So you can be a murderer without killing someone

[SirGalahad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43673331

After police killed a burglary suspect in a shootout, the officer was not charged - instead a teenage boy who did not fire the gun has been found guilty of his murder.

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.

For example, if a victim has a heart attack and dies while being robbed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder even if he had no intent to kill. If the robber's friend was sitting in a getaway car a block away, under accomplice liability, he too can be charged with murder. One of the most famous examples involved a man convicted of murder for loaning his car to friends who went on to murder an 18-year-old girl. According to prosecutors, it didn't matter that he was 30 minutes away.

 

[ellal]

Not much difference here, it just goes by a different name - the 'joint enterprise' law.

 

[foxhole]

You could be convicted for aiding suicide without actually killing them.

 

[Notch7]

Should we be surprised.....its the US.

It has a legal system not much better than a third world country.

I wonder how the conviction / acquittal rate compares from poor black person to rich white person.

Plea bargaining: another example of the unfair US legal system.

 

[securespark]

Notch, did you read what ellal said?

We have joint enterprise. Er, and plea bargaining.

I was assaulted many years ago and the perp (who was facing ABH) got handed GBH because of plea bargaining.

 

[Notch7]

Notch, did you read what ellal said?

We have joint enterprise. Er, and plea bargaining.

I was assaulted many years ago and the perp (who was facing ABH) got handed GBH because of plea bargaining.

Yes, I did.

I would still fancy my chances more in a UK court.

The challenges which ‘plea bargaining’ presents to fair trials protections were highlighted at arecent meeting of criminal justice experts in the US, where 95% of all criminal cases are now resolved through guilty pleas. With an estimated 20,000 factually innocent people in prison for crimes to which they pleaded guilty but did not commit

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/02/15/early-guilty-pleas-justice-for-whom/

 

[Ihavenojob]

I would still fancy my chances more in a UK court.

Its like being on "Who wants to be a millionaire"

 

[vinty]

how

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43673331

After police killed a burglary suspect in a shootout, the officer was not charged - instead a teenage boy who did not fire the gun has been found guilty of his murder.

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.

For example, if a victim has a heart attack and dies while being robbed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder even if he had no intent to kill. If the robber's friend was sitting in a getaway car a block away, under accomplice liability, he too can be charged with murder. One of the most famous examples involved a man convicted of murder for loaning his car to friends who went on to murder an 18-year-old girl. According to prosecutors, it didn't matter that he was 30 minutes away.

For murder to be murder doesn't it have to be premeditated if not it becomes manslaughter but then again if it is in America it all depends how much money you have to spend on a good lawyer.

 

[Brigadier]

how
For murder to be murder doesn't it have to be premeditated..........

Why take a loaded gun to your crime then, if you don't have any intention of using it?

 

[JohnD]

we've had cases where one criminal is intending to commit a minor, non-violent crime and, unknown to him, an accomplice has taken a weapon.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mandy Rice Davies ???

 

[vinty]

Why take a loaded gun to your crime then, if you don't have any intention of using it?

If a criminal is arrested with a loaded gun should they charged with attempted or conspiracy to murder?

 

[motorbiking]

Joint enterprise isn’t the same here. In the US you don’t even need to be at the crime, just party to the plans and the possibility that someone might be killed. Here we need more:

Foresight of what the principal might do is evidence from which the jury may infer that he intended to assist or encourage to do so,” Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court said, “but it is for the jury to decide on the whole evidence of whether he had the necessary intent.”

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf


Murder = intention to kill and killed. Doesn’t have to be premeditated just an act likely to kill which did.

e.g rage stabbing

manslaughter - intention to do harm, killing unintended.

e.g. punched out - hits head on curb.

 

[ellal]

Joint enterprise isn’t the same here. In the US you don’t even need to be at the crime, just party to the plans and the possibility that someone might be killed.

Not quite so:

"One person who has been an active member of a group with a common purpose (aka joint enterprise) may escape liability by withdrawing before the other(s) go on to commit the crime. Mere repentance without any action, however, leaves the party liable. To be effective, the withdrawing party must actively seek to prevent the others from relying on what has been done. Any communication of withdrawal by the secondary party to the perpetrator must be such as to serve "unequivocal notice" upon the other party to the common purpose that, if he proceeds upon it, he does so without the further aid and assistance of the withdrawing party:

• If an accomplice only advised or encouraged the principal to commit the crime, he must at least communicate his withdrawal to the other parties.
• Where an accomplice has supplied the principal with the means of committing the crime, the accomplice must arguably neutralise, or at least take all reasonable steps to neutralise, the aid he has given.
• In more serious cases, it may be that the only effective withdrawal is either physical intervention or calling in the police."

 

[motorbiking]

well that’s all potentially in the bin now, following the 2016 ruling.