Injustice: homeowner shoots unarmed burglars, burglars guilty of murder

It's obvious that you can not wrap your head around the definition for the word "cause." I find it very difficult to read anything other then what is stated:

cause

kôz/

noun

1.

a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

"the cause of the accident is not clear"

synonyms:source,(*)root,(*)origin,(*)beginning(s),(*)starting point;(*)More

2.

a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.

"she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people"

synonymsrinciple,(*)ideal,(*)belief,(*)conviction;(*)More

verb

1.

make (something, typically something bad) happen.

"this disease can cause blindness"

synonyms:bring about,(*)give rise to,(*)lead to,(*)result in,(*)create,(*)produce,(*)generate,(*)engender,(*)spawn,(*)bring on,precipitate,(*)prompt,(*)provoke,(*)trigger,(*)make happen,(*)induce,(*)inspire,(*)promote,(*)foster;

literarybeget,(*)enkindle

 

The homeowner caused the shooting more than the intruders did. That's the way I see it.
Just because it was the intruders who were the ones doing something they were not supposed to be doing does NOT mean they should be held responsible.

The shooting could not have happened without the homeowner shooting his gun, just as the shooting would not have taken place if it was not for the intruders entering into the house.

And besides all this, the intruder who was shot dead entered of his own free will. Why do you want to hold one of the other intruders responsible?

 

So if the homeowner is equally responsible then what?....Could the family of the deceased have any recourse against the homeowner?....how should the death be categorized?

 

There's another issue here as well. If the law is what it is, there is a good chance it might lead to resentful criminals applying the same harsh standard of justice on law enforcement. If the law holds a criminal fully responsible for the actions of his accomplice during the crime, a criminal might similarly hold all the police officers in a group responsible for the actions of one of them.

So for example, suppose there are 4 police officers who approach the criminal and one of them is holding out a gun. The criminal tells him to drop the weapon or he'll be dead, and the criminal has his gun pointing directly at that police officer. The police officer holding the gun holds completely still for a moment and does not move, not dropping the gun, but not moving to point it either. Maybe he's thinking about it for a moment. However, one of the other officers reaches towards their gun, despite the warning.

Now, the other police officer reaching for their gun is standing further away from the one actually holding the gun. So if the criminal turns to aim his gun at the other police officer, it would be very easy for the officer holding the gun to quickly point and shoot at the criminal. The only thing the criminal can do to stop the threat is to immediately shoot dead the officer holding the gun, then aim at the other one who is reaching for the gun. But the criminal also realizes that's not really fair to the first police officer, the one holding the gun. The criminal is an ethical man, in his own way, and does not want to shoot anyone unless that person is a threat to him and fails to comply with his clear warning. And honestly, if you were the police officer holding your gun and someone suddenly threatened to shoot you if you did not drop it, it would take you at least a few seconds to think it over. Not fast enough before the other officer finished reaching for their gun.

The criminal could also just shoot the other officer dead—the one reaching for their gun—and take the risk that the police officer holding the gun wouldn't be able to move fast enough to shoot before the criminal was able to was able to have the gun pointing back at him. That would probably be the fairest thing to do (considering the criminal's other option), to shoot the officer who was obviously ignoring the warning. But that would also involve considerable risk to the criminal himself. The criminal really does not want to shoot a completely innocent person, one who might comply with the warning and drop his weapon.

But what if the criminal were to apply the same type of morality that exists under the law? Holding the entire group responsible for the actions of any of its members. In that case, the police officer who did not even have time yet to think about or comply with the warning is just as culpable as the police officer who ignored the warning and chose to reach for his weapon.

Some may accuse me of using an absurd analogy here, but this is the best example I could think of to demonstrate my point. You want the law to apply a certain line of reasoning against criminals, but what if the tables are turned and criminals applied that same type of reasoning to other people? I think seeing it from that perspective will obviously show how wrong this type of morality is.
I am just saying that the morality we choose to enshrine in the law really has serious repercussions in the type of morality individuals in our society will choose to use. If the law and government sets a good example, I think that will carry over into people's individual choices and actions, even those of criminals.

 

Again, it seems you want to blame someone for the death. There does not need to be additional punishment, there does not need to be liability.
I find it just as wrong to hold the homeowner responsible as I do to hold the intruders responsible.

It is just a very unfortunate incident, and the intruders will still be punished for breaking into the house.

 

You seem like a caring person. I understand where you are coming from I just can't go there....so with that said let's just agree to disagree.

 

Tbh I would have them executed and then we could harvest their organs to be transplanted into needy people. The Chinese used to do that but they gave into pressure recently and won't harvest organs from executed people anymore, as if they need them. One Judge gets caught selling organs and they trash the whole system, what's the world coming to...

 

I hate to change the subject, but you might be interested in this thread: Organ Harvesting in Abortion Clinics

 

I'm sure some kind of plea bargain was offered, and this guy thought he could get a sympathetic jury, so he refused it. I feel something missing about the story.

- - - Updated - - -

In this case, burglarizing the house was a group decision. More than likely, without the backup of the friends, the boy that died wouldn't have gone through with it. They were all complicit for the death.

- - - Updated - - -

Big stretch.

 

The Plea Bargaining process is so unfair. A guilty defendant who pleads guilty will get less punishment than a defendant who feels he didn't break the law and wants the opportunity to try to get a jury to see it his way.

Not all cases and not all laws are a clear "he did it" or "he didn't do it". Sometimes everyone can still agree on exactly what happened but still dispute whether what happened was really in violation of the wording of the law.

Contrastingly, many innocent defendants are basically coerced into plea bargains because they are afraid to take their chances in a trial. Prosecutors can be very persuasive to a jury, even when the evidence is not really adequate.

It also puts too much discretion in the hands of the prosecutor.

 

Well, that's why they have the option of the jury trial. As I said, I think we are missing part of this story.

 

What if the average people living around the region where the crime took place are like so many of the respondents in this thread, and believe that anyone who burglarizes a house should be held 100% responsible for any bad things that transpires?

That is what is so disturbing. It's not merely just a glitch in the law, there are LOTS of average people who believe this is how it should be.

Also, when you are just one person in a jury and you disagree with all the others, it's easy for you to basically just be coerced into going along with the group. The judge can hold the jury for a long time, and they have to sit in a little room for many days, everyone wants to go home, and there is a huge amount of social pressure on the lone dissenting juror. Imagine you are in a room stuck for 8 hours with other people who are not happy with you, and you have already had to do this for several days, and they are repeatedly telling you how wrong you are. You just want to get it over with. And you know the defendant is already guilty of something else, so it is not as if he is completely "innocent". Or, in many cases, he did something you do not feel was right, although you do not feel it was actually against the law.