Guilt by Association

[recaffeination]

If Wario is driving a getaway car for bank robbers and someone is killed in the robbery, I think Wario can be charged in the murder. So what if a bank guard shoots at the robbers and misses them but hits the getaway driver? Is it justified?

What if Wario is riding with his buddy Mario and they stop at a convenience store so Mario can buy cigarettes. If Mario decides to shoot the clerk and rob the place, can Wario be convicted of that murder? What if the clerk shoots at Mario but misses him and hits Wario sitting in the car. Is that self defense or negligent homicide?

This question was inspired by another current thread but I wanted to talk general principles here. Discussion of the details of that shooting should be posted in that thread, to keep this one on track. Thank you.

[ryouiki]

I am definitely not a lawyer... and at the end of the day who gets charged with what/when/where/etc. is probably going to be at the discretion of whoever is investigating/enforcing the law.

I was somewhat under the impression that most states have "felony murder" on the books that can cover this type of situation (i.e. if John and Doe are committing armed robbery, and you blow John away, Doe can be charged with that death as a murder). Then again, I am not a legal professional (or even an amateur ) so an actual lawyer (and that practices in the state in question) would have to comment how often this is even used.

[Heartland Patriot]

If Wario is driving a getaway car for bank robbers and someone is killed in the robbery, I think Wario can be charged in the murder. So what if a bank guard shoots at the robbers and misses them but hits the getaway driver? Is it justified?

What if Wario is riding with his buddy Mario and they stop at a convenience store so Mario can buy cigarettes. If Mario decides to shoot the clerk and rob the place, can Wario be convicted of that murder? What if the clerk shoots at Mario but misses him and hits Wario sitting in the car. Is that self defense or negligent homicide?

This question was inspired by another current thread but I wanted to talk general principles here. Discussion of the details of that shooting should be posted in that thread, to keep this one on track. Thank you.

srothstein might be the best person on this forum to address these questions. I think he probably has a better grasp on this than any of the rest of us.

[The Annoyed Man]

Who in tarnation is "Wario?"

[TexasCajun]

Texas is pretty good about statutorially removing protections for participants in crimes and members of street gangs. So I'd assume that the permissables and prohibiteds in these situations would follow suit.

[Abraham]

TAM,

I had the same thought, but presumably it's a fictional name for a would be bad actor, but I could be wrong...

In a world of names "Wario" is one I've never heard of, until this thread.

Hhmmm, Wario, let me mull it over, Wario, nope, it doesn't grow on ya...

[Dave2]

I think Wario is the name of one the villains in a Super Mario Bros game.

[TexasCajun]

Wario = the anti-Mario. In the video games, Mario has an M on his chest. Wario, being opposite as a W. Kinda like Superman vs Bizzaro Superman.

[Ericstac]

But in this story wario and Mario are bros..?!?

[ryouiki]

Hmm per my previous comment, this is probably the closest example to one of OP's original scenario's (granted Wikipedia is not the most reliable source).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Wood_(prisoner)

Once you start getting into other people shooting back/etc. I haven' the foggiest ideal how this would work.

[Jumping Frog]

If Wario is driving a getaway car for bank robbers ....

...
What if Wario is riding with his buddy Mario and they stop at a convenience store...

I believe the issue revolves on the question of conspiracy. If the parties were in conspiracy to commit the robbery, then charge the driver. If the driver was unknowing, then a charge is not appropriate. Of course, proving or disproving conspiracy is a difficult question.

[Jaguar]

A friend of mine was in a jury pool for just this type of case, but not selected for the trial.

The case was for a guy who gives his friend a ride over to the friend's ex's place not knowing that the friend is intent on murder. He sits in the vehicle for about 20 minutes until the friend comes back out and wants to go home.

While waiting, the friend kills the ex with a knife, cleans himself up, and leaves. The man on trial was the "getaway" driver who actually called police when he heard the woman was killed. He was being tried for 1st degree murder.

The theory between my friend and I was he wouldn't take a plea to manslaughter.

[The Annoyed Man]

Wario = the anti-Mario. In the video games, Mario has an M on his chest. Wario, being opposite as a W. Kinda like Superman vs Bizzaro Superman.

OK, so Wario & Mario is like Mutt & Jeff or Frick & Frack. I get it. Sorry for the threadjacking. Carry on.

I have no idea what the law says in answer to the OP's question, but I do know what my own opinion is (strange as that may seem to some )......

On the one hand, I do believe in the absolutist ideal of personal responsibility. If you agree to drive the getaway car in an armed robbery, you are agreeing to EVERYTHING that can come out of that, including the fact that this is an "ARMED" robbery, and "armed" implies that use of force/deadly force is a possible outcome to accomplish the robbery. Therefore, not only is anyone who participates in the actual event just as guilty as the shooter if deadly force is used, so are any coconspirators who helped to plan or facilitate the robbery in any way.....provision of safe houses, disposal of the murder weapon, or any other kind of aiding/abetting. For anyone who is guilty, the only determination between a capital sentence and life in prison ought to be whatever differences in punishment the law applies between a premeditated cold-blooded murder, and murder that occurs during the commission of another crime. If someone is killed during the commission of a crime, then ALL responsibility for the killing should fall on the shoulders of ALL of the perpetrators....whether they were just driving the getaway vehicle, or whether they were the one holding the gun and carrying out the actual robbery. I would extend that even to the scenario where the victim shoots and kills the robber in self defense. In that case, ALL accomplices to the robbery are guilty of his death, while the victim has a defense to prosecution because he or she has exercised their right to self-defense against the threat of deadly force.

That's the only way that makes any kind of sense.

On the other hand........

Hmm per my previous comment, this is probably the closest example to one of OP's original scenario's (granted Wikipedia is not the most reliable source).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Wood_(prisoner)

Once you start getting into other people shooting back/etc. I haven' the foggiest ideal how this would work.

........I am a bit conflicted about capital murder charges against a mentally/psychiatrically handicapped person. I really don't know anything about Jeff Wood's psychiatric history. If he had some kind of a sociopathic diagnosis, that would incline me to vote guilty were I on his jury. A sociopath is definitely in touch with reality. He knows that a thing is regarded as wrong or illegal by society. He either just don't care, or he thinks that he is somehow above or beyond the reach of societal norms, and that the laws therefore do not apply to him. Either way, he is intelligent enough to know what he's done is unacceptable to society, and that's why he tries hide his crimes, and tries to evade capture. This makes him totally responsible for his actions.

But if a person is so out of touch with reality that he genuinely does not understand the moral implications of what he's done, then he is actually retarded in some kind of way. I'm not sure that we can hang responsibility for his actions on him, anymore than we can hang responsibility on the actions of an aggressive dog who attacks someone on anybody but the dog's owner, if it even has one. The dog has no particular morality. It does not understand that its attack is unacceptable to society. It is simply driven by whatever instinctive processes drove it to aggression. 5 minutes later, it might be happy tail-wagger who gratefully accepts a pat on the head. We can argue whether or not that dog should be put down or incarcerated for the rest of its life, but any such argument takes place in the context of understanding that the dog is not responsible for its actions. Someone else might be responsible—the owner who failed to keep it behind a fence, for instance—but we don't assign responsibility to the dog.

So the question for me is, was Jeff Wood a sociopathic predator, or was he out of touch with reality. It has been said that one of the measures of the degree to which a society is civilized is how humanely it treats its insane population. Although I am generally a supporter of capital punishment, I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. Wisconsin chose to incarcerate Jeffery Daumer for life because they did not have capital punishment at the time, but neither does anyone believe he wasn't insane. There is no doubt that he was an sociopathic monster, and that he deserved to be executed for his crimes. On the other hand, Daumer claimed after some years in prison to have become a born-again Christian. As I am myself a born-again Christian, I certainly hope this is true. Interestingly, after Daumer claims he became a Christian, another prisoner carried out his execution. It reminds me of the thief on the cross. He was not spared execution, but he was spared it long enough to meet his Savior and surrender to Him. But I digress.....

All of this is a long way of saying that it is my general belief that all accomplices are as guilty as their leader, including if he kills someone, or if one of them or their leader is killed in the process........AND, the victim is NEVER guilty if he kills either the primary perpetrator or any of his accomplices. All responsibility falls on the criminals. There can be very little exception to this standard, else those exceptions tear apart the fabric of society.

[ryouiki]

........I am a bit conflicted about capital murder charges against a mentally/psychiatrically handicapped person. I really don't know anything about Jeff Wood's psychiatric history. If he had some kind of a sociopathic diagnosis, that would incline me to vote guilty were I on his jury.

I guess I read this differently... he was brought up on capitol murder charges (even though he was outside, and did not pull the trigger) strictly based on the "Law of Parties" (Penal Code, Chapter 7). The debate over his mental issues seemed to be strictly used to argue life in prison vs. execution.

There was another case (individual was party to a number of robberies, but was not the shooter)... but in that case he was more actively involved compared to Woods (he was participating in robbery vs. Woods who supposedly was just waiting outside).

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3 ... NX54pPnZhE

Either way seems that Texas has used "Felony Murder" on multiple occasions.. the difference being that Texas appears to be the only state that will use the Death Penalty as a result.

More to the original question though... once you start returning fire, and hit someone that was not actively involved in the situation, the legal standing seems very shaky. The thread the OP also refers to already had some fairly questionable circumstances as well.

Anywho, probably shouldn't be playing armchair lawyer It is interesting to read up and learn about how various crimes have been handled in the past however.

[Panzer Possum]

If Wario is driving a getaway car for bank robbers and someone is killed in the robbery, I think Wario can be charged in the murder. So what if a bank guard shoots at the robbers and misses them but hits the getaway driver? Is it justified?

Good question. Does it matter if the guard believes Wario is the wheelman or do the facts override even if he doesn't know? If the prosecution gets a bite at him because he was part of the robbery, even if he didn't go inside, the right thing is to count his death during the robbery as self defense based on the same reasons.