Two teenagers were arrested for the murder of their best friend - not because they pulled the trigger, but because they witnessed the murder, and happened to be involved in a different, less serious 'crime' at the same time, which had nothing to do with the violence that occurred.

The young men, Jessey Gonzalez, and Nicolas Gedela, along with the victim Carlos Santos, were attempting to sell a quarter pound of marijuana to three strangers. The strangers ambushed the young men and shot and killed Santos while his two friends managed to escape.

Now, the police are charging the victim's friends with first-degree murder, thanks to an asinine legal loophole.

Sadly, it is fairly common for people to get charged with committing a murder that authorities know someone else carried out, simply because they happened to be breaking a different law, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is made possible by a legal doctrine called, "felony murder doctrine," which states that:

"A rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first-degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder."

Gonzalez and Gedela were both arrested on charges of murder, unlawful distribution of marijuana, and possession of drug proceed money.

We have reported on a number of similar stories in the past, involving innocent people who were charged with murder because they were committing a different, and far less serious crime nearby.

In most cases, the felony murder doctrine is applied to nonviolent people who are engaging in victimless crimes and have had nothing to do with the murder or any intent of violence.

One high-profile case was that of Kyler Carriker, who agreed to meet his former classmate at his friend Kyle Belts' home to introduce his former classmate to a marijuana dealer. However, the former classmate arrived with several other gang members, and later testified in court to the fact that the plan was to rob Carriker, Belts, and Ronald Betts, the marijuana dealer and brother of former Kansas state Senator Donald Betts.

Almost immediately upon entering Belts' home, the gang members began firing. Carriker and Betts were both shot and, unfortunately, Betts died from his injuries.

According to Carriker's family, after leaving the home, the shooter bragged to the other gang members, saying that he had "killed them all."

After the shooting, instead of seeking actual justice for this killing, Carriker was charged with the murder of Betts because he acted as a middleman in the marijuana sale.

Luckily, however, because of a successful push for justice via the internet and alternative media, Carriker was found not guilty.

Others have not been so lucky.

In another case, twenty-year-old Serghei Pavel Comerzan was also charged with murder after a cop wrecked his own car and died attempting to give him a ticket. In another insane case, the police were shooting at a suspect, killed an innocent woman inside of a bar and charged the suspect with her murder.

Yikes that is scary.

But then, Charles Manson is still in prison
and he never killed anybody.

true, but he told the others to kill, and went with the intent to kill... the kids didn't know anyone was going to die during a weed deal... now their lives are ruined as well, over something that should be legal in the first place......

yep

it is always discretionary whether prosecutors pursue charges and which charges they pursue


but basically, any 'felony' involvement leaves one open to be charged with any and every possible outcome of that felony including death

and not just felonies, they charge for every crime they can, to keep the privatized prison economy going...

that is believable as well


as a victim of attempted rape, I remember the prosecutor wanted me to help with charge of 'kidnapping' as well because he 'removed'(dragged actually) to another place to commit a crime

which is under the definition of kidnapping,, believe it or not,, even though I was removed only about four or five feet

I think they feel they have better odds at convicting the suspect on some charge if they pile on as many as possible

i guess... it also seems to make the suspect seem more "criminalistic" to the jury when there is 10 charges filed against them... like you said, better chance of conviction...

Eh.

The article is "outrageous" but who knows what's really going on.

I mean there may be more sentencing options for murder than for drug deals.

There might be things like minimum sentence laws so if they only charge for selling drugs the kids have to spent 10 years in prison, where it might be under the discretion of the judge to only sentence to 5 years for "murder."
Or with murder and their age maybe their cases can be sealed and it won't have as big of impact on their futures.
Or this plea allows for a different type of plea bargain available.
Or there's a higher level of proof required for murder than for selling drugs and it was easier to acquit them of everything because it was a stupid event.

I'm not saying that's the case, just that the legal system is a big freaking game where it doesn't really matter what happened or what you're charged with, only what the judge and attorneys can and are trying to do with the law.

So it doesn't matter, if they're being charged with murder even though they didn't directly and consciously choose to kill someone, without knowing WHY the judge or prosecutors are doing it that way.

The "news" story is worthless in terms of relevant information, but high on emotional manipulation like moral outrage.

IMO, we should be morally outraged about this...true, the article is slanted, but what article isn't? those kids weren't out to kill or get killed, they were just trying to make some money...

I think I remember when this approach really got rolling. It was during a period, I think in the 80's, when certain politicians decided to promote their party and themselves as hyper law-enforcement types. It was part of an overall attack on any and all of the various peoples who opposed any elements of their agenda. It was primarily Republican led, but included any conservative Democrats who wanted to make a name for themselves as well.

The idea of allowing local police who conducted drug busts, to take and resell any and all the assets of anyone they arrested for drug distribution, was a part of the same push.

Essentially, it's the inevitable result of any "righteousness-based" approach to the law. It always sounds great, when your vision is so obscured by emotion, that you imagine that ONLY the people you don't like, will become the targets of the invariably sloppily written laws.

It's happened before.

Goshen, Ind. Three Elkhart County teens have been convicted of felony murder for their roles in a botched home invasion last year that resulted in their friend's death.

The jury deciding the fate of Blake Layman, 17, Levi Sparks, 18, and Anthony Sharp, Jr., delivered the guilty verdict just before midnight Friday, after deliberating for more than five hours.

The three teens were among a group of five people that broke into a Frances Ave. home last October. Jose Quiroz, 17, already pleaded guilty to felony murder for his part in the crime. The burglary ended when the homeowner shot and killed the fifth member of the group, Danzele Johnson, 21. While the teens didn't pull the trigger, under Indiana law, their involvement in the burglary makes them responsible for Johnson's death.

so are thieves


but if a criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and we have the attitude that they are expendable,,,,letting a punishment fit the crime becomes irrelevant,, any punishment fits with a criminal


I think its bogus ,, but that is the way of society

I think they also call it the 'if not for',, standard


like , if you are driving without a license,, and someone else hits you,, they may just charge you,,,,because 'if not for' you being on the road, the accident wouldn't happen


strange,, but the way its been since I can remember


if not for commission of the felony, the events that follow would not have happened,,,

This is pretty funny..

You do realize that individual states define felony murder, correct?

There is no cookie cutter definition devised by 1980's republicans.

Pennsylvania in 1794 was the first state to define a murder degree statue.

Illinois1827 ...that an “involuntary killing… in the commission of an unlawful act which in its consequences, naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being, or is committed in the prosecution of a felonious intent…shall be deemed and adjudged to be murder.”

New York and New Jersey 1829

http://birdsongslaw.com/2008/06/25/read-a-history-of-the-felony-murder-rule/


You offered no evidence of your claims. You were completely wrong and I can only surmise that your 'opinion' was based on your ideological disposition meant to further your propagandist agenda.

I have been on this site for a long time and I have seen the self professed intellectuals come and go.

One thing they all have in common is that when they get out of their comfort zone they all get exposed for what they truly are.

Stick with the self-aggrandizing holier than thou approach. That seems to be your comfort zone.

"weed" isn't a felony, in most states... in Texas, that would have been a felony because it was a QP...

but either way, it started out as a victimless crime and turned into a life ruining decision for all of them...

Guilty by association...wrong place..wrong time...but it seems like a growing trend...pretty soon everyone will have some kind of charge brought against them...the more of us on paper the more need to control...the more criminal histories...can't get jobs,..can't buy or rent homes..usually wind up in the streets using and selling drugs..drug test them so they lose any assistance...lol..round and round...poor guys are truly more screwed then they realize...you get and serve 5 years...but the human race will judge and condemn you till ya die... ..

In your eagerness to condemn, you failed to read. I never mentioned the Federal government. You just assumed.

By the way, here's an interesting, somewhat related recent reveal. This one goes way back to the 1970's under Nixon, but it's the same kind of thing I'm referring to.

In this case, a high ranking Nixon adviser, reveals that the real reason for the Nixon war on drugs, had nothing to do with drugs. It was all about politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_us_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1

I agree, having researched a bit, Oklahoma has very harsh penalties, even for just smoking weed,,,

yea, that bible belt area hates weed... AZ has really stiff penalties for weed as well...