I won't speak for kleinbl00, but for me my goal in starting this thread was to reach out to people like you who don't know a lot. More info is good for everyone, and I'd like the debate over gun control to come from a place of facts rather than hysterics. As an aside, I'll say that I disagree with his characterization of the felony murder rule as bullshit. Self-defense is a big legal issue, and has he says it's complicated. It's also handled at the state level rather than the federal. Some states have a duty to retreat, for example, meaning that you have to try to get away from an attacker before you use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend yourself. Others don't. Some states also grant you a presumption of self-defense if you use deadly force on someone who broke into your house. The typical standard is that you must have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury for you to be justified in using lethal (or potentially lethal) force on someone else. So someone talks shit and you shoot them, probably not self-defense. Someone comes at you with a bat, I think you probably could (since a bat can kill you), but again this will depend on the situation. It'll also depend on your locale and what juries tend to be like. I live in a place that has a history of lots of crime (we were like 1st in the country for murder back in the last '90s), so even now people tend to be very pro-self-defense. This in turn means prosecutors are less likely to prosecute someone who might make a self-defense argument, since they don't think they can get a conviction. This is anecdotal, but based on a couple prosecutors who came and spoke to one of my law school classes ~2007. The end result is that it's difficult to make blanket statements, and as in the case of Trayvon Martin, it all gets very political very quickly.
Hold my beer. Brother in law's family. Nephew hanging out with his friend. Friend tries to buy some weed. Ends up getting seeds and stems. Decides he's gonna "show that fucker" so heads over to dealer's house with a knife. Nephew hangs around. Dealer invites them both in. Friend draws knife. Dealer draws .44 magnum and shoots friend. Nephew is now facing 15 to life. He's 18. And black. Felony murder is bullshit. The United States is the ONLY country where this shit wasn't abolished a hundred or more years ago. If you think it isn't, that means you've never encountered it or you've never met a black person or both.The end result is that it's difficult to make blanket statements, and as in the case of Trayvon Martin, it all gets very political very quickly.
So, your nephew decided to help someone attempt murder? Or was the friend just trying to "scare" his dealer? I'm fully aware of the racial prejudices involved in criminal justice, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't a good solution. I'll be sure to let the black people in my life know this.If you think it isn't, that means you've never encountered it or you've never met a black person or both.
Brother in law's nephew. Decided to go help his buddy scare a dealer. Dumb idea? Sure. 15-life dumb? What's the deterrent power in a law that few people understand? What's the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for being present for the execution of somebody else? What's the community effect when a white guy can shoot a black kid and have his black friend do the time? There is no baby. it's all bathwater.
Right, sorry. He contributed to a situation that resulted in someone being killed. Felony murder requires more participation than just being a bystander. He clearly knew what was going to go down, or at least what could go down. May as well ask about the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for actual murder. I'm not saying they're morally equivalent, but at the same time I don't see him as particularly innocent from a legal standpoint. I question the underlying assumptions about it being a thing that "few people understand." At the very least, I think "helping someone threaten someone else with a knife" is obvious enough as no-no from a moral standpoint that you don't have to know the ins and outs of criminal law to realize it's a bad idea. I mean, if his friend had ended up stabbing the dealer to death, your brother-in-law's nephew could easily have been charged as an accessory, which with murder can often carry the same sentence (depending on state law). I know this is someone you know, and it can feel kind of personal. I also know, as I said, that the criminal system doesn't necessarily treat black people the same or fairly. But in general terms, I don't think this is a situation where the law is unreasonable.Brother in law's nephew.
Depends on the circumstances. But that's also not what happened. It's a shitty situation from a personal/family perspective, I get that. That doesn't make the law wrong, though. Is your family handling it okay (for appropriate values of "okay")?Had they been standing on a street corner he wouldn't have been charged with anything.
What the fuck do you care? The questions put forth to you are as follows: These questions are put forth to you because you said this: There is no self-defense being discussed here. The kid in question didn't have a weapon. The man doing the shooting is a convicted drug dealer. The felonious act committed by the kid was being in the presence of someone with intent to intimidate. Yet for you, this is an abstract case of ignoring the question at hand because somehow, in your head, this is about self-defense and deterrence. I get that the purpose of lawyers is to exercise and carry out the law. But the purpose of law is to enforce the social contract between citizens and government. Felony murder is a bad law. Full stop. And pretending you give the first fuck about those convicted under it is disingenuous and insulting.What's the deterrent power in a law that few people understand? What's the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for being present for the execution of somebody else? What's the community effect when a white guy can shoot a black kid and have his black friend do the time?
Self-defense is a big legal issue, and has he says it's complicated. It's also handled at the state level rather than the federal. Some states have a duty to retreat, for example, meaning that you have to try to get away from an attacker before you use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend yourself. Others don't. Some states also grant you a presumption of self-defense if you use deadly force on someone who broke into your house.
I was willing to put up with some anger on your part over the situation (to say nothing of conflating some things in my argument that I didn't link), but this was over the line. So my own full stop for you: go fuck yourself.And pretending you give the first fuck about those convicted under it is disingenuous and insulting.