Del. Charlotte Crutchfield proposes bill to ban felony murder charges for people under 25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lawmaker didn’t go far enough. The felony murder is a terrible concept for any age. It’s devastated lives.

The life or the deceased victim, their friends and loved ones were pretty "devastated" too, no?

But not by the person who didn't kill them.[/quote

Exactly. The attitudes of people here are shocking.

Read this — it’s a horrible horrible practice and exists in different guises in several states. As a nation how can we move forward when we are have state-sanctioned murder and horrendous sentencing. All of these have been abolished in the civilized world

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43673331

Lakeith Smith was 15 years old when he went along with four older friends on a burglary spree. A neighbour called police when the group went into a home in Millbrook, Alabama, and the responding officers surprised the teenagers as they were coming through the front door.
The group turned and fled out the back door, and a shootout ensued. When it was all over, 16-year-old A'Donte Washington was dead with a bullet wound to his neck.
It's never been in dispute that a Millbrook police officer shot and killed Washington - officer-worn body cameras captured the fatal confrontation. A grand jury declined to charge the officer, finding that the shooting was justified.
Instead, Smith was charged and found guilty of his friend's murder. Last week, a judge sentenced him to 65 years in prison. Under Alabama's accomplice liability law, Smith is considered just as culpable in Washington's death as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

[Anonymous]

^^^^ Sounds perfectly OK to me. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lawmaker didn’t go far enough. The felony murder is a terrible concept for any age. It’s devastated lives.

The life or the deceased victim, their friends and loved ones were pretty "devastated" too, no?

But not by the person who didn't kill them.[/quote

Exactly. The attitudes of people here are shocking.

Read this — it’s a horrible horrible practice and exists in different guises in several states. As a nation how can we move forward when we are have state-sanctioned murder and horrendous sentencing. All of these have been abolished in the civilized world

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43673331

Lakeith Smith was 15 years old when he went along with four older friends on a burglary spree. A neighbour called police when the group went into a home in Millbrook, Alabama, and the responding officers surprised the teenagers as they were coming through the front door.
The group turned and fled out the back door, and a shootout ensued. When it was all over, 16-year-old A'Donte Washington was dead with a bullet wound to his neck.
It's never been in dispute that a Millbrook police officer shot and killed Washington - officer-worn body cameras captured the fatal confrontation. A grand jury declined to charge the officer, finding that the shooting was justified.
Instead, Smith was charged and found guilty of his friend's murder. Last week, a judge sentenced him to 65 years in prison. Under Alabama's accomplice liability law, Smith is considered just as culpable in Washington's death as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

[Anonymous]

Well you should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

How do you feel about a group of guys standing around or in a car laughing, cheering, and taking pictures of one of their buddies raping and maybe killing a girl?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that brains are not fully mature until mid-20s. However we still need to enforce accountability and deterrents to recidivism. So what's the plan?

If that’s truly the case that their brains aren’t developed enough to make simple decisions about committing felonies, we certainly shouldn’t allow them to vote, drive, or enter into contracts until they are 25/26. Also, no one in the armed forces until you hit 25. Those people have guns, you know.

This. This is idiotic. If you are old enough to vote, drink, drive etc., you are old enough to be accountable for your actions, especially if those actions resulted in the death of another person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

How do you feel about a group of guys standing around or in a car laughing, cheering, and taking pictures of one of their buddies raping and maybe killing a girl?

I think there's a meaningful distinction between doing a thing and not doing that thing. What do you think?

Posters on this thread are arguing that the person who actually killed the person (in the case above, the police officer) should have no consequences for killing the person, while multiple people who did not kill the person should be convicted of murder, because there should be consequences. There is no logic that I can perceive in this argument, besides "some people who do some bad things should be punished, and I don't care for what as long as they're punished."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

I don’t have a problem with that. I understand the felony murder statute and accomplice liability and this conviction bothers me not at all. If you are committing an armed robbery with your buddy and you are the lookout, you should be convicted of armed robbery too because you were acting in furtherance of that crime even if you didn’t actually put the gun to the victim or take his things. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

Do you have a problem with jailing folks for 2+ years for an "insurrection" they didn't commit? Personally, I think they played a stupid game and deserve their stupid prizes.

I also believe kids - black, brown, white or red - should be held accountable for their actions. How many 15 year olds have committed murder so far this year?

65 years sounds about right. Maybe he can get a GED and do something with his life, even if behind bars. It's better than the path he was on. He might not have pulled the trigger this time, but we all know he was going to pull the trigger soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. The death of a customer during that kind of robbery is reasonably foreseeable, and people are presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. This isn’t even a hard case. Where felony murder starts to get potentially unjust is scenarios where George and Harry’s friend Pat illegally provides them with the Glock used in the stickup a few days earlier, with some idea they might be up to no good but not a lot of detail about their plans. Not sure how often that scenario is charged as felony murder rather than some lesser kind of accomplice theory.

Not tracking on the shock emoji. People get killed in “robberies gone wrong” on a regular basis. Robbery is an inherently dangerous activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BALTIMORE (WBFF) — In Maryland, felony murder occurs when someone is killed while a felony crime, like robbery, is committed.

For example, if a getaway driver hits and kills a pedestrian while fleeing a crime scene, they are guilty of felony murder under current law.

Democratic Delegate Charlotte Crutchfield wants to change that with her Youth Accountability and Safety Act, House Bill 1180.

Specifically, Delegate Crutchfield wants that to apply to anyone under the age of 25.

"It would be absolutely outrageous and result in more crime," said Maury Richards, law enforcement expert and former Chief of Police in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

"Last year, with Senator Carter's Juvenile Justice Reform Act, it really opened the floodgates. There is a crime wave of violence going on right now, but instead of the legislator debating to rescind that, we're hung up on whether 25-year-olds should be charged with murder."

Proponents argue the brain is not fully developed until after someone turns 25.

https://foxbaltimore.com/morning/law-and-order-debate-over-felony-murder-law-this-legislative-session

Follow the money, people.
Who exactly is bribing them, in one way or another? No one proposes this $hit for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

But they did “commit” it. It was a foreseeable outcome of a course of conduct they voluntarily chose to engage in. Their actions had a direct causal connection to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jurisdictions have eliminated it? It’s very common and rightfully so. Don’t commit felonies because they quite often result in unintended consequences like someone dying.

So you think it's ok to charge people with something they didn't do? I don't.

So the victim's life means nothing to you?

George and Harry try to rob a store. The storeowner, John, pulls out a gun to defend himself, and accidentally shoots a customer, Tom. George and Harry are then charged with felony murder in Tom's death.

Do you think that George and Harry murdered Tom?

Yes. Tom would be alive if George and Harry hadn't tried to rob the store. They are fully responsible.

Tom would be alive if John hadn't accidentally shot him. What's John's responsibility?

John's responsibility is to protect himself. Was he doing so?

John was protecting himself, and his only responsibility is to make sure he was following the legal requirements for gun ownership.

John has no responsibility to not accidentally shoot people and kill them? Wow.

So if I am attacked, I need to passively accept it because my actions might lead to someone's death?

John might as well just donate all his organs today to maximize his benefit to the community.

If you have a gun, it's your responsibility to not accidentally shoot and kill people with it.

You’re just pro-crime and anti-self-defense. Back in reality, people understand that you have a right to defend yourself and if that defense inadvertently causes harm to another, the culpability lies with the aggressor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think 65 years is probably too much but I don’t have an issue with the conviction. This kid knowingly went on an armed burglary spree with his friends. If you are rolling with people who are armed and you’re engaging in crimes that are being committed with that gun, you do have culpability when during that crime spree that you are willingly participating in someone gets shot. What is it that the kids say these days…f*ck around and find out.

You don't have an issue with convicting someone for a murder they didn't commit? I do.

Of course not. If they are involved in a felony that results in a death then they should absolutely be charged with felony murder. This has the benefit of getting groups of criminals off the street and punishes everyone who caused a death by committing a dangerous crime. It may also incentivize not associating with dangerous criminals.