Benjamin Wells Posted January 7, 2019 Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 I had a situation today in which me and another individual were robbing a store. At this robbery three officers arrived on scene, including, one officer, one corporal, and one FTS. Upon breaching the store the corporal was downed as well as both me and the other individual. The officers handled the situation perfectly and I had no problem with anything they did, however, what happened afterword I cannot agree with. Before continuing I would like to say that this is based entirely on my opinion, which is what prompts me to ask yours. Upon being placed in custody and taken to the jail, I had the other individual were both threatened with the charge of attempted murder. Since none of the officers knew or had proof of who had downed the corporal the idea was to charge both unless one of us confessed. The problem with this, however, is that neither I nor the other individual actually knew who downed said corporal. I agreed to take the charge simply so that the both of us would not be charged. Now I understand the idea behind this (one of us had committed attempted murder therefor one of us HAD to be charged), however, I do not agree with this idea. My argument is that in any court of law within the US no two people could be charged with a crime that only one person could commit. The example I used is that if two people enter a completely dark room with an expensive item in it, and when they leave the item is no longer there, it doesn't make sense for both to be charged. I understand that this situation is very different from what happened at the robbery, but I believe that the actions taken would be based on the same principle. This idea is that either you must be willing to let an innocent person be charged, or a guilty person be set free. To the best of my knowledge most course would let a guilty person free rather than charge an innocent one. What are your thoughts?  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speed Posted January 7, 2019 Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Benjamin Wells said: My argument is that in any court of law within the US no two people could be charged with a crime that only one person could commit. This is actually not true. "Accomplice liability" is a very real thing, and people have been charged and convicted of crimes committed by an accomplice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Wells Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 I agree that based on Accomplice Liability we could both be charged, but the charges were not based on who was at fault but rather that someone had to be charged. I was wrong with what I said about two people not being able to be charged and I appreciate you bring up Accomplice Liability. I simply do not believe that it was this idea that resulted in how the situation was handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilo Posted January 7, 2019 Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 We dont have a csi team to lift prints and match bullets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speed Posted January 7, 2019 Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, Benjamin Wells said: I simply do not believe that it was this idea that resulted in how the situation was handled. Neither do I, but that's not what you're arguing in the original post. You're saying they should have to prove exactly who committed the crime, or nobody gets charged at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you and your accomplice were both firing at the officers and they just couldn't determine who fired the kill-shot. The argument that nobody should be charged simply because the officers aren't sure who fired the final round seems kind of lame, no? As Kilo said, there's not much offered in terms of forensics, and it would make sense to me that if two people are firing at or near the same person and that person dies, both people get charged for murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Wells Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, Kilo said: We dont have a csi team to lift prints and match bullets. I agree that the police in game have to function differently than the police in reality. I cannot argue with that and I won't. I appreciate the feedback and it is why I wanted this to be discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Wells Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2019  6 minutes ago, speed said: Neither do I, but that's not what you're arguing in the original post. You're saying they should have to prove exactly who committed the crime, or nobody gets charged at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you and your accomplice were both firing at the officers and they just couldn't determine who fired the kill-shot. The argument that nobody should be charged simply because the officers aren't sure who fired the final round seems kind of lame, no? As Kilo said, there's not much offered in terms of forensics, and it would make sense to me that if two people are firing at or near the same person and that person dies, both people get charged for murder. My opinion or my original one at least, is that we should have both been charged with assault with a deadly weapon considering it was the one crime we both had committed. Your argument makes a lot of sense and I don't disagree. Again I can't argue the fact that police in city have to operate differently than those in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Wells Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2019 I am in the police department and just wanted to know if the situation was handled correctly. At the time I didn't feel that it was. This isn't the sort of thing that is gone over in an officers training and to me doesn't seem like a black and white issue. I appreciate having some more experienced opinions on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vDrop Posted January 8, 2019 Report Share Posted January 8, 2019 If it cannot be concrete confirmed, and both suspects were shooting. Charge both with Attempted Murder. Both shooting at the officers caused the officer to go down, therefore both can / should be charged. That's the harsh way to go about it. Another way it could be done, you get one suspect to admit to the kill shot, and charge the other with Assault with a Deadly & Armed Robbery. The fines are just as bad as the time. In a situation like that, if suspects are known criminals. Can go with option 2, and get the approval to have the Weapons License taken away. Its not my favorite option, but it is there. I don't think whomever the officers were did anything wrong. I would have gone the same direction if someone wasn't willing to admit. In reality......both would be charged with attempted murder. All it would take is shooting in the direction of someone for it to be classified as Attempted Murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiLLeR Posted January 8, 2019 Report Share Posted January 8, 2019 To add, with the new gun mechanic it's likely that both of you did shoot the officer. While one may have been the 'final' bullet with a vest it usually takes multiple rounds to put them down. Sounds to me like it was handled correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.