Felony Murder

Did you know that one could be convicted of murder even if he did not kill anyone? This can occur under the law of felony murder. Your probably thinking how does that make any sense; you need to kill someone to be ch

arged for that murder. A felony murder makes any participant in a felony, criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. For example, if two thieves are robbing a bank, even without guns, which is a felony, and a police officer walks in trying to stop the robbery, shoots and kills one of the thieves. Then, the thief that is alive can be charged with murder of the killing of his 

friend even though he did not pull the trigger. You may ask how is this fair, and in fact America is one of the few countries that has the felony murder rule. On one hand, it is clear that if they have not been involved in this crime, the killing would have not occurred. Although, on the other hand, is it fair to punish someone for doing something that they did not intend to do?

            The idea that someone is killed based off of your actions, is a somewhat conflicting idea. If the two thieves are robbing the store, and it just so happens that one is shot and dies, what is the backup argument? What will protect that person from being charged for that murder? It leaves the criminal in a state of helplessness, and really makes criminals think twice before they perform an illegal act. That is the positive aspect of the rule.

            We should also look at this situation from another negative perspective. As we all know, the sentence for a premeditated murder is more punitive than an accidental murder. If the thieves entered to rob the bank and expect one of them to not come out alive; this would be a different story. The idea that seems strange to me is, what if the thieves were a mother and a son? And if the son is shot by a police officer, the mother is blamed? It also could be that the police officer made a bad decision.

            We also forget an important aspect; the police officer killed the thief. The police officer is the killer and he is allowed to blame it on someone else. I can understand if the police shoots someone for his self defense and his control of the situation, but is it worth it to blame it on someone else. The police officer has the free will to choose whether or not he will shoot this thief and therefore is able to determine the sentencing of the other thief.

            As you can see, the felony murder law is a very unique and interesting rule. This strange and sometimes confusing rule has many conflicting side and its important to understand it.

The Second Amendment

Gun control has been an ongoing argument in our country for many years, but what is the argument all about. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment could be interpreted differently depending on who the one interpreting it is. The (NRA) National Rifle Association, a group that is against any type of gun control restrictions, interprets this amendment by saying all guns should be allowed to be owned and no state should have the right to restrict that. I can understand why the NRA might want to unrestrict guns for sports such as hunting, but then why do they care about personal guns? When people own personal guns, crime occurs.  Hunting accidents do happen also, but I can understand why that would be a reason for someone to own a gun.

It seems pretty obvious that the authors of this amendment wanted this to be used to defend our country at a time when there was not a large enough army to defend our nation. At no point does it suggest that the average man off the street with no military or firearm training should be permitted to own a gun! Nevertheless, many right-wing members of today's United States have interpreted this amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to "keep and bear arms." But uneducated people in our society can still be fooled into believing this absurd idea that everyone can have a gun.

The clear reason for anyone to own a personal hand gun would be for self defense. Even for that it can sometimes have a negative ending. Lets say a man breaks into your house and you point a gun to his head and tell him not to come any closer. This man continues hesitantly moves forward and suddenly you pull the trigger and he dies. This man could have been a poor and mentally ill, and was just looking for some food and never had ever meant to harm you. The result of you shooting this man, causes you guilt and anxiety for the rest of your life. Was it worth it? Did you do the right thing? This whole type of situation could have been avoided if handguns had been banned in the first place.

Why does the NRA feel the need to allow dangerous handguns to be in the United States? Is it worth it to you to own a handgun for your defense? When people are dying everyday from other people owning handguns. People who are not educated and competent enough to own a handgun; how do we know who these people are? We don’t and that is the problem.

We can learn from this that it is important to accurately try to understand an amendment and the importance for the authors of these amendments to make sure that the civilians understand the complexity of the writings.