Social Justice Here we go again: Killing of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta police

[JessFR]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make @White_Rose

Felony murder doesn't mean "a murder that's a felony". In this context it's referring to the felony murder rule.

Specifically in the case of Georgia that appears to be title 16-5-1 (c) and 17-10-30

A person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

My point is, it doesn't require premeditation.

The felony murder rule generally means you're on the hook if in the course of an inherently dangerous felony, someone dies. It doesn't have to be deliberate and you don't even have to have been the one to pull the trigger.

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So being charged with "felony murder" isn't the same as being charged with a regular murder.

 

[Deru]

The person kills another while committing a felony such as robbery. In this case, the killing need not be intentional.

This was why Paul Howard explained why the actions rose to a level of felony murder, because of the felony aggravated assault charges.

It's worth mentioning to the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd that use this to cast a wide defense, that yes, for the jurors on his trial that needs to be respected, because he deserves a fair trial, regardless of my thoughts and views, we all do, it's what makes our country beautiful. But, none of us here are a juror, and these discussions don't rise to the level of a courtroom, this would be "trying him in public opinion." And again, I think a lot of people hide being the "innocent until proven guilty" saying that everyone is somehow innocent, and although no one can officially decide that besides a judge or jury in a court of law, we are not there and our opinions will not in any way, shape, or form affect his freedom (I would sure hope not, anyways!)

 

[JessFR]

This was why Paul Howard explained why the actions rose to a level of felony murder, because of the felony aggravated assault charges.

It's worth mentioning to the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd that use this to cast a wide defense, that yes, for the jurors on his trial that needs to be respected, because he deserves a fair trial, regardless of my thoughts and views, we all do, it's what makes our country beautiful. But, none of us here are a juror, and these discussions don't rise to the level of a courtroom, this would be "trying him in public opinion." And again, I think a lot of people hide being the "innocent until proven guilty" saying that everyone is somehow innocent, and although no one can officially decide that besides a judge or jury in a court of law, we are not there and our opinions will not in any way, shape, or form affect his freedom (I would sure hope not, anyways!)

Exactly. I'm not a juror, I don't have to assume he's innocent. Based on the evidence I think a jury is quite likely to find him guilty. And unless there is some huge information we aren't aware of, I don't see how the officer can morally or legally justify this shooting.

It outrages me that so many people here seek to think it's perfectly fine for cops to be allowed to gun people down because they're pissed off.

No, they aren't. They can use lethal force when they or someone else is in danger of death or permanent bodily injury. That wasn't the case when the officer shot him, therefore it's not justified.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make @White_Rose

Felony murder doesn't mean "a murder that's a felony". In this context it's referring to the felony murder rule.

Specifically in the case of Georgia that appears to be title 16-5-1 (c) and 17-10-30



My point is, it doesn't require premeditation.

The felony murder rule generally means you're on the hook if in the course of an inherently dangerous felony, someone dies. It doesn't have to be deliberate and you don't even have to have been the one to pull the trigger.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no distinction between premeditated homicides or non-premeditated homicides in Georgia, as compared to states that have "degrees of murder", so in Georgia that is a non-factor. This doesn't mean anyone is less guilty or less deserving of punishment, however it's important in discussions to keep local laws and procedures in mind. In other words, you are correct. there is no need to determine if it was premeditated.

However let's also keep in mind ... All Homicides are a felony, therefore there is no non-Felony Homicide or non-Felony Murder. The term Felony Murder is meaningless in Georgia, it's ALL Felony without distinction.

 

[mp44god]

Felony murder doesn't require premeditation. It only requires that during the course of committing a felony, you or an accomplice killed someone.

So not only doesn't it require premeditation, you don't even need to kill anyone yourself to be guilty of felony murder.

Thanks for the info, I was already aware of that. Doesn't change a thing I said though because no felonies were committed during the "murder" of the innocent angel brooks.

 

[Deru]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no distinction between premeditated homicides or non-premeditated homicides in Georgia, as compared to stated that have "degrees of murder", so in Georgia that is a non-factor. This doesn't mean anyone is less guilty or less deserving of punishment, however it's important in discussions to keep local laws and procedures in mind. In other words, you are correct. there is no need to determine if it was premeditated.

However let's also keep in mind ... All Homicide is a felony, therefore there is no non-Felony Homicide or non-Felony Murder. The term Felony Murder is meaningless in Georgia, it's ALL Felony without distinction.

Well, I would argue it's important to use the proper term when discussing it, "Felony Murder" is the proper term. It would be not fully accurate to say he was charged with "murder", per se, and it's not meant to be a distinction that there is a misdemeanor murder charge.

 

[Deru]

Thanks for the info, I was already aware of that. Doesn't change a thing I said though because no felonies were committed during the "murder" of the innocent angel brooks.

Well, now you're just completely ignoring the facts.

 

[mp44god]

Exactly. I'm not a juror, I don't have to assume he's innocent. Based on the evidence I think a jury is quite likely to find him guilty. And unless there is some huge information we aren't aware of, I don't see how the officer can morally or legally justify this shooting.

It outrages me that so many people here seek to think it's perfectly fine for cops to be allowed to gun people down because they're pissed off.

No, they aren't. They can use lethal force when they or someone else is in danger of death or permanent bodily injury. That wasn't the case when the officer shot him, therefore it's not justified.

He fought the cops and tried to get their weapons... realistically, what do you think should happen at that point? They hug it out?
Letting him run off is a potential SWAT situation. I am a convicted felon, and have had a horrible relationship with police my whole life, but how anyone could watch the bodycam footage and frame it like this guy is some kind of victim is beyond me.

 

[mp44god]

Well, now you're just completely ignoring the facts.

What other felonies were committed during the commision of this murder?

 

[Deru]

but how anyone could watch the bodycam footage and frame it like this guy is some kind of victim is beyond me.

Laws are laws, regardless of how you feel about something or if it makes logical sense to you. There's a difference between being framed as a poor, completely undeserving victim and the victim of a crime.

 

[mp44god]

Laws are laws, regardless of how you feel about something or if it makes logical sense to you. There's a difference between being framed as a poor, completely undeserving victim and the victim of a crime.

What other felonies were committed during the commission of Rayshard Brooks murder to warrant a 1st degree murder conviction?

 

[Deru]

What other felonies were committed during the commision of this murder?

As I just mentioned, Paul Howard was able to charge felony murder due to the two felony aggravated assault charges. One against Brooks and one against the innocent person he almost killed and put a bullet into his car.

 

[Deru]

What other felonies were committed during the commission of Rayshard Brooks murder to warrant a 1st degree murder conviction?

For all of the talking down you do and and making yourself seem so intelligent, you do realize there is no 1st degree murder in Georgia, right? It's Felony Murder.

Honestly, how much do you even know about this case?

 

[Deru]

It's the same thing genius. Different states have different terminology for it. Go sniff your own farts somewhere.

No, it's not even close to the same. You really should go do some research, which is ironic with the commentary you came in here with.

 

[mp44god]

No, it's not even close to the same. You really should go do some research, which is ironic with the commentary you came in here with.

Via Justia.com:
"The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer."

Also via Justia:
"In most states, felony murder is categorized as a first-degree murder and can result in sentencing from several years to a life imprisonment. In almost half of these states, felony murder is considered a capital offense, which means that the death penalty is available. "

 

[Deru]

Via Justia.com:
"The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer."

Your argument is that his actions didn't rise to 1st degree murder, he was not charged with 1st degree murder, he was charged with Felony Murder, which has completely different requirements and a much greater scope of qualifiers.

If you are mistakenly saying 1st degree murder as Felony Murder, the actions rose to this level by killing Rayshard Brooks while committing a felony (aggravated assault).

Again, I think it is of the utmost importance to refer to it by it's proper term "Felony Murder" so as not to confuse it with other state's 1st degree murder, because although there is some resemblance of 1st degree murder qualifiers in Felony Murder, the scope is much larger and, in this case, he would not have been charged with 1st degree murder in any other state.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to be difficult with semantics here, I just want to make sure you're not asking me what he did to qualify for 1st degree murder that almost ever other state knows that to be. Because, if that's the case, his actions did not rise to the level of 1st degree murder.

 

[JessFR]

He fought the cops and tried to get their weapons... realistically, what do you think should happen at that point? They hug it out?
Letting him run off is a potential SWAT situation. I am a convicted felon, and have had a horrible relationship with police my whole life, but how anyone could watch the bodycam footage and frame it like this guy is some kind of victim is beyond me.

What swat situation? The guy was unarmed apart form having a discharged taser. All they had to do was chase him down. If he gets away you pick him up later. There's no cause to believe there's so great a risk to the public from his escape to justify gunning him down.

If there were why didn't they open fire when he ran away with a still loaded taser? They didn't fire then. Even though they knew he had it.

The officer ONLY fired after the guy shot the taser at him at missed.

Which means what has to be established, is why was lethal force not warranted when he was escaping with an undischarged taser, and then warranted when he was escaping with a discharged one?

And you can't establish that because it's nonsense. The risk has been reduced not increased.

The officer shot him not out of fear for his life of that of the publics, he shot him cause he was outraged at the guy trying unsuccessfully to taser him.

And that's not a good enough justification. Not just morally but under the law.

 

[Deru]

"In most states, felony murder is categorized as a first-degree murder and can result in sentencing from several years to a life imprisonment. In almost half of these states, felony murder is considered a capital offense, which means that the death penalty is available. "

This is where state laws varying by state to state can get confusing. All I'm trying to accomplish here, and I'm not trying to be difficult, is that we both understand that the murder charge doesn't require premeditation here, which is important because you're asking me what would warrant a first degree murder conviction.

 

[JessFR]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no distinction between premeditated homicides or non-premeditated homicides in Georgia, as compared to states that have "degrees of murder", so in Georgia that is a non-factor. This doesn't mean anyone is less guilty or less deserving of punishment, however it's important in discussions to keep local laws and procedures in mind. In other words, you are correct. there is no need to determine if it was premeditated.

However let's also keep in mind ... All Homicides are a felony, therefore there is no non-Felony Homicide or non-Felony Murder. The term Felony Murder is meaningless in Georgia, it's ALL Felony without distinction.

This is where I think you might not be following what I'm trying to say.

Felony murder does not mean a felony murder as opposed to some other degree of murder.

Felony murder is a legal term that refers to a murder charge with a more expansive definition caused by a homicide happening in the course of an inherently dangerous act.

So felony murder isn't a redundant term, it refers to the charge of murder under the felony murder rule. Which Georgia does have.

So sure there's no non felony murder, but that's not what the term felony murder implies. It implies a charge of murder using the felony murder rule.

It's called felony murder because it's a murder that happened in the course of a separate felony. Not because it's a felony murder as opposed to a misdemeanor murder.

Confusing? Sure. But that's why the charge is called felony murder.

 

[JessFR]

Thanks for the info, I was already aware of that. Doesn't change a thing I said though because no felonies were committed during the "murder" of the innocent angel brooks.

It's for the prosecutor to decide if they think there's enough evidence to show that felonies were committed. And apparently they think they can. So it'll be up to a jury not us to decide that.

But just to be clear, I don't care what Brooks did in the past.

Either the cops were justified in shooting him at the time or not, and what Brooks has done in previous criminal offenses has absolutely no relevance in deciding that.

I'm not entirely sure exactly what felony they're using to charge the officer with felony murder. I haven't seen that specified. I'm just trying to explain what the term itself generally means.