Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Felony Murder in Miami


Authorities are trying to determine whether the fatal shooting of an intruder attempting to steal a wave runner outside a Miami waterfront home was justified.

Miami-Dade police say an unidentified juvenile armed with a shotgun shot 20-year-old Reynaldo Munoz in the head Saturday afternoon outside his family's home.

A police affidavit says Munoz parked outside a marina, put his own watercraft in the water and navigated it to the home.

Police say Munoz was confronted by the teen as he attempted to take the family's wave runner.

His 19-year-old girlfriend Carolina Lopez told police she was waiting for Munoz to return with the watercraft, which they planned to sell for $2,000. She is charged with felony murder for her participation in a crime that caused the death of another.
The girlfriend is charged with felony murder, are you kidding me? Why don't we charge her with intent to steal, or even more accurately, foreknowledge of intent to steal by another?

It's no wonder the prisons are overfilled. The law-and-order types want to charge people with the violation of the strongest possible laws at ever opportunity.

By the way was that a legitimate shooting? Can you blow someone's head off for attempting to steal your property in Florida?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

21 comments:

  1. The real criminals work in banks, wear two-thousand dollar suits, and steal more money than one-hundred blue collar bank robbers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "By the way was that a legitimate shooting? Can you blow someone's head off for attempting to steal your property in Florida?"

    Not generally, no. There must be more to the story if it was la legitimate use of lethal force.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shared responsibility, Mikey, shared responsibility!!!!!

    Just keep repeating that little phrase, and who cares what you think, shouldn't Mr "I don't have to work for anything, I can take what I want, when I want", have chosen to stay at home..... rather that rob someone?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon-ninny, shared responsibility is one thing, inappropriately shared responsibility is another.

    Mikeb is presenting that for discussion.

    It also shows what kind of killings we can expect more of, if laws like the one proposed in MN to make shooting someone legally less restrictive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She was driving the getaway vehicle, she was involved in the crime and expected to share in the profits.

    How is it inappropriate, that she shares in the punishment, she should have been trying to get her beau to turn from a life of crime.

    She has a much responsibility for his death as he did.

    If he had been shot on an open drug market corner with a stolen shotgun, you can bet that Mikey (as he has done time and time again) would be crowing the all us legal gun owners are to blame......

    Good riddance, prison will wear well on her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A manslaughter charge would be more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Again, mikeb shows his hypocrisy. He advocates for "Shared Responsibility", yet when the responsibility gets shared, he cries foul.

    Apparently, his "Shared Responsibility" only applies to people who legally own guns. He has a double standard. I wish he would admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not even manslaughter, TS.

    AztecRed, let me put it this way. When the getaway driver gets the same punishment as the triggerman, that's wrong.

    When the toddler finds daddy's gun and kills his brother with it and dad gets a slap on the wrist or less, that's wrong.

    There's shared responsibility in a lot of things, but it has to be fair.

    When gun rights folks succeed in maintaining the status quo, which allows criminals to get guns and people die, those gun rights folks share in the guilt, not to the same degree as the criminals themselves, but sort of like the getaway driver compared to the triggerman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MikeB: “There's shared responsibility in a lot of things, but it has to be fair.”

    Fine, let’s keep it fair. My crime is that I own guns and fight a movement that wants to criminalize or disarm me. I didn’t “drive the getaway car” because I have not engaged in anything illegal and my activities have harmed no one. As long as my punishment goes no further than being berated by you on your weblog, then I humbly accept the punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So long as you don't lose control of your firearms so that they end up in the hands of some criminal (or worse), so long as you don't do something stupid I have no problem with you having firearms, if they are kept secured and unloaded.

    I have no problem with you having firearms either, so long as you make sure that any subsequent owner is not prohibited from firearm purchases either, whether they are on the NCIS data base or not.

    I'd love to see Congress make it a felony to sell or otherwise allow someone to acquire a firearm who is prohibited from gun ownership a weapon - even if that person has passed a gun check - if that person SHOULD have been on the NCIS data base but was not listed due to a failure of the process. Including by theft or losing a firearm.

    That would provide a more seririous criminal penalty to anyone who is a straw buyer, or just criminally negligent in how they secure their weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. TS said, As long as my punishment goes no further than being berated by you on your weblog, then I humbly accept the punishment.

    I'll take that under advisement.

    ReplyDelete
  12. TS is lookin' for another oneathem "Evil laws" to break.

    It there is a law against possessing firearms--something which would never get sufficient traction in the current political environment to warrant more than a "ho hum"--then owning gunz would be illegal and gunzowners would be LAWBREAKERS.

    Since that's not the case at present (nor likely to be anytime soon) TS's comment:

    "My crime is that I own guns and fight a movement that wants to criminalize or disarm me. I didn’t “drive the getaway car” because I have not engaged in anything illegal and my activities have harmed no one. As long as my punishment goes no further than being berated by you on your weblog, then I humbly accept the punishment."

    doesn't even rise to the level of being a strawman argument.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Democommie, you do realize that laws are attempted by gun control that creates new crimes for gunowners (whether it is activities or possession of certain guns, magazines, or ammunition)? It doesn’t have to be a law against all firearm possession. In fact, there is a current introduced bill that would net me about 1700 felony counts. I’d say that is worth fighting against. No strawman.

    ReplyDelete
  14. TS, What do you mean? You own 1,700 large capacity magazines?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike, I have 1700 rounds of rifle ammunition that CA anti-gun legislators want to say are only good for killing cops.

    ReplyDelete
  16. TS, please explain what you intend to use it for instead of killing cops (because I'm assuming obviously that is not your intention), and why other ammunition is not equally suitable for that use you do intend.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dog gone, I plan on using it to punch holes in paper from a bench 100 yards away. It is standard copper jacketed lead core ammunition, specifically designed as military practice rounds. CA’s proposed law (SB 124) removes the exemption for rifle ammunition from being classified as “armor piercing”. The exemption was there because most any center-fired rifle ammunition will penetrate a standard Kevlar vest (even soft pointed hunting rounds). There is no “other ammunition” to use if this law gets signed, and there is no grandfather clause. Either I become a felon, or I turn all my rifle ammunition in- effectively turning those rifles into poorly designed clubs (being that they are no longer able to function as a firearm). This is what happens when gun control has its way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. TS, maybe you have found a new niche market potential for a business - coming up with a legal replacement round.... which you could sell to people like yourself who want to use it for target shooting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cop-killer bullets, I don't know TS, are you sure there isn't another type of round you could use. It sounds a bit too "draconian" to leave lawful gunowners like yourself with no alternative - even in CA.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MikeB: “Cop-killer bullets, I don't know TS, are you sure there isn't another type of round you could use.”

    Nope. Guns are pretty specific about the type of rounds they will take. The only round I can substitute would be .308, but that is even more powerful and isn’t safe to shoot out of my gun which isn’t proofed for those kind of pressures. It will penetrate a Kevlar vest because it is 7.62 NATO, not because of what the bullet is made of. This law expands existing laws to remove the rifle exemption- a classic strategy of gun control. Get a “reasonable” law in place, and then keep expanding it.

    MikeB: “It sounds a bit too "draconian" to leave lawful gunowners like yourself with no alternative - even in CA.”

    Exactly, that is why I am hoping it fails or gets vetoed by Brown (who might not want to incriminate himself). But if they run a successful fear campaign, they’ll paint us all as wanting to “put deadly cop killer bullets on the street”.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The ironic thing is I have 700 rounds of ammo that was useless to me because it would be illegal for me to bring my gun that shoots it into California. So I bought a legal gun just to shoot off those rounds, and now they are trying to ban the freaking ammo!

    ReplyDelete