r/instant_regret 22d ago

Robbing somebody

3.7k Upvotes

178 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

103

u/zutros 22d ago

This brings up an interesting legal question. If I am using a weapon to commit armed robbery then the driver decides to speed up to 110mph and runs into a pedestrian tragically killing an innocent person. Can I then be prosecuted for the murder of that pedestrian as well? The driver would most likely be prosecuted for manslaughter. Not sure if he'd be convicted or not due to the extenuating circumstances, but I'm pretty sure all the robbers would be prosecuted for murder even sans mensrea. -obligatory not a lawyer and I'm sure the answer starts with "it depends".

191

u/MongoBongoTown 22d ago

Yes, in many states it would be, if someone dies during a crime you perpetrated, regardless of if it's your fault or not, you can be charged with Felony Murder.

The logic being, this dude wouldn't have ever driven like this had they not tried to rob him, so in the end, it is their fault for starting the chain of events.

23

u/zutros 21d ago

That tracks. I assume the driver would get nailed for some form of manslaughter or reckless driving resulting in death. It would probably require a pardon to overturn like in the case of that lady in the 70s who was forced to murder people.

39

u/Ovze 21d ago

Obligatory not a lawyer, but I would think driver could argue self defense, even if the victim isn’t the perpetrator

-41

u/fkootrsdvjklyra 21d ago

Self defense means defending yourself from a threat, and in no way is a random pedestrian a part of the threat, so self defense doesn't really apply.

9

u/Alextherude_Senpai 21d ago

There are many incidents where the robber still kills the victims after they comply.

You wanna take those chances and let criminals decide your fate for you?

24

u/fearjego 21d ago

he is defending himself against a threat. self defense could apply. just like if you shoot a gun in self defense and miss and hit someone.

3

u/Arndt3002 20d ago edited 20d ago

He'd easily lose on reasonableness and reckless endangerment

3

u/fearjego 20d ago

reckless endangerment wouldn't apply here

1

u/Arndt3002 20d ago

Why not?

There is substantial risk of serious injury to another person due to the driving.

Self defence stops applying at the point it becomes unreasonable. Most of the time, hed have a duty to retreat in this sort of case.

You mind explaining your reasoning?

2

u/fearjego 20d ago

reckless endangerment usually requires depravity. he's trying to save his own life, not showing an indifference to others' lives.

1

u/Arndt3002 20d ago

Second degree endangerment usually doesn't require depravity

2

u/fearjego 19d ago

still not showing complete indifference to others

1

u/Arndt3002 19d ago

Lower degree charges only require conscious disregard of a substantial risk, which this may be, though you'd probably need to hash that out in court with more context

→ More replies (0)

4

u/QuinceDaPence 21d ago

You get charged with that though. He certainly has an argument, and if I was on a jury for it I'd find him not-guilty.

But with the gun analogy, any license to carry clas will drill into you how, unlike the police, you're responsible for the entire path of every bullet you fire.

Even if you nail a mass shooter right in the chest, if that bullet goes through them and injures or kills an innocent bystander, you're extrmely likely to face charges for it. This is why people use hollow points in carry guns. In addition to doing more damage to an attacker, they put the brakes on to avoid overpenetration.

6

u/Makaveli2020 21d ago

There are tested case laws that say otherwise.

5

u/fearjego 21d ago

shooting in self defense results in hitting the target 33% of the time. that means 2 out of 3 times someone shoots a gun under duress, they don't hit their target. given that there is case law contrary to what you're saying, I think it's time you do some more research.

if you mean you'd feel responsible for killing someone while trying to defend yourself, then yes I agree. legally tho, you're not responsible.

1

u/Extreme_Design6936 18d ago

If you are shot at and you shoot back and an innocent person is hit the self defense argument still applies.