Brandon Ross Charged With Murder After Police Fatally Shoot 15-Year-Old Companion

[ShyGuyInChicago]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/brandon-ross-charged-with_n_868289.html

A 16-year-old boy has been charged with murder after a Chicago police officer fatally shot his 15-year-old friend Wednesday on the South Side.
Brandon Ross and his friend Tatioun Williams allegedly robbed a man at gunpoint in the 7000 block of South Cregier Avenue Wednesday evening, and were confronted by police officers a short time later, the Chicago Tribune reports.
When the officers told the teens to stop, Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction, Fox Chicago reports. Fearing for her life, the officer shot the 15-year-old, killing him.
"They could have taken him to jail, they could have done anything but taken his life," Williams' mother told the Tribune Thursday.
Under state law, police can charge someone with murder when an accomplice is killed during the commission of a crime. Even though Ross didn't pull the trigger, he was charged as an adult with murder and armed robbery. He was ordered held on $900,000 bail Friday.
The teens allegedly took a wallet and iPod from a 27-year-old man before the shooting.

[Rainstorm]

So, they killed the person who didn't have a gun?

Yeah, cause that makes total sense.

[TheMatrix]

i don't understand any of this.
you charge someone of doing what they were about to do.
america the "fair".

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I think the reason why he was charged is because of the felony murder rule. If you commit a felony and someone dies as the result of it, you can be charged with murder and in certain jurisdictions you can be considered for the death penalty because of that.

[Korashk]

I think the reason why he was charged is because of the felony murder rule. If you commit a felony and someone dies as the result of it, you can be charged with murder and in certain jurisdictions you can be considered for the death penalty because of that.
Well yeah. It says that right in the article quote. It's a bullshit law, though.

[Korashk]

So, they killed the person who didn't have a gun?

Yeah, cause that makes total sense.
The person they shot had a gun.

[CaptainObvious]

those laws are stupid, and this is an absurd example of why. murder requires intent to kill, and just because someone died during a felony doesn't make it intended. this just illuminates why that's such a ridiculous law.

[Kahn]

i don't understand any of this.
you charge someone of doing what they were about to do.
america the "fair".

Your country probably has some ridiculously out of line laws as well.

[Raptor22]

those laws are stupid, and this is an absurd example of why. murder requires intent to kill, and just because someone died during a felony doesn't make it intended. this just illuminates why that's such a ridiculous law.

My dads friend was convicted under that. He allegedly hired a guy to kill his ex's boyfriend and gave him a gun. On the way to kill them, the guy he hired was pulled over and killed a California Highway Patrolman. My dads friend was arrested and convicted of murder because of this. Personally (because I know the guy) I believe he was set up, but even if he is guilty, hes guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, not murder. Read the video description.

GATnrXTwxAw

It would be like me loaning my friend my car to go buy groceries, and having him run over somebody on the way there. I'm not guilty of running anybody over, I just gave him the car...

[ShyGuyInChicago]

those laws are stupid, and this is an absurd example of why. murder requires intent to kill, and just because someone died during a felony doesn't make it intended. this just illuminates why that's such a ridiculous law.

Well the boy did commit an armed robbery. It is reasonable to foresee someone getting killed in an armed robbery. These laws are based on the rationale that a person should be charged with murder if they commit a crime where it is likely to get killed and then someone gets killed.

[TheMatrix]

You're country probably has some ridiculously out of line laws as well.
granted, it does.
but doesn't every country?

[Kahn]

granted, it does.
but doesn't every country?

So why do you point at America and call them the bad guy when you just technically said everyone else is also a fucking bad guy?

[TheMatrix]

So why do you point at America and call them the bad guy when you just technically said everyone else is also a fucking bad guy?
i didn't. the subject was currently american stuff. it would have been spam if i talked about some other country, such as pakistan(just to name an example).

[embers]

i didn't. the subject was currently american stuff. it would have been spam if i talked about some other country, such as pakistan(just to name an example).

Hey! Our death penalty for apostasy and set-in-stone hatred of anything liberal or western is totally justified!

[CaptainObvious]

Well the boy did commit an armed robbery. It is reasonable to foresee someone getting killed in an armed robbery. These laws are based on the rationale that a person should be charged with murder if they commit a crime where it is likely to get killed and then someone gets killed.

putting someone in a situation that is more likely to lead to a death, and then does lead to a death, is negligent homicide and not murder. there is no good rationale in my mind for mixing concepts that are very different.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

putting someone in a situation that is more likely to lead to a death, and then does lead to a death, is negligent homicide and not murder. there is no good rationale in my mind for mixing concepts that are very different.

What if someone set fire to an empty building and firefighters die trying to fight. Would you find murder charges acceptable. What if a man tries to defend his wife from rapist by shooting the rapist but he accidentally shoots and kills his wife in stead? Should the rapist be responsible for the wife's murder?

[CaptainObvious]

What if someone set fire to an empty building and firefighters die trying to fight. Would you find murder charges acceptable. What if a man tries to defend his wife from rapist by shooting the rapist but he accidentally shoots and kills his wife in stead? Should the rapist be responsible for the wife's murder?

pretty sure i answered all of those questions by pointing out the difference negligent/reckless homicide and murder.

[Kahn]

i didn't. the subject was currently american stuff. it would have been spam if i talked about some other country, such as pakistan(just to name an example).

But after I pointed out that your country has unjust laws as well, you agreed and then added more to it. So you knew that it's not just America that has unfair laws, but you pointed them out in your first post just because, fuck it, it's America.

[The Joker]

My dads friend was convicted under that. He allegedly hired a guy to kill his ex's boyfriend and gave him a gun. On the way to kill them, the guy he hired was pulled over and killed a California Highway Patrolman. My dads friend was arrested and convicted of murder because of this. Personally (because I know the guy) I believe he was set up, but even if he is guilty, hes guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, not murder. Read the video description.

I personally think that one is a tough one. Your dad's friend was definitely an accomplice in the plan to murder someone, provided the murder weapon. Although he wasn't planning to kill this person directly, he definitely has a charge against him...but for murder of someone he didn't want dead, that's a misjudgment.

[ItStOuGhEnOuGh4Us]

Yes it is called Transferred Intent.

[Sith Lord 13]

those laws are stupid, and this is an absurd example of why. murder requires intent to kill, and just because someone died during a felony doesn't make it intended. this just illuminates why that's such a ridiculous law.

You intended to do something which had the clear chance of someone being killed. That's intent enough to me. Otherwise "I only meant to wound him, not kill him" becomes a murder defense.

[CaptainObvious]

You intended to do something which had the clear chance of someone being killed. That's intent enough to me. Otherwise "I only meant to wound him, not kill him" becomes a murder defense.

it is already a murder defence, it's just a very very poor one. a chance of someone being killed is present in many things, but a line must be drawn. i think a law that can be read to allow the police to kill a person and charge someone else with that murder is nonsensical and overly broad. if there's no specific malice aforethought, there's no murder.