Injustice: homeowner shoots unarmed burglars, burglars guilty of murder

What action did he take that caused his friend to die? Did he pull the trigger? Did he point the gun as his friend? If we are going to play the strawman game, I contend that you just imagine actions that never happened and want to see people punished to assuage some emotion.

 

I know it may seem completely unbelievable (to you and me), but there are definitely many people out there who believe anyone who does anything illegal should be held fully responsible for any tragic incident that was the slightest bit caused by the illegal action.

So for example, if a community has a problem with wildfires, they often pass an ordinance making it illegal to smoke while hiking on a trail, violators being punished by a modest fine. People like SMDBill believe that if there is a devastating wildfire they should track down the person who's smoking probably ignited the fire, and hold him responsible for all the houses that burned down.

 

I can sort of see your point, since the kid didn't fire the gun, and the only one killed was his companion, but what if the bullet had ricocheted and killed the owner? Would you feel more like justice was done? The owner was only a scared person trying to defend his life, wouldn't being responsible for his death deserve punishment and what's the real difference between the owner and the other burglar?

Whenever a life is taken I think it's necessary that somebody pay if they are clearly responsible. Otherwise we are holding our own lives cheap.

 

If that happened, the intruders still should not be held responsible. The odds of that happening are so low, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the law breakers to have foreseen it. We should just chalk it up as an accident on the part of the homeowner. It's just too much of a stretch to try lay the blame on the intruders, even though in some small way they might be partially responsible for what happened.

Again, the gun was in the hands of the homeowner, and even though the intruders may have created a situation, it's still the homeowner who was in direct control of how the gun was used. It might have been possible the homeowner could have avoided the need to shoot, so it's ethically problematic to hold others responsible for the discretion used by the homeowner.

 

You really believe yourself don't you? These are the craziest arguments I have ever heard concerning this matter.

 

Oh Im sorry I thought you knew that they were committing a crime, one that led to death. There is no strawman except the one in your imagination land. Were they or were they not committing a crime? And did this crime lead to death? If you dont like the law change it. If you dont want to go to prison for getting your burglary buddy killed then dont commit crimes in a state where the law says you can be imprisoned for it or better yet, be a man and earn your own way through life by getting a job like real men do. (plays sad violin music for you)

 

So somebody is attacked and, in defending themselves, is killed. It's just an "accident" on their part, and the attacker shouldn't be held responsible? If that's the case everybody who wants to kill somebody will just say they only meant to rob them and get off on a much lesser charge if caught, and anybody attacking somebody will just kill them straight out and again, claim that was not their intention if caught.

We are seeing here the reason why felony murder statutes exist.

I think you may be responding to the overall senseless tragedy aspect of this crime, which it certainly is, but it just goes to show that any sort of violent crime is so overwhelmingly stupid that you should wash your mind with soap if you ever even think of doing one.

 

You know, this is a very interesting topic, in a way. This is not the sort of thing which would generally have been considered controversial, yet it is proving very divisive. It appears it is causing people to separate into two camps. They see what to them is the obvious, and are completely unable to believe the other side holds the perspective they do.

I wonder if this thread will help bring the issue to light, for wider public debate, whether someone who breaks a law should be held fully responsible for anything bad that comes out of the situation. If it creates such divided opinions among different people, why have we not heard about this political controversy before? Is it just that it has never really come up for public debate, and everyone just assumes everyone else has the same views as them?

I honestly am completely shocked and still reeling in disbelief that anyone out there would think a burglar should be punished for the homeowner shooting another one of the burglars. It seems a complete outrageous injustice to me. Doesn't seem the slightest bit intuitive or reasonable.

But, as we are finding out in this thread, there are obviously many people on the other side who feel the same about my views on this matter. I had no idea this was going to be so controversial.

 

In the state of Florida, breaking into an occupied house is a second degree felony--with punishment of up to 15 years. It's not a minor thing as you think it is. I agree totally with the felony murder charges. I just think that the CJ system needs to advertise this more.

 

What are you even talking about? The intruders, in your example, still did not attack anyone. It was the homeowner who used the gun.

I do not see any "violent crime" having been committed. The homeowner used deadly force in self defense. The intruders just unlawfully broke into the house (without even carrying guns), which happened to result in the homeowner feeling threatened.

You think it's appropriate to punish criminals for creating a situation that led to someone else accidentally shooting themselves dead, while in the process of trying to shoot the unarmed criminals? Again, you want to punish one person because someone else ended up shooting himself ??

 

Not sure about Indiana's laws, but in Florida, burglary of an occupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony, and the homeowner can defend themselves with deadly force. Why? We don't want homeowners who wake up to burglars in the middle of the night to have to determine if they meant harm or not. By definition, they mean harm. Don't burglarize occupied dwellings in Florida if you want to live.

 

I see a huge problem with this, that there is such an excessive punishment just for unlawfully walking into a house you do not have a right to be in. It's not really all that uncommon for teenagers, who are up to no good, to sneak into someone else's house. Now, I'm not saying this should not be punished, but what you are talking about seems like drastic over punishment.

Yes, I know it's a serious thing, and can potentially even result in a homeowner fearing for their life... which has the tragic possibility of someone being shot when they don't need to be. But shouldn't that in itself be enough deterrent, without a HUGE amount of punishment being added on top of all that?

Overpunishment is not the way to deal with a problem.

 

I agree, but there is no such magical button, and until there is one, the only solution to a threat to yourself and family is to use lethal force.

Honestly, I could see having leniency on this boy if he had given himself up. He didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, because it was his actions that caused me to use lethal force.

- - - Updated - - -

It happened in Indiana.....

 

Burglary of an occupied dwelling is not a minor crime. In the state of Florida it's considered a forcible felony.

If you want to burglarize a house--choose an unoccupied one.

- - - Updated - - -

If he violated the law by smoking on the trail, sure. He's responsible for burning those houses down by his disregard for a common sense law.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, I agree with you on a post......

 

Blake Layman and his friends did think they were choosing an unoccupied home.

 

Where is it uncommon for teens to break into someone's house? I've never heard of kids that weren't intent on theft or harm to the occupants to sneak into houses.

My guess, though, about the Elkhart 4 case, is that really they were breaking into this guy's house to steal his pot.

In this case, yes. People are more likely to do stupid things like this in a crowd. If we start to relay to the kids that things like this are felony murder, maybe they will stop. As I said in another post, I agree totally with the idea of felony murder, but I just think the CJ system needs to advertise it more.

 

Well... yes. After all, they wouldn't have shot anyone if this guy hadn't broken into their house.

While they were home, mind you. I know that in most states this can be an aggravating circumstance. Someone who breaks in while someone else is home is generally assumed to be ready and willing to kill someone.

Somebody breaks into a woman's house, this frightens her so badly she grabs her gun and in the ensuing confusion shoots herself. Just her bad luck, you're saying?

You're putting an awful lot of onus onto people who haven't done anything but just be sleeping quietly in their own home and then scared out of their wits by some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag trying to rob them

 

But it wasn't, and Layman admits he realized this when he took the wallet off the kitchen table.

 

That would be very unfortunate. Both the woman herself, and the intruders share some degree of blame.
But I don't believe you can (or should) put all the responsibility on the intruders for it. Can't you see it as just a tragic accident ?
The intruders are already going to be punished for breaking into the house. Do you want anyone who breaks into a house to have to assume the risk that the homeowner might shoot themselves, and then they would find themselves with a 55 year prison sentence? Apparently you do.

There are many people, especially in the U.K., who would place much more "onus" on the homeowner than I do. Look, I'm even saying it's okay for the homeowner to shoot the intruders dead, and that the homeowner should be assumed the innocent party unless proved otherwise. I think that's more than generous enough for the homeowner. Excessively punishing the intruders for things they didn't actually do is taking it too far.

 

But don't you see that the intruder is CAUSING the "accident"? It's doubly negligent, you're not just thieving from somebody, you're acting in such a way that might cause their death with no care of that at all. How would you feel if it was a loved one of yours that got shot? Just bad luck, my darling wife, I don't think the intruders who caused your death meant to do so?

 

That's really the crux of the issue here, isn't it?
No, I would not say the intruder caused the accident.
It might be true the accident would not have happened if it was not for the intruders entering the house, but to say that they "caused" the accident is a big stretch. If they did cause the accident it was very indirect, and there were other additional factors beyond their control.

Perhaps, but I just do not see it as "negligence", not the way you do. It's not the same as drunk driving on a crowded street, for example.

You can only think of the accident victims. Just because someone did something that was against the law does not mean they should be held responsible for anything and everything that wouldn't have happened if they had not broke the law.
It's enough of a tragedy that one person died. Does someone else's life need to be ruined also?

 

I suspect the west has lacked real issues for so long that people have nothing to do but sympathize with criminals and stick their noses into other people's business.

 

I'm sorry but it's just wrong. Bad laws lead to people being locked up for the rest of their lives who do not need to be, and police officers getting killed in the line of duty when they don't have to be. All to satisfy a few people's desires for what they call "justice".

I don't even smoke. But let's just say hypothetically I broke the law and smoked on a hiking trail, and accidentally ignited a fire that burned out of control and led to hundreds of people losing their house and a few people dying. And then law enforcement wanted to come after me, and I knew they were going to most likely sentence me to life imprisonment. I would have no problem killing those who were attempting to catch me. Though I did something wrong, and it led to terrible consequences, I would refuse to accept the level of responsibility the laws were attempting to hold me accountable for. I completely believe it would be 100% within my ethical and moral rights to use deadly force against those attempting to commit evil against me, far beyond anything I actually deserved. "Just doing their job" does not excuse them. If you choose to apprehend a criminal and hand them over to someone else, without considering what that other person will actually do to the criminal, you may be ethically guilty yourself. As one example, someone in a muslim country catching a woman trying to run away who had committed adultery, and then handing her over to people who are going to stone her to death. If I was that woman, I might feel I probably deserved some form of punishment, but not stoning. So I would be well within my rights to kill the man trying to catch me, even though he might just be doing his job and it was all perfectly legal.

And this is exactly what happens in many cases when the police are going after criminals. This is why the criminals feel free to shoot police officers dead. I'm sure none of you are even going to listen to me or take the time to consider the point I am trying to make here. I'm just trying to stress that having a grossly unjust law creates consequences to society. You do not understand how hugely important it is that punishment not be more excessive than what is just and fair.

I know many of you may just think criminals will do whatever they want without any regard to whether the law is fair or not, but that's not really entirely true. Very few criminals actually want to kill anyone. Even police officers coming after them, they're just people with families doing their job, trying to do the right thing, what needs to be done to secure order and safety in society. But what happens when the criminal views the police officer as evil? When they hear about all these cases of extreme injustice and grossly excessive punishment in the court system?

Just let be absolutely clear and say I would never ever do any of this, but I am just trying to make a point here and say that bad law does result in additional danger to those in law enforcement. And if I was a police officer, I do not think this would be fair to me. I don't know how I would be able to sleep at night knowing I caught an unarmed 16 year old intruder and handed him over to a justice system that sentenced him to 55 years.

 

Some of you guys seem to think that when a person finds burglars in their house, they should say "oh, burglars, what a pleasant surprise!" The burglars got each other killed, if it's anyone's fault it's their own. Unless this is some roundabout rant about how you want to take people's guns away to protect burglars?

 

Yeah, but you want to punish them for it—on top of all the punishment they will already receive for entering uninvited.
55 years!!