• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Use of a toy gun results in murder charges.

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
No. He should not. That would be illegal. I recommend you not even imply that someone should break the law.

What law requires you NOT to move a corpse? I don't know of any ... if he is bleeding on your $20,000 carpet then you would be dragging him off of it I'm certain...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I did not say there was a law against moving a corpse. Would you like me to quote the law on destruction of evidence? Pick a State if you believe that you can move a corpse out of the house to keep the house itself from being a crime scene (as you were advocating before you tried to change the paradigm by making it all about carpet), and I will cite the law, assuming that you are ignorant enough of this fundamental legal concept as to need a cite.

BTW, if the shot originated from inside the house (even if you are foolish enough to think that you can trick the detectives by moving the body), the home is still clearly part of the crime scene.

But, go ahead. Tell me you need a cite to back up a claim that you cannot disturb the evidence at a crime scene to hide a material fact like where the dead man was when he fell dead from the gunshot wound you inflicted. Go ahead. I will comply. If you do not pick a State, let's do Ohio, where the shooting occurred. Go ahead.

:eyeroll:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Wouldn't it have been really easy to flush the joint? I mean, wouldn't you have dumped anything illegal before calling the cops?

Anyway, robbing the home of an acquaintance is analogous to date rape, and I think we would frown upon making public that a rape victim had a joint in her purse. Leaks like this are irresponsible and show that we cannot trust law enforcement to do the right thing.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Should the home owner have dragged the body out and locked the door behind him? "uh, no .. you cannot go in" lol

:) Might have been a good idea...but they also might have considered not using illegal drugs and inviting less than reputable people inside their home.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
None of this matters. The home was a crime scene. There is little doubt that PC exists to search large portions of the home, regardless of anything that the perps said.

Likely there was not PC to search the entire home, but nothing has been stated that the entire home was searched.

Also, only a tiny amount of drugs, inconsequential to the story was found. Why it was even mentioned is beyond me.

It does matter depending on where and what was found...which we do not know. It is just speculation.

I agree...the mention of an inconsequential amount of drugs is a minor footnote to the story, but it may lead to a motive for the violence.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I did not say there was a law against moving a corpse. Would you like me to quote the law on destruction of evidence? Pick a State if you believe that you can move a corpse out of the house to keep the house itself from being a crime scene (as you were advocating before you tried to change the paradigm by making it all about carpet), and I will cite the law, assuming that you are ignorant enough of this fundamental legal concept as to need a cite.

BTW, if the shot originated from inside the house (even if you are foolish enough to think that you can trick the detectives by moving the body), the home is still clearly part of the crime scene.

But, go ahead. Tell me you need a cite to back up a claim that you cannot disturb the evidence at a crime scene to hide a material fact like where the dead man was when he fell dead from the gunshot wound you inflicted. Go ahead. I will comply. If you do not pick a State, let's do Ohio, where the shooting occurred. Go ahead.

:eyeroll:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Technically, it is not a "crime scene" until the police declare it as such. And it is unlikely that someone unschooled in the law can really be held accountable for knowledge of whether moving the body will destroy any forensic evidence, or just make the ME work a little harder to determine the cause of death.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
:) Might have been a good idea...but they also might have considered not using illegal drugs and inviting less than reputable people inside their home.

Yes, background checks should be mandatory before having guests, or entering establishments that contain strangers. OR, you can just live your life as you see fit and be prepared to defend yourself if necessary when bad luck or bad judgment puts you in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you are not the aggressor.

"Illegal" drugs is irrelevent in this situation. Better not defend yourself from a home invasion if you have a pirated copies of movies on your hard drive, either.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Yes, background checks should be mandatory before having guests, or entering establishments that contain strangers. OR, you can just live your life as you see fit and be prepared to defend yourself if necessary when bad luck or bad judgment puts you in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you are not the aggressor.

"Illegal" drugs is irrelevent in this situation. Better not defend yourself from a home invasion if you have a pirated copies of movies on your hard drive, either.

It is important in this situation since it resulted in one of the residents possibly facing charges...tell him it doesn't matter. Sounds like a drug deal gone bad.

I highly doubt that the local police will try and get a search warrant to seize your hard drive...apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It does matter depending on where and what was found...which we do not know. It is just speculation.

I agree...the mention of an inconsequential amount of drugs is a minor footnote to the story, but it may lead to a motive for the violence.

Once again, considering that I spoke personally at length with the one person who would decide whether or not to kick the students out of the house based on the amount of drugs in the joint (pun intended), that he investigated the matter thoroughly, and that he determined that the amount was inconsequential, I'll stick with that judgment.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is important in this situation since it resulted in one of the residents possibly facing charges...tell him it doesn't matter. Sounds like a drug deal gone bad.

I highly doubt that the local police will try and get a search warrant to seize your hard drive...apples and oranges.

Folks just aren't listening. This has nothing to do with the tiny amount of drugs found.

These students had an incredible collection of valuable electronics in the house. It was a robbery gone bad.

Of course, this is a perfect illustration of how the media can steer a story causing folks to blindly follow.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Once again, considering that I spoke personally at length with the one person who would decide whether or not to kick the students out of the house based on the amount of drugs in the joint (pun intended), that he investigated the matter thoroughly, and that he determined that the amount was inconsequential, I'll stick with that judgment.


Fair enough...you have more information than the story provided. :)
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Folks just aren't listening. This has nothing to do with the tiny amount of drugs found.

These students had an incredible collection of valuable electronics in the house. It was a robbery gone bad.

Of course, this is a perfect illustration of how the media can steer a story causing folks to blindly follow.

Yuppers
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Surely you are not serious?

An assailant that attempted to rob you informing the police that he was there to buy drugs is enough to search someone's home?

One, they were there to ROB the occupants of their property, not to purchase or steal anything. Robbery is MUCH different than theft.

Two, someone walking up to a police officer and saying they went into a home to buy or steal drugs does not give probable cause to issue a search warrant. They would need some sort of evidence before a search warrant could be issued, such as a purchase with a CI inside the residence.
Three, do you honestly believe someone that just attempted to rob a home is a good individual to listen to? You HONESTLY believe their own admission is "more than enough" evidence needed to have a search warrant issued on someone's home?

They probably received the warrant after finding the single joint. That, or they got the warrant to search for crime related evidence and stumbled across it.
Yes, if there were items in plain view or a strong odor originating from within the home they COULD have a warrant issued, but I don't believe that was the case.

To the first bolded point....yes, it does give sufficient PC for an officer to file an application and affidavit in support of a search warrant and for a judge or majistrate to issue said warrant. I don't like it but that is the status of stare decisis (case law) at the Supreme Court. An ANONYMOUS informant would require police to verify suffcient information provided to lend weight to the information used to obtain the warrant.....see United States v. Jones.

To the second bolded point. If they were in the home to search for evidence of the invasion and shooting, finding drugs in plain view would require the police to apply for and obtain a second warrant in order to lawfully seize the contraband. It would be a "no brainer" that it would be approved, but if they didn't get the warrant, it would likely be if they took it to trial against the occupants of the home. If it were evidence "abandoned" by one of the invaders and used against them at trial, it would not be suppressed as the invader had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the property that he "abandoned" in the home.

Here's a crappy piece of our current system.....you get illegally searched (your person) and evidence is found that implicates both you and I. It gets suppressed for your trial because you had a reasonable expectation of privacy and to be free from unlawful (i.e. unreasonable) searches. At MY trial however, the evidence would be allowed as I have not had my expectation of privacy violated.....I have no standing to file a Motion to Suppress. Bogus but that's the way it is in this day and age. Hardly what the founders intended I'm sure.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
What's with all the speculation? We know that they had PC to search at least part of the house. It was a crime scene.

We know NOTHING about what anyone said to the police, so why the speculation??????????


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
I highly doubt that the local police will try and get a search warrant to seize your hard drive...apples and oranges.

Don't bet on it. police routinely include cell phones, cameras, and computer systems (including all portable storage media, modems, routers, etc.) on search warrants these days. Their "justification" is that they could contain evidence material to the crime in the form of communications, photos, videos, etc. If a warrant is served, you are very likely to find yourself with zero digital equipment left in your home.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm with Mcbeth on the felony murder charge. Its always sounded like a government twist to me--a way to stick the rest of the crooks with more time.

If evidence showed that two of them knew the homeowner was armed, and they talked the dead guy into being the first one in the door as a conspiracy to get him shot, then I could see a murder charge.

But, c'mon. They went in with a toy gun. Clearly they didn't intend to shoot the homeowner. Where's the mens rea for murder?

I wonder if felony murder was originally developed to address situations where, for example, the homeowner was killed by one crook, in order to get the other crooks; but then some creative prosecutors expanded the application of the statute to situations where an accomplice dies.

Jeezus. Under the current theory, its possible for a car full of teenagers to run from a cop, overturn the car killing one of them, and the rest get charged with felony murder. Or, two crooks to flee together and one gets shot and killed by a cop, and the other gets charged with murder. Flight to evade is a crime, if I recall. Even if the cop shot one of them illegally, the felony murder charge is still applicable.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Where's the mens rea for murder?...

Well there is clearly mens rea for the felony that directly caused the death.

I see your point, but so far I've not been convinced that this is a bad thing. I have no tolerance for people who purposely and with premeditation cause harm to others. A world where thugs can intimidate innocent people with even phony deadly weapons should not exist.

If you think they should not be in long-term prison for this, then we can actually agree, though possibly because of different alternatives.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...its possible for a car full of teenagers to run from a cop, overturn the car killing one of them, and the rest get charged with felony murder. Or, two crooks to flee together and one gets shot and killed by a cop, and the other gets charged with murder. Flight to evade is a crime, if I recall. Even if the cop shot one of them illegally, the felony murder charge is still applicable.

Good points here. In all cases, I'd like the DA to have the latitude for the charge. He still has to convince a jury, however, that the circumstances fit the charge.

In your first example, I might entertain the charge for the driver of the car, but probably not for the other teens, either depending on the details.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Don't bet on it. police routinely include cell phones, cameras, and computer systems (including all portable storage media, modems, routers, etc.) on search warrants these days. Their "justification" is that they could contain evidence material to the crime in the form of communications, photos, videos, etc. If a warrant is served, you are very likely to find yourself with zero digital equipment left in your home.

Again, that any warrant because of any thing one of the criminals might have said is SPECULATION. The only thing we know is that at least part of the home was searched due to being a crime scene, which would be reasonable. Such a search would not include hard drives as, absent a warrant that named the kind of evidence that could be found on a hard drive, one could not reasonably expect to find evidence relating to a simple home invasion and defensive shooting on the hard drive.

The search no doubt was to find shell casings and other evidence directly related to the invasion and defensive shooting. Anything else is speculation. Outrage over speculation is kinda silly. So, again, I recommend we stop talking about what might have happened and focus on what did.
 
Top