Teen Kills Cop in Auto Accident, Charged With 3rd Degree Murder

[Berzerker]

Tragic, and it'll be made even worse by the DA

Felony GTA? Murder? Idiots! It aint stealing, its a kid taking the family car for a spin. What the parents reported is irrelevant. If the kid forgot his key and broke a window to get in, would he be guilty of breaking and entering too? If he's a legal driver they dont have anything on him. If he caused the accident (somebody crossed over the line and it sounds like he did) then they got him for vehicular homicide and I'd leave it to the civil system to compensate the family of the cop. Throwing the kid in jail on some bogus murder charge is asinine...

 

[Shadylookin]

True. We should just take a couple points of his driving record, and fine him a couple hundreds bucks for killing someone.

Why fine him he didn't commit a crime? At least I don't think a 16 year old sneaking out with mom's suv counts as grand theft auto. Sure it sucks that a guy is dead but they're called "traffic accidents" instead of "traffic on purposes" for a reason. Just because you're the head honcho of the force doesn't mean you're free of life's risks. It's not like the kid is hoping for joy that he killed a guy he's got 2 broken legs and crushed vertebrae.

 

[MobBoss]

Why fine him he didn't commit a crime? At least I don't think a 16 year old sneaking out with mom's suv counts as grand theft auto.

Actually, it indeed can. A friend of mine at work had his own son arrested for doing just that.....taking (read: stealing) his car without permission and going off for a joyride to trash the car. He had simply had enough of his kid doing crap like that so had him arrested and tossed in the pokey.

What makes you think kids cant steal from parents?

 

[Shadylookin]

Actually, it indeed can. A friend of mine at work had his own son arrested for doing just that.....taking (read: stealing) his car without permission and going off for a joyride to trash the car. He had simply had enough of his kid doing crap like that so had him arrested and tossed in the pokey.

What makes you think kids cant steal from parents?

I'm guessing he was on the insurance as a driver for their vehicles which means it's assumed he's allowed to drive. The parents in question don't want to press charges.

I think it's clearly an example of a parent/child relationship issue that's outside the bounds of the law. For instance when a parent spanks a kid it isn't felonious sexual assault on an unconsenting minor and when a teenager takes the family car without permission it isn't grand theft auto.

 

[Turner]

Why fine him he didn't commit a crime? At least I don't think a 16 year old sneaking out with mom's suv counts as grand theft auto. Sure it sucks that a guy is dead but they're called "traffic accidents" instead of "traffic on purposes" for a reason. Just because you're the head honcho of the force doesn't mean you're free of life's risks. It's not like the kid is hoping for joy that he killed a guy he's got 2 broken legs and crushed vertebrae.

The only way it's *not* GTA is if he actually owns the car. His name has to be on the title and/or registration. Simply saying 'It's my mom's' isn't good enough.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm guessing he was on the insurance as a driver for their vehicles which means it's assumed he's allowed to drive. The parents in question don't want to press charges.

I think it's clearly an example of a parent/child relationship issue that's outside the bounds of the law. For instance when a parent spanks a kid it isn't felonious sexual assault on an unconsenting minor and when a teenager takes the family car without permission it isn't grand theft auto.

Well, that all changes if the kid makes a complaint of abuse now doesnt it?

Once the parents reported the car actually stolen, the game changed.

I dont understand why thats so hard to grasp.

 

[Ammar]

Well, I was already convinced that this law is stupid when I first heard about it concerning the case with the crazy shopkeeper.

 

[JollyRoger]

I see your line of reasoning, but I'd add in to the simple question of whether or not the perp was behaving responsibility up to the accident. E.g. Was the perp speeding? Was the perp driving under the influence? Was the perp going to work, or just thrill riding? In other words, did the perp contribute to causing the fatal accident?

You wouldn't get a felony murder charge for speeding, driving under the influence, or thrill riding - unless, of course, as here, the victim was a cop.

 

[Turner]

You wouldn't get a felony murder charge for speeding, driving under the influence, or thrill riding - unless, of course, as here, the victim was a cop.

And the cop victim was killed in the process of doing this.

It's a death caused while committing a felony. The law is very clear that the charge is 3rd degree murder. The fact the victim was a cop is irrelevant.

 

[JollyRoger]

The fact the victim was a cop is irrelevant.

It is very relevant - prosecutors have discretion on what to charge and if the victim was not a cop it is my opinion that they would not have brought a felony murder charge.

 

[Turner]

No, it's not. The statute doesn't say "If the victim is a police officer, than it's 3rd degree murder", the statute says "If a death occurs during the commission of a felony, it's 3rd degree murder". The victims profession is irrelevant.

Read the statue.

 

[MobBoss]

You wouldn't get a felony murder charge for speeding, driving under the influence, or thrill riding - unless, of course, as here, the victim was a cop.

Quite untrue. Google is full of instances where you are proven quite false on that allegation. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=drunk+driving+death+felony&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Specifically, here is one from CA that indicates yes, you can get a murder charge from a DUI:

http://www.shouselaw.com/felony-dui.html

California Felony DUI: Causing Injury or Death
When another person suffers injury or death because you (1) drove under the influence, and (2) either committed an additional vehicle code violation or drove in an otherwise negligent manner, California prosecutors can charge you with a felony DUI in one of three ways:

Under California Vehicle Code 23513 VC -- driving under the influence causing injury,
With DUI vehicular manslaughter, or
With DUI second-degree murder (otherwise known as a "Watson Murder")
Which California felony DUI will be charged depends on the specific facts of your case and on your criminal history.

Not like you Jolly to put out something so patently false there.

 

[JollyRoger]

Quite untrue. Google is full of instances where you are proven quite false on that allegation. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=drunk+driving+death+felony&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

In fact, I have a seperation packet on my desk right now for a guy convicted of felony evasion (i.e. speeding) from police.

Not like you Jolly to put out something so patently false there.

I checked out your link and it shows people being charged with felonies, but not felony murder. Perhaps you don't have a firm grasp of what felony murder actually is.

 

[MobBoss]

I checked out your link and it shows people being charged with felonies, but not felony murder. Perhaps you don't have a firm grasp of what felony murder actually is.

Perhaps you didnt read far enough. Check my edit.

Or should I made a snide comment about how you dont have a firm grasp of the law here? Hmm?

 

[Leonel]

Regardless of the status of him "stealing" the car AND assuming no alcohol or malacious/dangerous driving was not involved, wouldn't manslaughter be the appropriate charge?

I agree. At the very most, manslaughter would appear to be a more appropriate for something like this.

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps you didnt read far enough. Check my edit.

Or should I made a snide comment about how you dont have a firm grasp of the law here? Hmm?

Even your edit is not felony murder. It is a specific statutory offense based on written actus reas and mens rea requirements. In felony murder, the mens rea normally required for a murder charges is not required - instead the fact that you are engaging in a dangerous felony and a death occurs is substituted for the mens rea requirement. The classic example is killings that occur in an armed robbery. Even an accidental shooting by your partner in crime or a cop or victim of the robbery will get you a murder charge. What your edit shows is heightened charges for drunken driving - it has nothing to do with the concept of felony murder.

Watson murder:

The mental state of the accused is often the most significant issue in a Watson prosecution. Implied malice does require sufficient proof that the defendant deliberately acted with conscious disregard to human life, knowing that the acts were dangerous to human life. Thus, the actual mental state of a defendant becomes highly relevant in a Watson prosecution and the prosecutor is allowed to present evidence to establish that subjective mental state.

http://www.hutton-wilson.com/dui-murder.htm

Felony murder:

A rule of law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder.

http://www.answers.com/topic/felony-murder-rule

 

[MobBoss]

Even your edit is not felony murder.

Funny, I could have swore I read the words 'felony' and 'murder' in that.

And this: http://www.california-criminal-dui-lawyer.com/dui-second-degree-murder-dui-watson-murder.html

Would seem to disagree with your point:

There is a legal theory that when a person commits an act with "depraved indifference" to human life, and that act results in the death of another person, it is Second Degree Murder even though the actor has no actual intent to kill the dead person. The classic example taught in law school is shooting into a crowded room, wherein a person is hit and dies. Even though the shooter had no intent to shoot the person killed, and may not have even known the person or of that particular person‘s presence, the "natural and probable consequences" of the shooting was the death of another person.

The California courts have extended this concept to DUI‘s, if the DUI driver is involved in an accident and kills another person while driving under the influence. The deceased may even be a passenger in the driver‘s own vehicle. This offense carries a mandatory life sentence in state prison.

The attorney writing the piece actually disagrees with the law making the charge felony murder (like you do), but to me that indicates that is precisely the intent of the law to creat a felony murder charge for killing someone while DUI. You may not agree with it, but it is indeed a felony murder charge for a DUI whether you like it or not.

it has nothing to do with the concept of felony murder.

Really? I guess you should go to the California Congress and tell them about their ill use of the 'felony murder' in the law then eh?

Anyway, there are other states that have felony charges apparently for DUI and also vehicular homicide. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=dui+felony+murder+vehicular+homicide&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

 

[warpus]

The problem lies with the timing of when the parents reported the car stolen. They reported it stolen, so now the vehicle becomes stolen property. Shortly after that, the officer is killed in a collision. Since the vehicle is technically stolen, that makes him guilty of grand theft, auto, a felony. And since Florida law states he's also up on 3rd degree murder charges.

I think it's pretty bogus myself, and hopefully he can plea down. But the fact does remain that he took the car without permission and killed someone while doing so. If he hadn't have done that, the officer would still be alive.

Is that technically a stolen car, though? I suppose, in a way, but it just seems to me like that law (the felony while someone dies = your ass law) is there for specific reasons, and this wasn't meant to have been one of them.

It was meant for like.. you know.. dude steals car, takes it on a joyride, kills someone along the way. Totally different situation!

I don't think that the timing of something should be able to change a sentence from a slap on the wrist to 20 years in jail.

and yeah, I know we kinda agree I'm just sayin'

 

[MobBoss]

It was meant for like.. you know.. dude steals car, takes it on a joyride, kills someone along the way. Totally different situation!

Isnt that exactly what happened here though? Kid steals car from parents, parents report it stolen, goes on joyride, kills someone along the way.

I think you got it right in 1.

 

[JollyRoger]

Funny, I could have swore I read the words 'felony' and 'murder' in that.

And this: http://www.california-criminal-dui-lawyer.com/dui-second-degree-murder-dui-watson-murder.html

Would seem to disagree with your point:



The attorney writing the piece actually disagrees with the law making the charge felony murder (like you do), but to me that indicates that is precisely the intent of the law to creat a felony murder charge for killing someone while DUI. You may not agree with it, but it is indeed a felony murder charge for a DUI whether you like it or not.



Really? I guess you should go to the California Congress and tell them about their ill use of the 'felony murder' in the law then eh?

Anyway, there are other states that have felony charges apparently for DUI and also vehicular homicide. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=dui+felony+murder+vehicular+homicide&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Just because a statute has the words "felony" and "murder" does not mean we are talking about felony murder in the classic sense of the phrase. As I have pointed out, a Watson charge requires significant proof of mental state while felony murder does not - the underlying felony serves as a substitute for intent.