IndyArms 10,186 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Least Competent Criminals Kevin Ollie, 17, and Damien Cole, 19, completely failed in their attempted street robbery in Milwaukee, Wis., in August, when they accosted a young man and woman. The male "victim" drew his own gun, shot Ollie fatally and held Cole for the police. Later, Cole, though not the shooter, was charged with Ollie's death under the state's "felony murder" rule, which makes felons responsible if anyone at the scene should die as a result of the crime. Cole could get 55 years in prison. [WTMJ-TV (Milwaukee), 8-18-09] Gotta love THAT!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra 76 two 2,677 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I heartily disagree. Making one dipshit guilty of murder because the other dipshit was killed in a justified shooting? No murder occured. Just an attempted robbery and an act of self-defense. I believe in personal responsibility. He should be charged with the attempted armed robbery. The other charge is asinine. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaddis 1,689 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 And who's ultimately going to pay for Mr. Hole's (oops, I meant "Cole's" ) food and lodging (and regular conjugal visits, no doubt! ) for these next 55 years? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Georgia has a similar "Felony Murder" law on the books, but it is seldom employed. I think that it is great law. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BpS12 512 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 They were both involved in the ROBBERY(I'm guessing ARMED, though perhaps not), shoot them both so that taxpayers don't have the burden of support. It's bad enough we're supporting elected criminals, we don't need any more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I too think it is a very righteous law. If someone dies as result of your illegal action, you should be charged with some form of homicide, be it murder/manslaughter. I further do not believe in lengthy sentences, nor the taxpayer footing the bill, I believe in the death penalty. No prison sentence should be longer than 5 yrs, and all prisoners must work or be supported by their families. Can't/won't pay your room and board? Die dirtbag. No more lengthy appeals processes, no more 20 yrs on death row, no more burdens on the taxpayers. Back to truly speedy trials and public hangings. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 If someone dies as result of your illegal action, you should be charged with some form of homicide, be it murder/manslaughter. I agree. But that is not what happened. Both criminals, of their own volition, performed an illegal act; one died. The ideal result would be two dead criminals. However, one survived. He is not responsible for the death of his fellow criminal. The two people responsible for that death are the dead criminal and the justified shooter. Murder is a very serious charge, and although this law is clearly in place to add additional penalties to more readily place a criminal in prison for a longer period of time, I take issue with a law that is changing the definition of murder to include something which clearly is not murder. The dead criminal died as a result of his own stupid actions; the other criminal's presence made that outcome no more or less likely. Charge him with the attempted robbery he is clearly guilty of, and quit making shit up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 If someone dies as result of your illegal action, you should be charged with some form of homicide, be it murder/manslaughter. I agree. But that is not what happened. Both criminals, of their own volition, performed an illegal act; one died. The ideal result would be two dead criminals. However, one survived. He is not responsible for the death of his fellow criminal. The two people responsible for that death are the dead criminal and the justified shooter. Murder is a very serious charge, and although this law is clearly in place to add additional penalties to more readily place a criminal in prison for a longer period of time, I take issue with a law that is changing the definition of murder to include something which clearly is not murder. The dead criminal died as a result of his own stupid actions; the other criminal's presence made that outcome no more or less likely. Charge him with the attempted robbery he is clearly guilty of, and quit making shit up. No, you are wrong. The accomplice is responsible for the death of his cohort, just as much as he would be mutually responsible if his partner killed the victim. And in my perfect world, there would very soon be two dead criminals 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 The idea of the law is to reduce group crimes. If I know that I will be charged if you ice the clerk, I'll be less likely to join with you to knock off the 7-11. See the logic? This is a slight misaplication of the law, it is mostly used for when one of the criminals kills someone. In this case its because due to their illegal actions someone died (aka other bad guy). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 If someone dies as result of your illegal action, you should be charged with some form of homicide, be it murder/manslaughter. I agree. But that is not what happened. Both criminals, of their own volition, performed an illegal act; one died. The ideal result would be two dead criminals. However, one survived. He is not responsible for the death of his fellow criminal. The two people responsible for that death are the dead criminal and the justified shooter. Murder is a very serious charge, and although this law is clearly in place to add additional penalties to more readily place a criminal in prison for a longer period of time, I take issue with a law that is changing the definition of murder to include something which clearly is not murder. The dead criminal died as a result of his own stupid actions; the other criminal's presence made that outcome no more or less likely. Charge him with the attempted robbery he is clearly guilty of, and quit making shit up. Well the law in several states, including Georgia, does not see it your way Shandlanos and I concur with ChileRelleno. This crime was jointly committed by both of these perpetrators and would not have happen without their colaberation, technically they should both be charged with the offence, but I suppose that death is an affirmative defense in this matter.... I have seen these laws applied in DUI related accidents where death occures to a victim months after the accident took place, because of serious injuries that occured and eventually proved to be fatal. It clearly is murder, when your felonious actions cause the death of another. If he had not committed the felony, the death would not have occured. What is "made up" about that? I see where you are coming from here, I just do not agree, I say that this is good law. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mgconnor13 206 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) Best to charge for what they did and not make up extra charges to throw on so some one ends up with multiple life sentances or some ridiculous period of jail time. The punishment should fit the crime, adding on extra charges is just the opposite. Punish them for what they did and thats it. Justice system needs to be fair. Parents ever punish you for using a chair to get to the cooking jar to steal cookies as a kid? NO. You got in trouble for stealing cookies, circumstances and methods are irrelivent. Laws like this give the apperance of being tough on crime but really just adds more more charges to throw at people. Make up enough laws and some one is bound to break one eventually. Edited November 2, 2009 by Rusty truck Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crackback 135 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I agree with Chile that we need speedy justice. This following historic example is how it was and should be now. This would definitely start serving as a deterrent methinks. From the Department of Justice Website: "On February 15, 1933, Guiseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt while the then President-elect was giving a speech in Miami, Florida. The United States Secret Service was responsible for the primary investigation and the FBI's role was mainly administrative in nature." Zangara, an Italian anarchist, had lived in New Jersey since 1924, and had only been in Miami for a couple of months. According to the papers, "he was in Miami because it was warm and he was out of work, and that he had lost $200 on the dog races." It is said that he wanted to kill kings and presidents of wealthy governments since he was 17. By chance, Zangara heard that FDR would be in Miami to give a speech. Three days before the shooting, Zangara purchased a 38 caliber pistol at a Miami Avenue pawn shop. As Roosevelt finished a short speech at Bayside Park, Zangara fired five rounds from 25 feet. Roosevelt was completely untouched by the gunfire due to Zangara losing his footing atop an uneven chair, and a bystander striking his arm. One bullet struck Chicago's Mayor Anton Cermak who was shaking hands with Roosevelt at the time. Four others were wounded, including Mrs. Joseph Gill, wife of the President of Florida Power and Light. An example of swift justice, Zangara pled guilty five days later and was sentenced to 80 years in Raiford Prison. At his sentencing he said of the President-elect, "I decide to kill him and make him suffer. I want to make it 50-50. Since my stomach hurt I want to make even with capitalists by kill the President. My stomach hurt long time." Anton Cermak subsequently died from his wounds two weeks later, and Zangara was immediately tried for his murder. Zangara was sentenced to the electric chair and executed on March 20 at Raiford. Unrepentent, Zangara was cursing and railing against capitalists as he was put to death. Although Zangara said he acted alone, some evidence and theories link him with organized groups responsible for additional terrorist acts. Others claim that Zangara's true target was Mayor Cermak, who had alleged ties with organized crime. A little over 1 month from the crime to the execution! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 It clearly is murder, when your felonious actions cause the death of another. If he had not committed the felony, the death would not have occured. What is "made up" about that? I do not see a causal link. How did the surviving criminal's action contribute to the death of the other one? Had their victims been harmed, I would have no problem whatsoever with this man being charged as an equal perpetrator of that crime. What I am missing here is any evidence that the second man's presence affected the outcome, moreover that it actually caused the death. Had his direct actions killed the other man, I wouldn't be arguing this, but it seems to me that the two had a mutual agreement to commit a crime; the surviving criminal did not perpetrate a crime against his partner, only against the people the two were attempting to rob. The murder charge doesn't make sense to me. Murder is a direct act of one person killing another. This man did not attack or attempt to cause harm to the man who died, therefore he is not a murderer. He did not hire someone to murder the other man, so he is not a conspirator of murder. He might be guilty of manslaughter, if it could be successfully argued that his actions unintentionally led to the other man's death. This man was only peripherally involved in the act of his partner's death. He did not have any intent to harm the dead man, so it makes no sense whatsoever to me for the word "murder" to come in to play. I am deeply disturbed to see the definition of such a serious crime blurred in such a way. No person should be charged with that crime without having intentionally caused harm to another person, resulting in death. To be perfectly blunt, and even more controversial, I even take issue with the charge of motor vehicle homicide in the case of DUI. This is not to say that I do not take DUI very seriously. Indeed, I think that killing a person while driving under the influence should be punished very harshly, and indeed that driving under the influence should be punished much more harshly than it generally is in this country. However, an unintentional act should never be called murder. Yes, I've heard the specious argument that anyone getting behind the wheel while inebriated knows they might kill someone as justification for the motor vehicle homicide charge. If this is a valid argument, it should be equally reasonable to charge any person driving under the influence with attempted murder. I do see your point Azrial, and from a law enforcement standpoint I can see that the "felony murder" rule is a useful tool for putting scumbags behind bars. It is the implications of such a law that bother me, and the precedent it sets for allowing a person not directly responsible for an act to be charged for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Twinsen 86 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Armed robbery is attempted murder, go fuck yourself. This law rules. Don't do the crime if you can't do the needle... I mean time. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOWARD COSELL 155 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I say fuck 'em! You want to go out and play ASSHOLE and put innocent peoples lives in danger, beware of the enema coming your way. The shameful thing is that the people that they held up who's lives will NEVER be the same are going to have to pay for this clown's livelihood for the next 55 +/- years on top of the taxpayers who are already taking it up the ass. Indy Arms, I can't concentrate with your avatar's tits saying hi to me right now so I'm going to end it here. Anyway GREAT LAW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jaymce 7 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Twinsen 86 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Sweet -1ed. Because pointing a gun at a person and telling them you're going to shoot them and putting yourself in a situation where you probably will shoot them is pure fuckin' innocence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paulyski 2,227 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I just don't like the feel of the rationale... It kinda feels like the bullshit laws here, where if I am driving fast, edging the corners & railing the curves, & some dip-shit that thinks he can drive as good as me, crashes & kills his girlfriend while trying to keep up.... I get charged with homicide because some lame ass prosecutor will say that I was involved in street racing & that resulted in the dip-shit's crash. We need to prosecute for laws broken. NOT go down the slippery slope of letting people add extra charges for someone else's actions. On a side note, The result of the street racing law, is that if someone flys off the road in the middle of the night, they now are left to fend for themselves because the only person who sees them crash can't stop to help for fear of going to prison. Boy that one solved lots of problems, Huh? Beware Twinsen..... When the dip-shit in a civic kills himself trying to follow your Vette, by your rationale, YOU should be charged with homicide. These laws are formed on the same logic as each other. I just don't feel the slope & future implications are worth it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 The cause and effect are that if they didn't commit the armed assault, nobody would be dead. The law makes sense that the other guy is an accessory because he and the dead dude tried to rob the guy and nobody would be dead if the first act had not taken place. I do agree (with Paulyski) that we need to keep the criminals locked up for the crime committed, rather than letting them back on the street 4 or 5 times after the first violent crime is committed. Then we wouldn't need to have unnecessary "hate crime laws", "handgun penalties", or laws like this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bayoupiper 738 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Had the victim been shot and killed, Cole would be charged as an accessory to murder. Perhaps that is a better way to look at it this way, Cole was an accessory to committing a felony in which another person was killed. So he can be charged with that person's death. Had he NOT been committing this felonious act, then there would be no charges.I realize it sounds convoluted, but it actually can work as a deterent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOWARD COSELL 155 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Excuse my post #16 for it was late and I was falling asleep at the wheel. I'm referring to the distraction of tits. It doesn't change my opinion though. I'm not saying that my opinion is right but it is the way I feel. I could care less about what happens to Mr. Cole as he doesn't care about anybody else as he proved in this situation. Actions have consequences. He should have thought about the many consequences before he acted. I have NO compassion whatsoever for people like him. Make this jerk the poster child of what happens if you put innocent people in harms way for your own selfishness. I'm sticking to my "Fuck 'em" comment for that is the way he feels about others. So Fuck You Mr. Cole! That's what you get for being an Asshole! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I too think it is a very righteous law. If someone dies as result of your illegal action, you should be charged with some form of homicide, be it murder/manslaughter. I further do not believe in lengthy sentences, nor the taxpayer footing the bill, I believe in the death penalty. No prison sentence should be longer than 5 yrs, and all prisoners must work or be supported by their families. Can't/won't pay your room and board? Die dirtbag. No more lengthy appeals processes, no more 20 yrs on death row, no more burdens on the taxpayers. Back to truly speedy trials and public hangings. +1! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I too think it is a very righteous law. If someone dies as result of your illegal action, you should be charged with some form of homicide, be it murder/manslaughter. I further do not believe in lengthy sentences, nor the taxpayer footing the bill, I believe in the death penalty. No prison sentence should be longer than 5 yrs, and all prisoners must work or be supported by their families. Can't/won't pay your room and board? Die dirtbag. No more lengthy appeals processes, no more 20 yrs on death row, no more burdens on the taxpayers. Back to truly speedy trials and public hangings. But if we did that, all the lawyers would be out of work! Hence the root of the problem... the majority of people making laws are lawyers (how many of your state politicians are not lawyers?). The only people that benefit are criminals and lawyers because they make more work for themselves by letting violent criminals back on the street - over and over and over again! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cscharlie 107 Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 I have an uneasy feeling about the way this law could be applied in the future. I wonder though, could the fool that lived forced/coherced the dead one into using the gun and commiting the attempted robbery? If that was the case he should get his nads roasted... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reverendfranz 160 Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Doesnt a murder charge require intent? Surely Perp A didnt Intend to commit actions which he knew would result in the death of perp B. Sounds weak, to say the least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Doesnt a murder charge require intent? Surely Perp A didnt Intend to commit actions which he knew would result in the death of perp B. Sounds weak, to say the least. I 'Know' that if I go out either singly or with accomplices to commit a crime, that it is likely that I/we could be confronted with a armed victim, not happy in the least bit with my/our actions.And to many people, such as myself, any illegal action, which is in any way confrontational, armed or not, is considered potentially life threatening and thus we're willing to use deadly force. Fucking eh, of course there isn't /'Intent' for him or his buddy to wind up dead, perhaps not even for their victim to be injured/killed, but there is damned sure a possibility of it happening. If some perp is too stupid to think that far, too fucking bad for him or his buddies. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bayoupiper 738 Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Doesnt a murder charge require intent? Surely Perp A didnt Intend to commit actions which he knew would result in the death of perp B. Sounds weak, to say the least. Murder 1 requires specific intent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 It clearly is murder, when your felonious actions cause the death of another. If he had not committed the felony, the death would not have occured. What is "made up" about that? I do not see a causal link... How? The first crime is the Armed Robbery. The second crime is the death of another during the commission of that felony crime. Should an Armed Robber that manages to commit a crime where no one dies be punished as severely as one that causes the death of another through his criminal action? Frankly, I do not see how someone criminal actions that cause death could/should not be given additional punishment! Many criminals commit felonies where their "intent" is to get away with the crime scott-free and no one gets hurt. Big deal, most of these bungling idiots can not hold down a job at a burger joint, I do not want them committing felonies involving firearms period. I think if they do so, they deserve more punishment. This is similar to the compounding charges give someone that uses a firearm during the commission of certain felonies. A responsible and lawful gun owner I fully support harsh criminal sancions and enforcement for the criminal usage of a firearm to support other felonious criminal activity. These laws were not drafted by law enforcement, from a "law enforcement standpoint." They were created by a state legislature that wanted discurage criminals from committing crimes where someone might get killed and to encourage criminals to take extra care that this does not happen in the course of their criminal enterprise, otherwise, their punishment would be more severe, I agree, as do most of these states where these laws have been on the books for many years. Really, I have no use for criminals that prey on the weak and harm others, I admit that. I have done this for too many years and seen too many dead to feel otherwise! You can't teach an old hammer to love nails. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crackback 135 Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) Maybe the Saudi's are onto something here... Although if applied here the ACLU would be apoplectic. Saudi court upholds child rapist crucifixion ruling Tue Nov 3, 2009 2:22pm IST RIYADH (Reuters) - A Saudi court of cassation upheld a ruling to behead and crucify a 22-year-old man convicted of raping five children and leaving one of them to die in the desert, newspapers reported on Tuesday. The convict was arrested earlier this year after a seven-year old boy helped police in their investigation. The child left in the desert after the rape was three years old, Okaz newspaper said. International rights groups have accused the kingdom, the birthplace of Islam, of applying draconian justice, beheading murderers, rapists and drug traffickers in public. So far this year about 40 people have been executed in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, crucifixion means tying the body of the convict to wooden beams to be displayed to the public after beheading. (Reporting by Souhail Karam; editing by Inal Ersan) Edited November 3, 2009 by 690gr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.