Injustice: homeowner shoots unarmed burglars, burglars guilty of murder

Blake Layman was 16, a teenager growing up in a small Indiana town. He had never been in trouble with the law before, and had never owned or even held a gun.
He made one bad decision that would lead to his arrest and trial for “felony murder”.

The boy was unarmed, and had killed no one. He himself was shot and injured in the incident while his friend standing beside him was also shot and killed. Yet Blake Layman would go on to be found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 55 years in a maximum-security prison for a shooting that he did not carry out.

How could this happen?

Blake Layman and some friends/acquaintances entered a house to burglarize it, believing no one was home. But the homeowner was home, and shot at the intruders.
Blake his friends were all unarmed, did not fire a single shot, it was they themselves who were shot at. The homeowner was the only one with a gun.
Yet under Indiana law, Blake and the three others who were with him (the ones who were still alive) were guilty of murder.

Some 46 states in the U.S. have some form of felony murder rule on their statute books. Of those, 11 states unambiguously allow for individuals who commit a felony that ends in a death to be charged with murder even when they were the victims, rather than the ones directly responsible for the killing.
However, Indiana is not one of these 11 states, and under the exact wording of the state law Layman and his friends should be guilty only of burglary. Yet this did not stop them from being prosecuted and found guilty of murder. Blake's other friend, who was with him, pleaded guilty under a plea deal and was sentenced to 45 years.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...e-faces-55-years-in-jail/ar-BBhZuAc?ocid=iehp


I do not know how these things can happen. Really makes one wonder how much justice is actually in the court systems. The prosecutor ought to be fired, and the judge is guilty of negligence... in my opinion. There are so many issues with this. It's no wonder criminals completely disregard any and all laws, with all the grossly unfair and excessive sentences being meted out by the courts, if they are choosing to break one law they might as well go all out. Hate to say this, but maybe the burglars would have been better off if they were carrying guns themselves, at least they would have had a possibility of escaping.

 

There is no justice in the legal system, and there is no rule of law. Who you know, how much money you can put into your defense, the political ambition of the state attorney prosecuting the case, the attitude of the cop who wrote up the initial charges, whether you are a part of the legal system or just a mundane, the judge you get, all play a role in how the case goes. On top of all that is the warped set of laws.

 

Burglers are victims? The law is written to try and keep people from breaking the law so if you are doing a criminal activity that ends up in a death, you are just as responsible.

 

I posted this story on another forum, thinking everyone who read it would be as outraged as I was. To my surprise, none of the respondents seemed to have any problem it, in fact several of them believed the kid got what he deserved. It's beyond me how anyone could think this way, but at least that tells me how it could have been possible for a jury to have convicted him.

Apparently there's this mentality out there that anyone who breaks into a house should be locked up as long as possible, and is collectively responsible for whatever bad thing happens during the crime. That "if he didn't want to go to jail he shouldn't have committed a crime".

 

The laws put the responsibility where it is. If you are committing a crime and those actions lead to the death of someone you are responsible and frankly murder is best charge. (I think it should be for drunk driving as well but sometimes that is not the case). While our justice system can easily take all kinds of conditions into account including the age of the defendants I am not sure this is a good case to revisit this kind of charging. These guys were committing a serious crime and someone got killed as the result. Who should be responsible?

 

You break into my house and you might not make it to lockup. I don't know who you are or what your intentions are. You pay the price for your folly.

 

How can you possibly be confused by this? So burglars break in and create a situation which leads to death and you feel sorry for the guilty criminal? How about this, if you don't want to go to prison, get a job and stop committing felonies.

 

You have to be joking right? Please say yes.
You are seriously shocked that criminals should be responsible for their actions during the act of committing a serious crime? Holy mother of all liberals batman. Ive never seen a post like this before anywhere.

 

I understand your compassion----but breaking into a house is serious and I would be shooting not knowing if I were to be raped, killed....bad stuff happens when criminals find a victim. So the law is set up to put the criminal responsible---which I think is fair.

However---it sounds like he was treated as an adult to take on such a hefty penalty. That doesn't seem right if there hasn't been a pattern of previous arrests or issues.

 

No one was guilty of murder. The homeowner was (presumably) acting out of self defense, fearing for his life since he didn't know if the intruders were armed.
If the homeowner killed someone, wouldn't it be just the fault of the person who was actually killed for being there where he did not belong? How does the presence of other accomplices make them responsible for the death? If only the single burglar was present, wouldn't he have gotten shot and killed all the same?


You know, in many other countries it might be the homeowner who would be arrested, not the burglars (It could be questioned whether the homeowner's use of force was really necessary and appropriate). Not that I agree with this either, but it's interesting to point out how different people in different societies view things so differently.

 

While I don't think the kid deserves 55 years, the killing took place during the commission of a felony, meaning it would not have happened had he (and his thug buddies) not decided to burglarize a home.

It's pretty common for felons to be charged with murder when the death occurs during the commission of a felony.

It's too bad people make bad mistakes but a person died and they died as a direct result of the kids thinking they had the right to steal from others.

 

The burgler's choice to break the law initiated the death. They caused it. Its simply putting the responsibility for this death where it belongs.

 

I still don't see how.
Even if the presence of additional intruders was the factor that caused the homeowner to be fearful enough to start unleashing a hail of bullets, isn't the risk of being killed the intruders took enough of a deterrent?

We don't even know for certain if the homeowner's use of deadly force was really warranted or appropriate. Just because you see an intruder in your house doesn't mean it's okay to start shooting. At least I don't think so.

The only one responsible is already dead.

 

Well, it would be nice if you could interview them before they break into your home.

 

See....you are aligning responsibility and questioning the actions of the home-owner---a guy who was simply in his home surprised by criminals who meant to do some sort of harm. The home-owner had no way of knowing if these guys were capable of killing him, beating him.........This law makes it clear that we can defend our homes and families and if we shoot someone defending our families and homes---its the fault of the criminals. We don't see the criminals as the victims.

 

You know, I am really conflicted on the concept of self defense, because I believe individuals absolutely should have the right to defend themselves. But at the same time, you can't just shoot someone because you think they might be planning to harm you. Imagine, for example, police entering someone's house and the homeowner pulling out a gun because he cannot confirm whether the intruders entering his house are actually police or not. Of course all this is really a separate issue.

What I find absolutely outrageous is intruders being held responsible for someone else's use of self defense against them.

I don't know, but it seems to me the proponents of home self defense have gone too far, not only denying any personal responsibility for their use of deadly force, but now putting all the blame on those on the receiving end, to be collectively punished for the death of one of their members (on top of the lesser crime they were carrying out).

What I wish is this type of thing could just be seen as a terrible tragedy, rather the government thinking someone needs to be held responsible for every bad thing that happens.

 

The person who died when he attempted to take the property of another. He's responsible for his own death.

If what you say is true, does it only apply to crime, or does it apply to everything else? For instance, if you are a passenger in a car, and the car is speeding, should you get a ticket or be responsible for homicide if the driver is pulled over or gets into an accident? What if they aren't speeding, but are simply negligent?

If it's not the case, then I'd like to know why one person is responsible for the actions of another in a criminal situation, but not in other situations.

- - - Updated - - -

Some people actually think about these things and the implications to the justice system, rather than just apply knee-jerk authoritarian reactions.

 

I don't think it's self-defense proponents pushing for laws like these. I think it's politicians grandstanding and being "tough on crime" looking for any and all ways to punish people. As you can see from the reactions, such grandstanding works well. Any attempt to actually reason on the issues will get responses such as "you must love burglars" and "you are soft on crime."

 

Refreshing to see you can answer all your questions by yourself. You want the jury and the judge to disregard the law. Boo Hoo. If you think the law is wrong, write your congressman. Meanwhile, yup, he got what he deserved.

 

Well technically they should not have been guilty (of "felony murder") under the law of the State they were in, though they would be guilty under the law of 11 other American States if it had happened there.
The law in Illinois requires that one of the burglars would have to shoot the gun for them all to be guilty of felony murder. Yet despite this, the accused was still found guilty. The problem, in this case, was the court system. And people's widespread attitudes that the intruders were nevertheless responsible for what happened.

A dirty little secret in the justice system, if the judge and jury believes the accused did something wrong, it's easy to get them convicted, even if what they are being charged with is not actually really against the law.

 

Your consideration for criminals could end up getting you killed! For your own safety don't ever speak such craziness in public!

 

Do you ever think about the implications criminals have on law abiding citizens? Does anyone have a small violin I can play and some sad sheet music?

 

In Florida you are legally assumed to be in fear for your life and therefore justified in shooting any intruder(s). As for felony murder, I'm a fan. No idea why you have a problem with it.

 

It's one thing to say the homeowner has the right to kill intruders. It's another thing entirely to punish the surviving intruders for the killing done by the homeowner.

Where are all the fluffy progressive Liberals at? I guess they don't hang out much in the Law & Justice section. They'd be more outraged than me. In fact I'm sure some of them would think the homeowner should go to jail. I guess we'll just have to wait a little more for some of them to find this thread...

 

That has been the law of the land for quite some time. A death in commission of a felony always carries more sentence if you are contributing to that felony.