Killing Somebody in Self-Defense While Committing a Robbery
can you kill and/or injure him in self defense?
Saw this on How to Get Away With Murder and would appreciate your input. Roughly a person is caught in someone elses house robbing it, the owner of the House subdues him for purposes of this question by gunpoint, the robber is then tied up and the owner of the House instead of calling the Police tries to kill the robber by say strangling him. The robber somehow gets free and kills the homeowner in self defense. Is the robber still guilty of Murder?
Re: Caught Committing Robbery, Surrender at Gunpoint, the Person Tries to Kill You
if nothing else, it would be felony murder if the state has such a law. If anybody dies (not necessarily actually killed) during the commission of a felony the perpetrator of the crime can be charged with felony murder. There was recently a group of 4 kids that robbed a house. Homeowner shot and killed one of them. The three that lived were convicted of felony murder. It was subsequently overturned but in basic effect, that sort of thing can result in the perpetrators being charged with felony murder.
but even without that, I doubt the perpetrators story would be believed and he would be convicted of murder regardless
Re: Caught Committing Robbery, Surrender at Gunpoint, the Person Tries to Kill You
And one has to wonder why, once the felon gets free, why he wouldn't simply just run like the wind and get out of there ...
Re: Killing Somebody in Self-Defense While Committing a Robbery
Quote:
Quoting
Peachesbackwards
can you kill and/or injure him in self defense?
Saw this on How to Get Away With Murder and would appreciate your input. Roughly a person is caught in someone elses house robbing it, the owner of the House subdues him for purposes of this question by gunpoint, the robber is then tied up and the owner of the House instead of calling the Police tries to kill the robber by say strangling him. The robber somehow gets free and kills the homeowner in self defense. Is the robber still guilty of Murder?
That depends on exactly what happened and the laws of the state where it took place. It also depends on what evidence there is and what the jury believes if it goes to trial. In my state, however, a burglar entering a home to rob it is at a very great disadvantage here in a circumstance like this. One he enters the home with the intent to rob it he is committing a felony in the home. In that case, the homeowner is entitled to use lethal force against him even if the homeowner is not directly at risk of harm. The burglar would have no good self defense claim to make here and would almost certainly be convicted of murder.
Re: Killing Somebody in Self-Defense While Committing a Robbery
I'm going to disagree with everyone.
The homeowner may use reasonable force to subdue and tie up the burglar. In effect, the homeowner has made a citizen's arrest and the burglar is in custody. Once that is done, the crime of burglary has ceased and the felony murder rule no longer applies to the burglar.
Now, we do not allow vigilante justice. So, if the homeowner attempts to strangle the tied up and helpless burglar, we have a new and fresh crime of attempted murder, where the burglar is the victim and the homeowner is the perpetrator. In this case, if the burglar were to somehow break free, he may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend his life, up to and including deadly force.
The problem is, absent overwhelming evidence, no one is going to believe the burglar. So, if the homeowner is just injured and lies about what happened, the charges will be upped to include robbery. If he dies, the felony murder rule will be imposed on the assumption that the homeowner died during the commission of the burglary. In any case, it will be up to the burglar to prove in court that he was the true victim.
I would suggest this scenario is better off as a plot for a TV show.
Re: Killing Somebody in Self-Defense While Committing a Robbery
In my state, at least, the burglar would be barred from even claiming self defense. Ohio sets forth specific conditions to be able to claim self defense, the first of which is "you must not have created the situation.".
We are very much NOT a stand your ground type state. Here, you have to show you did nothing to start or aggravate the situation and couldn't flee from it at any point and therefore used deadly force only when backed into the wall through no fault of your own.
Re: Killing Somebody in Self-Defense While Committing a Robbery
Quote:
Quoting
L-1
I'm going to disagree with everyone.
The homeowner may use reasonable force to subdue and tie up the burglar. In effect, the homeowner has made a citizen's arrest and the burglar is in custody. Once that is done, the crime of burglary has ceased and the felony murder rule no longer applies to the burglar.
Now, we do not allow vigilante justice. So, if the homeowner attempts to strangle the tied up and helpless burglar, we have a new and fresh crime of attempted murder, where the burglar is the victim and the homeowner is the perpetrator. In this case, if the burglar were to somehow break free, he may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend his life, up to and including deadly force.
dang, using your argument it couldn't be felony murder if the tied up perp kicked the owner and owner fell and hit their head causing death due to some misplaced belief perp has now become victim.
The problem is, absent overwhelming evidence, no one is going to believe the burglar. So, if the homeowner is just injured and lies about what happened, the charges will be upped to include robbery. If he dies, the felony murder rule will be imposed on the assumption that the homeowner died during the commission of the burglary. In any case, it will be up to the burglar to prove in court that he was the true victim.
I would suggest this scenario is better off as a plot for a TV show.
I'll give you a more fun example of the lack of perps right to use deadly force to defend themselves (in my state)
House invasion. both have guns. Owner tells perp; I'm going to kill you.
Does perp have a right to defend himself? Not in my state he doesn't. He is there unlawfully and has triggered the owners right to kill him. He has no argument of self defense here. His only legal action that would prevent the owner from killing him would be to fully submit to the owners demand to leave or disarm.
But I disagree with your argument felony murder is gone once the perp is tied up. He is still there illegally therefor the crime has not ended. If the owner falls and hits his head and dies, his death is still during the commission of the crime.
As to perp defending himself; He obviously does not have to submit to being murdered so there is a point where the home owner has become the criminal but once the perp has stopped the owners attack his right to act ceases. So now we have home invader in my house that is not tied up so I can shoot him.
The attack by the owner changes the dynamics but once the burglar is freed, if he does not leave he is again the bad guy and owners rights to defend their home are active again.