The Supreme Court... of snark. Gun & crime related.

[Matthew Carberry]

Still a bad headline, all they had to add was "during crimes" after shootings or change it to:

Supreme Court Rules All Firearm Discharges During Crimes To Be Punished Equally

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518380,00.html

Supreme Court Rules Accidental Shootings Should Be Punished Like Intentional Ones

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 

WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court says accidentally shooting a gun during the commission of a crime should bring the same penalties as intentionally using a firearm.

This came as the high court on Wednesday upheld the conviction and sentence of Christopher Michael Dean, who was arrested for trying to rob a bank in Rome, Ga., in 2004.

A gun went off accidentally during the attempted robbery when Dean tried to switch the weapon from one hand to the other.

The discharge brought an automatic 10-year sentence for firing a weapon during a crime. Dean appealed, saying the automatic sentence shouldn't count since the firing of the gun was accidental.

Federal prosecutors said the law doesn't care why the gun went off, and the high court agreed.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who called it "the case of the bungling bank robber" in his bench statement, said the law "does not require that the discharge be done knowingly or intentionally."

If criminals want to avoid the penalty for accidental gunfire, they can "lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home or — best yet — avoid committing the felony in the first place," Roberts said.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented, saying Congress intended the automatic sentence to only apply to intentional discharges of weapons.

"Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability," Stevens said. "Indeed, if they cause no harm, they seldom give rise to any liability. The court today nevertheless holds that petitioner is subject to a mandatory additional sentence — a species of criminal liability — for an accident that caused no harm."

Roberts replied in his opinion that the accidental gunfire did cause harm. "By pure luck, no one was killed or wounded," he said. "But the gunshot plainly added to the trauma experienced by those held during the armed robbery."

[MicroBalrog]

Roberts seems to be following the Scalia School of Judicial Snark.

[K Frame]

""Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability," Stevens said."

Jesus Christ...

I guess the overlying criminal act in progress means absolutely nothing...

But your honor, it was an ACCIDENT that I was robbing that there bank!

Released, chargeds dropped with the court's apology!

[Scout26]

Why does anything stated by Justice Stevens cause me to do a *facepalm* ??

[Nitrogen]

""Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability," Stevens said."

Jesus Christ...

I guess the overlying criminal act in progress means absolutely nothing...

But your honor, it was an ACCIDENT that I was robbing that there bank!
Released, chargeds dropped with the court's apology!

He's got a point, but you know what?  I just don't care.  When it comes to violent crime, I'm not willing to overlook a lot.

[K Frame]

I'm not sure he does have a point.

If you're drinking and driving and you have an accident that maims or kills someone, you can certainly be charged with the criminal act, such as involuntary manslaughter, which resulted from the accident, but which in origin was the product of the initial illegal activity -- drinking and driving.

[Nitrogen]

Well let me reiterate.

In the example where he was charged, he's got no point. 

If he was legally carrying a weapon, or, if nothing else, not committing another crime, he'd have a point.

He shot a gun while committing a crime.  Can we prove either way wether or not he was an ND?

More importantly, I just don't care.  It's a better point made for a different case, which makes no sense to me anyway, because Stevens would just prefer all guns were illegal anyway.

[grampster]

The court was being consistent.  If a person kills someone while committing a felony the charge is Murder 1.  Doesn't matter if the killing was accidental or even if the felon killed his partner by mistake.  Every person involved in the felonious act is charged with Murder 1 in an instance like this.

This case is related in the same way.  The discharge of the firearm, willfully or not, was during the commission of a felony, thus is a felony itself and deserving of felonious penalty.

As a side thought, how does anyone know what was on the mind of felon when the gun went off?  Who's to say it was accidental or not?  Thus, if a crime was being committed, intent is ascribed due to the actions at the time.

[CNYCacher]

""Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability," Stevens said."

Jesus Christ...

I guess the overlying criminal act in progress means absolutely nothing...

But your honor, it was an ACCIDENT that I was robbing that there bank!

Released, chargeds dropped with the court's apology!

Your logic holds if an accidental discharge is normally punishable.

[MechAg94]

I'm not sure he does have a point.

If you're drinking and driving and you have an accident that maims or kills someone, you can certainly be charged with the criminal act, such as involuntary manslaughter, which resulted from the accident, but which in origin was the product of the initial illegal activity -- drinking and driving.

But everyone knows that bank robbers are victims of their own circumstances, where drunk drivers are evil mass murdering bastards. :)

[MechAg94]

Your logic holds if an accidental discharge is normally punishable.

Not necessarily.  A true accidental discharge for a legally carrying person not in the act of committing a crime would not likely be charged even inside a bank, but someone robbing the bank would be charged even with a true AD.  Even the without a discharge at all, they would have the weapons charges tacked onto whatever other charges they get.

[Antibubba]

The gun was a factor in the crime being committed, and was present as an object intending to frighten the victims into surrendering .  One could say that the gun is the primary actor, since none of the characters are capable of making a decision about what to do.  ND seals what follows:  The picnic, once so promising, over before it can start
    but I say that I hear voice calling
    The voice odd, from somedioned       

Something wrongtime flows together   plays stll ahead  .

Huh

[CNYCacher]

The gun was a factor in the crime being committed, and was present as an object intending to frighten the victims into surrendering .  One could say that the gun is the primary actor, since none of the characters are capable of making a decision about what to do.  ND seals what follows:  The picnic, once so promising, over before it can start
    but I say that I hear voice calling
    The voice odd, from somedioned       

Something wrongtime flows together   plays stll ahead  .

Huh

"Did he just go crazy and then pass out?"

[MechAg94]

Ever stop to think, and then forget to start again?

The first two lines are correct though.  Without the gun in the picture, would the first felony be done?