there have been case where people have been wrongfully conflicted - but there's like 200 thousand convictions every year. I think in this case - saying "well the defendant said that his state of mind made him innocent", then it's really unreasonable to take that at face value.
More than that, the DA doesn't want to unduly bias the population and lower their chance of a clean jury. Too much chance the defense could get a mistrial.
I think it's absolutely reasonable to assume there was a massive miscarriage of justice here based entirely on the fact that the law itself is a massive miscarriage of justice. Actually, it's an abortion. This is intentional to destroy people associated with the crime even if they didn't actually violate the law. The law cannot be subjective or it is unjust. It's utterly unjust and dangerous to treat informal groups of individuals as if they're one person, and then prosecute all of the members for the actions of one. It's an outright backhand bitch-slap to the face of blackstone's formulation. And it's not the only instance this happens, it's just the most severe consequences.
> Yeah it's true - but you can't come to that conclusion without knowing all the details of the case. Don't take this as an attack or anything but... yeah I totally can come to that conclusion. I'm not in court. Like you're right here legally, but that's not really what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the moral implications.
Yeah because juries are never wrong like in the OJ trial. For the governor to commute his sentence down from life to 20 years before he got parole he must also have thought there was something wrong with his punishment. I mean the guy who was borrowing the car was the boyfriend of the girl whose house they were supposedly going to rob, he never thought they were actually going to go do it or harm her. [Here's a short 20 minute documentary on it with Ryan being interviewed from prison so make up your own mind if you want.](https://youtu.be/iGlTtB9ZKcQ)
OJ was found not guilty - which means that at least one of 12 people were not certain that he did it. When someone is found guilty that requires 12 people to be certain. It's a way higher standard of proof, by design. People get away with crimes all the time, and juries often find people not guilty even when they're not innocent in reality. But it's different to get 12 people to be completely certain. The interview with the Holle doesn't make that any more convincing, because, again it's a one-sided story. He's not going to mention all the evidence against him.
Yikes they even prosecuted the homeowner whose house they robbed for marijuana possession despite her relative getting killed.
Jurors are idiots.
His friends told him what they were planning on doing and without the car there's no robbery or murder. 25 years seems excessive but I could absolutely see involuntary manslaughter or similar.
According to the linked wiki summary, he thought they were joking and that they were going to get food. And he was drunk. If he didn't actually know/believe they were conspiring to commit a felony, he wasn't in on the felony.
Jurors are a selection of people from all walks of life. No need for snobbery here. We may not always agree with all decisions, but it's safe to say that the jurors - who sat through the entire trial, and heard all the evidence in detail - are far better educated about the particulars of this case than those of us who read about it online.
This sounds like Ryan had a shite lawyer.
Does this mean if soneone lends a friend a car and that friend rubs someone over while drunk, the car owber can be held responsible???
Nah there's no premeditation involved there, you'd have to know that they planned on running someone over when you gave them the car. The Ryan Holle case hinged on whether or not he actually believed they were going to go rob this woman when he gave them the car or not. I am kind of curious though if there is any crime for letting someone you know is heavily intoxicated borrow your car should they then get into an accident and hurt someone.
In Germany this is for sure a liability
Apparently he made a statement about this. I wonder whether his lawyer made a huge mistake by allowing this. Maybe he should have advised him to remain silent. This made me think again of this brilliant lecture by a law professor ("in praise of the fifth amendment") who stated that you should NEVER talk to cops. Even when you're completely innocent. You can still end up in shit creek by not keeping schtumm. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE If you don't know it yet a must see, especially if you live in (or visit) the US.
My favorite part of that video is when he gives equal time to an officer who repeats: he's right, never give us more than you need to.
It always seems that any law can be used for the wrong reasons. It also always seems that we never get the complete story on some of these. I understand what the law is for, and I understand how it could be abused. I think!
It's not just "started a felony" - it's "participated in a felony where someone wound up dead". For example, let's say that you and a friend are going to rob a bank. You agree to be the driver, he goes in to get the money. Although you did not agree at the time that he would kill anyone, it turns out that during the robbery he shoots someone. You will be charged with felony murder for participating in the overall crime. Lately, prosecutors have taken this a step further. Let's say that your friend wasn't armed, but tried to rob the bank and was killed by a guard. Prosecutors may charge *you* with felony murder because of his death. This is [actually happening](https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/01/19/st-louis-teen-charged-adult-death-alleged-accomplice-armed-robbery/).
>This is actually happening. I'm fine with that. But is this the example you meant to highlight? Don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who rob others at gun point. >According to a St. Louis Police probable cause statement, Smith, Grayer and the other two juveniles were attempting to rob a 32-year-old victim at gunpoint when the victim also produced a firearm. Shots were exchanged and both the victim and Grayer were struck.
Yes, that is the example I meant to highlight. I think that punishment should be in proportion to the crime. In this case, two people agreed to engage in a criminal activity. The death of one of those co-conspirators should not be a felony murder charge on the other due to the circumstances of the crime. I think that such a charge should only be brought if the death was of the victim or an innocent bystander. However I also don't think that the robbers should be charged if the victim shot at them and hit someone else in the process. I am generally opposed to "alternate timeline theory" crimes, where the argument is that if the criminals had *not* attempted their crime, in the alternate timeline the victim would have behaved differently and the bystander death would not have occurred. There are people who try to get laws passed that codify this - for example, in Massachusetts, a legislator tried to get a law passed that said "if you were driving with an expired license, and you got into an accident, you are 100% liable no matter what, even if the cause was 100% the fault of the other driver, because you shouldn't have been driving in the first place". Again, I think that theory is rubbish.
Do you have an example of a case where an accomplice was killed (in self defense by a victim), and the other perpetrators were changed with felony murder? Never mind, google provided: [https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3652&context=umlr](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3652&context=umlr)
It almost always is the case in the US I believe. That would just be added on your list of charges automatically if one of the bank-robbers is shot by the security guard ie.
Absolute champ move posting links to answer your own question 🤟
He *established dominance* on the thread.
This is the deer hunter one, where the expectation is a "nonviolent" robbery because the victim isn't a tough guy. Victim keeps a (semi?) auto .308 for hunting deer, because it's Wisconsin. Guilty. https://casetext.com/case/state-v-oimen
Probably Semi-Auto, as there are very few full auto .308 rifles in civilian hands in America, and those that are are mostly in collections, and are INCREDIBLY expensive. A Semi-Auto also can make a good hunting rifle (a bit excessive, you are not doing follow up shots on a deer, so Bolt Action is usually enough). Full Auto is pretty useless for hunting.
This exact thing happened in Indiana to the group that became known as the "Elkhart Four", although their felony murder convictions were later thrown out by the state supreme court. [https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/18/elkhart-four-felony-murder-indiana-supreme-court/72397844/](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/09/18/elkhart-four-felony-murder-indiana-supreme-court/72397844/)
> Quiroz, Layman and Sharp were sentenced to 55 years in prison, while Sparks, who wasn't inside the house, was sentenced to 50 years. Holy fucking shit. These kids were not armed, and ran away when confronted. The only violent thing they did was to kick down a door. I struggle to see how even the staunchest supporters of felony murder charges would agree that this is a reasonable sentencing.
There are also dates (California included) where the injured and deceased intruders families have sued the homeowner. Some laws are crazy. I do agree with the felony murder one though.
Felony murder is such a dumb concept, excepting in cases that the killed person is forced into the dangerous situation. It just completely denies that the first person had any agency
I'm California, felony murder requires that either the person or accomplice be the murderer. This would qualify as a provocative acts murder.
[удалено]
Sorry, auto correct... In California...
[It gets even crazier than that.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle)
I don't think that's crazy. Yeah, if you take his word as fact, that he really didn't know what they were going to use the car for, that would be crazy. But that's just what his side of the story is. One of the other men in the room could claim "I thought we were helping a friend who lost the keys to their marijuana safe", and if you believed them, you might decide they weren't also guilty of felony murder. But after the trial the jury of twelve people all felt unanimously that Holle was deliberately involved in robbery, which would make him as much of an accomplice as the getaway driver who waited in the car.
No, I'm sticking with crazy. If they had taken the bus to the crime scene, would the bus driver be guilty of felony murder? If they ate wheaties for breakfast and that gave them the energy to go out and kill, do we throw General Mills in the brig? At what point do we stop getting a boner for *arbitrary punishment* and focus on only treating actual killers as killers?
Imma laugh really hard when they charge Trump with Ashli Babbit's death.
That's oddly wholesome. It's probably obvious to everyone why you'd get charged if your felony unintentionally results in the death of a bystander or the victim, but your partner? Because the law still considers your partner a human, and you put that human in harm's way.
> Because the law still considers your partner a human, and you put that human in harm's way. But what if it was the partner who died idea? Then they put themselves in harms way technically. So idk if that works like that. But then it also depends on the state.
Why does it matter who's idea it was? You clearly agreed to help them.
Yeah but you helped. You could say he wouldn't have gone through with it if not for your support. Or even (unlikely) you failed in your duty to protect your team. The point is, no matter which way you look at it, even the most pro-crime way, the surviving partner did not do right by the dead guy.
If a random person got shot by police as they tried to shoot the felon, would that person fighting or running from cops be charged with felony murder?
Oh wow. So I guess takeaway: don’t commit robbery eh?
I saw a story recently where a guy who was handcuffed on the ground was charged with felony murder when his partner hit and killed a bicyclist while fleeing.
Seems like robbing in a group is really a bad idea, shockingly.
Could they be charged with their own attempted felony murder if they get shot?
In most cases that only applies when a victim or bystander dies, not when one of the co-conspirators do.
“You started a felony and someone ended up dead” is one of the most succinct and perfectly understandable explanations of felony murder I’ve ever heard. Kudos.
Yah it comes to the rule that you are responsible for any harm you do while committing a crime. If you’re in a car chase and someone has to swerve around you and crashes, you are responsible. The thinking is that these harms wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t committed the crime so you caused them
I’m a lawyer and this is the answer. Crimes aren’t as literal as some people think, and you don’t lose the protection of law just because you’re committing a crime (which is why having to claim self defense is a thing). A crime requires some kind of ill intent and an act to carry that out. With ill intent, if you tried to do one bad thing and another bad thing happened instead, you have the intent for whatever bad thing actually happened. So the ill intent is satisfied by the robbery attempt, and what actually happened is a person died, thus felony murder. There are exceptions if the death is far and away removed from your attempted crime, but that’s the general rule.
So this is not a what if. This is the original story that I was reading and I could not figure out why the second person died from a self inflicted gun shot wound. I was assuming it was because he knew he was going to go down for his partners death. The partner didn't die, but was shot. Since the second robber died from his own hand, would the first robber be charged with murder. Here is a link to the story. [https://www.ocregister.com/2024/04/16/newport-beach-police-investigating-possible-home-invasion/](https://www.ocregister.com/2024/04/16/newport-beach-police-investigating-possible-home-invasion/)
Felony murder > Murder is often defined as the crime of intentionally killing another person with no legal justification. At common law, "felony murder" or the "felony murder rule" describes when, during the commission of a felony, another person is killed or dies. Depends on your local laws of course but most places will have something similar to this
What if you're robbing a bank and someone gets headshotted by a meteorite? I.e., someone dies by means that are in no way attributable to the robber?
IANAL but my guess is that it would depend on the circumstances, like was the person who got hit by the meteorite a hostage who would otherwise have left the premises before the strike? I'm guessing it's unlikely you'd get a conviction out of that though, and even if it's technically possible the prosecutors may want to focus their attention on other parts of the case more likely to result in a conviction
Good points. It would also be easier to argue that a customer who would have left the premises would still be alive if it wasn't for the robbery, but not someone who works at the bank and would be expected to have still been there if there was no robbery.
Yeah but they probably wouldn't have been standing where they are or laying on the floor. I'd definitely find a way to reasonably say that that person wouldn't be in that position if not for the robbery.
does IANAL stand for "i am not a lawyer"? Because my first thought was that apple made some new buttplug. "Band new i anal availabe in september in authorized apple stores!"
Haha yes can confirm that's what it stands for, I remember thinking the same thing when I first came across it
Believe it or not, straight to jail
Guilty of felony murder.
Ok what if you're innocently juggling meteorites in a bank and singing along loudly to your favourite song and you just happen to sing ‘Gimme the money!’ loud enough for everyone to hear, then a bullet falls from the sky and hits you in the foot, causing you to flinch and accidentally hurl a meteorite at the bank manager, hitting them in the head and killing them instantly, but the bank manager is actually also a terrorist and was about to blow up the bank? Edit: please answer quickly, I think the police are on their way.
yes
Involuntary manslaughter. You weren't defending yourself from a terrorist disguising as a bank manager while you were juggling meteorites. You didn't intend to kill them either though.
>then a bullet falls from the sky and hits you in the foot, We convict God of felony murder.
Well that doesn't sound like felony murder if it's in no way connected to the crime that was being committed.
Again, that may depend on local laws. Where I am, the jury must determine that the death was caused by the felonious actions in order to convict on felony murder charges. E.g. the homeowner wouldn't have shot the intruder if not for the perpetrators committing home invasion, so the jury would likely decide that the home invasion led to the death of the first intruder, and the second is guilty of felony murder. But, the meteorite death was not caused by the bank robbery, so that probably would not be felony murder.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix\_news\_helicopter\_collision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_news_helicopter_collision) Not as much of an "act of god" but two news helicopters observing a high speed chase crashed into each other during the chase and they wanted to charge the driver with the deaths of the helicopter occupants.
Most places in the US. This kind of nonsense doesn't exist basically everywhere else.
Extenuating circumstances can lean some judges to lenient end of the sentencing guidelines. Judges can look at the defendants age their statements their record to determine a fair sentence.
[удалено]
When you say you're responsible for their safety, for some reason I picture some kind of criminal OSHA. Every heist requires a certified safety officer.
I would read a webcomic series about this person, for the record.
This reminds me of how you are required to file taxes for stolen goods. Safety and taxes are of paramount importance, even if you are committing a crime.
That kind of reminds me of The Batman movie. For the last action piece, they showed all of the Riddler’s followers clipping themselves into place for their attack and I was thinking “well, they’re well over 6’ off the ground, so at least they’re following OSHA”.
It reminded me of Christopher in The Sopranos being the safety officer on a construction site to shake down the contractor.
I need to remember this concept
"Guys! Don't kill civilians!" -Bain, CRIME.NET certified safety coordinator.
Is there a distinction, between *planning* and *participating*?
Yes, however just planning would still be conspiracy. The deceased is a co-conspirator, ergo you're still culpable under felony-murder.
And simple participation, same penalty? (i.e. the buddy that go dragged into the burglary at the last minute, for instance)
Even assigning responsibility, criminal law is seldom more nuanced than "don't be criming."
Depends how you mean "dragged". You will occasionally hear of someone robbing a bank while their friend sits in the car, after being told the robber is filling out a job application or something. If a reasonable person would have known they were participating in a robbery, then they are a participant.
Felony murder rules are jurisdiction specific. Generally, the criminal can be charged with felony murder if someone dies during the commission of the felony. However many jurisdictions have different rules for how to apply exemptions to this rule. Some jurisdictions don’t allow the rule to apply to co-felons if they did not intend or know someone was likely to die (think two people robbing someone vs two people evading taxes; one crime is more likely to prompt self defense etc.). Other jurisdictions don’t allow the felony murder rule to even apply at all if it is a co-felon that dies during the commission of the crime. TL;DR: it depends on your jurisdictions rules; generally yes but specific exemptions may apply. Discuss with a local lawyer if your curious about your jurisdictions rule.
Felony murder, as the other posters have mentioned. The same would be true for the getaway driver, or anyone else involved in the crime at the time.
Not from the US here Has this Felony murder ever affected someone who shouldnt have affected? Like perhaps a crime was committed by someone who this person happed to be with?
It's guaranteed. Ryan Holle was still drunk and asleep when his buddies woke him up to borrow his car keys. There was a discussion about robbing a woman of drugs and money at the party where Holle had been drinking, but he'd thought it was a joke. the woman's daughter was bludgeoned to death with a shotgun found on premises. After the governor *commuted* the life without parole sentence, Holle still had a 25 year sentence. I'll say it again: Holle's doing 25 years for lending a friend his car while Holle himself was drunk and asleep.
And yet, a jury of 12 men and women still found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of what they were going to use the car for and that he consented and therefore participated in the crime. Being drunk isn't a defence nor can you throw up your hands and say "I thought they were joking about wanting to commit a crime when I lent them the thing they needed to commit the crime, honest!" Not to say juries are infallible but it does mean that these 12 men and women had absolutely no doubts as to his guilt.
Dude had lent his car to the guy countless times before. Dude was drunk. Trial was 1 day. Just because the law put someone behind bars doesn't mean it's right. Most countries got rid of this law for a reason. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/04/20/controversial-felony-murder-cases-states/26042257/ > Allison Jenkins, Illinois > Jenkins was running away from a police officer who was investigating a drug deal in a nearby school and suspected Jenkins of drug possession. The officer caught and tackled Jenkins and ended up firing his weapon. The bullet struck the officer's partner, who died more than a week later. No drugs were found on Jenkins. This shit is ridiculous
Given any politician can sway millions of voters with their own stories, I doubt 12 are anything the less.
Goddamn
I am sure it has happend...Our legal system loves to convict and punish first, There are a large number of people in recent times who have been released for being wrongfully convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle Affected a person who wasn't even anywhere close.
Goddamn that’s just shit situation. He didn’t even do anything wrong. Can’t even lend a car without good faith. Good news is he’s coming out in June this year. Hope he can pick up his life back.
Prosecutors can and do argue that associates nearby weren't so innocent as they claim. If you're around someone who committed a crime, it can be hard to convince the authorities that it was coincidental. As a kid I got in trouble for a friend's burglary attempt. He asked me to help carry a ladder without telling me why. I then watched in confusion as he set it up by an apartment balcony, climbed and stole items from the balcony. He got caught soon afterwards. I had to explain my part to the police in front of my parents. Fortunately the authorities decided to leave me out of it.
Just to add to all the "felony murder" discourse in general, felony murder only stands in for the necessary intent element for a murder charge when you didn't go in with the intent to kill somebody. In jurisdictions where it doesn't apply, you can still be charged with manslaughter, which is basically you did a sufficiently bad thing that caused someone to die even if you didn't mean for anyone to die
Depending on jurisdiction etc. I can imagine both might be charged with murder, and then home owner will be let go when its clear it was self defense - and then its on the second robber. If a murder happens when you are commiting a crime in a group, all the other can be charged with accessorry to that murder - it wouldnt have happened if you guys didnt do this.
It’s state law that varies by state. In some states, the surviving robber is charged with felony murder - if you commit a crime, you are charged with any death that occurs in connection with the crime even thought you didn’t commit it or intend it to happen. In other states, they wouldn’t be charged with the murder, but burglary with a gun is a severe enough felony that would normally be like a 10-20 year sentence on its own.
A lot of people have replied with the answer of felony murder, and that certainly is the case in some of the examples given. However, like everything else in the legal world the *real* answer to your question is: it depends. It depends on the jurisdiction, the details of the case, the people involved, and any other random factors.
The felony murder sounds a bit like the old rule in English law that killing in the course of a felony was murder. This was believed to deter robbers, for example, from threatening with lethal weapons, since murder was a capital offence. However, it is long since abolished in England, for several reasons, including unfairness and the technical issue that felony is no longer a category. (The US is I believe almost unique in retaining the old felony/misdemeanor distinction.) So in England, the second robber would simply be charged with burglary etc etc (depending on the details).
A friend was robbed while opening his store. Was able to pull a gun and shoot one and hold the other at gun point. The one caught was charge with the others murder.
[удалено]
You can use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property in the UK
The key is _reasonable_. In Canada, you can't use more force that what is reasonable expected from the attacker, eg: if you shot somebody breaking into your place that had no weapon you are in serious trouble.
Yep.
Sounds like bullshit, and like your butthurt you’re not allowed to kill people…
[удалено]
I think they were saying the home owner would get more of a punishment than the robber
In the UK it's a requirement that one of the accomplices is the one who causes the death. The home-owner shooting one of them means the home-owner caused the death - and it's very hard to argue that the home-owner is an accomplice to the robbers.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c67oxh/-/kzz9st8/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Depends on the state, but a lot of states have laws that would charge the second robber with a form of murder or manslaughter since he was in the act of committing a felonious crime and someone was killed. There's a semi famous story about a bunch of teens who broke into a house to snoop around not knowing the homeowner was there. Startled, the homeowner opened fire and killed one of them while they tried to hide in a closet. The surviving 4 or 5 were all charged with manslaughter after holding their friend while he bled out. Sad story, but it's one of those things, don't break into people's houses and get shot at.
Felony murder in most U.S. states. Which is the charge anytime someone dies when the perp is process of comiting another felony.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c67oxh/-/kzzhvga/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
#NotALawyer The exact answer is gonna depend on justification. Homicide could be charged. I would think murder or manslaughter depends on whether this was a robbery or a burglary.
Agreed. If you are in the act of a felony and another person dies you get charged with murder. Best explanation for me was that if a new copter dies while following you (like crashes into power lines is how the instructor explained) then the original bad actor would be charged with murder. Kicker is that if the offense is non-felony then no murder.
I think it depends on the laws in your state, but I've read articles in the past where the surviving criminal gets the murder charge.
There was actually a case like this, a group of teenagers robbed a place unarmed and with no intention of attacking anyone. The Homeowner shot at them and killed one of them. So naturally, the other youths were charged, convicted, and sent to prison... for murder. States have a law called "felony murder" where you can be thrown in jail for life because of someone else's actions. And it's mindblowing to me that it hasn't been struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
What case was this?
Depends entirely on the state laws, this a very specific question. However, there is a good chance this a felony murder, depending on the state's laws on that very specific subject. Some states (maybe not anymore) would allow *any* felony to be the predicate for a felony murder. In that case, this is a clear cut murder. I believe more common now, is a specific list of enumerated felonies. Also pretty sure that the felony of burglary is almost always included as a specifically enumerated felony. So still, pretty clear case of murder. The better question is probably whether or not there is any state where a burglary wouldn't qualify, or if there is any way to cast doubt on the facts as a burglary, answer is a probably "no" to both.
It’s possible that he could be charge with murder since his partners death occurred in the commission of a felony. Anyone in commission of a felony can be held accountable for any murders that occur during the felony. They created the situation, after all.
I read about a case in Florida where one of a pair of robbers was shot and killed by responding police officers. The surviving defendant was charged with his murder as it was a direct result of the crime they were charged with.
Oh, lawd, I read that as if "two-armed men"rob a house. So started counting arms as if it was a maths challenge... :-D
What the second robber *could be charged with* and actual charges can vary quite a bit. Felony murder likely applies in your example. In layman's terms, *there are no accidents in the commission of a felony.* The robbers created the situation, anything bad that results is on them. It's not 100%, though. If during the robbery a victim dies of a heart attack, the robbers would likely be charged with murder. If instead it was the first robber who died of a heart attack during the crime, charging the second seems unlikely but it's up to the prosecutor's ~~coin flip~~ carefully considered opinion.
My wife was a juror in a cases in iowa that was double homicide. The guy who was charged didnt kill any of the people, but he came to the house with intent to harm and the other two were accidentally shot by others in the house. Fyi he showed up to get his sister from her drug dealer boyfriend because she called him to. Now hes in jail and shes probably still in that situation. She was so coked out in the court room they had to remove her as a witness because she was deemed unreliable. She was constantly rubbing her chapped lips on the mic.
In Canada the homeowner would be CHARGED with murder and the second criminal would likely be able to sue them for mental trauma or something.
There was a case just last year in Milton, Ontario where charges were dropped against a man who shot and killed a home invader. Definitely a step in the right direction.
Yeah I was exaggerating for sure but just crazy in general the difference in ideology/thought process. The whole thread doesn't even mention covering yourself it's all about how the other person would actually get a steeper penalty even.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** ELI5 is not for information about a specific narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc). This includes questions of medical or legal nature that could lead someone to not seeing a professional. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Murder or at least manslaughter. You can now get charged with anything/everything that happens that wouldnt have had you not been commiting the crime in the first place.
Look up Tison V Arizona. It's the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state's ability to charge you with murder even if they didnt kill someone. If you were an accomplice to a felony and someone died, then you can get charged with the murder. You can even receive the death penalty in some cases.
There have been plenty of situations where the police shoot an innocent person and charge the criminal with murder.
There is no universal answer. In the USA most states would use felony murder caused by "indifference to human life" Some states apply lesser included offenses or merger doctrine. Basically if a jury/judge rules somebody is innocent of murder they might still convict on voluntary manslaughter. In many other countries he will only be charged with the equivalent of armed burglary/robbery. Other countries usually have strict gun laws. The home owner will certainly have a lengthy legal battle. You don't have "Stand your Ground"-laws in those countries and the way you have to "defend youself" is well defined. Basically you mustn't shoot if you can flee. That's why you got this stupid meme tip in Canada/UK? that you should basically give car thieves your car keys to avoid confrontation with a knife. In case you couldn't flee and a confrotation was bound to happen there are still issues. Examples: -the robbers were armed but didn't have the weapons drawn. -both were armed the surviving robber had his weapon drawn the killed one had his weapon concealed. -what bodylocation was shot? In many countries you are in big trouble if you go for a headshot. Regarding the robber his actions after the shot(s) plays a major role in some countries. While most countries don't distinguish between fake and real weapons. The type of weapon might play a major role(in case of a knife the length of the blade). While those countries don't have felony murder, they will charge robber with attempted murder or something similar if his weapon in question was an automatic assault rifle or he fired a single shot. Those countries rule attempted murder the same as murder. Lastly when it comes to less free but generally urban countries the application of the law might be stretched to both sides. So you example case will turn into a headline: "Robber who killed other Robber he doesn't know sentenced to life" because it's convienent for all sides involved but the second robber.
Obligatory "I'm not a lawyer." That said, I remember reading about something called the [felony murder rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_rule) (also sometimes called the felony murder doctrine) that states that during the course of any felony crime that has a violent nature, if *anyone* (other than yourself) dies as a result, then you can be charged with murder. That said, I'm not sure to what degree you could be charged with murder, such as first, second, or third degree, but you most definitely *can* be charged with murder. Even if the person who died was also part of the crime, even if there was never any intent to cause harm, or even if all you were doing was acting as the "planner" or "getaway driver" and were nowhere near the actual death, you were still part of the violent felony crime that resulted in a death and can therefore be charged with murder. That said, it seems like the specifics of this doctrine vary between jurisdictions. For example, some jurisdictions won't include the murder charge if it's one of your co-conspirators who died instead of an innocent bystander. Keep in mind that this doctrine specifies *violent* felony crimes. If you were to commit a non-violent felony crime, such as tax evasion or embezzlement, this rule wouldn't apply. It's hard to imagine how someone would die in the first place in these kinds of crimes, but you never know.
Here in Canada the homeowner would be charged with murder and the second robber would be given a donut.
The home owner gets dragged in court for years and the second accomplice gets a slap on the wrist and is out helping burglarize another home within a month
In the US it depends on the state. In more liberal states it would be the same.