Home / Constitution / Mass. Teenager Faces Murder Charges After Robbery Accomplice Is Fatally Shot By Would-be Victim
Print Friendly and PDF

Mass. Teenager Faces Murder Charges After Robbery Accomplice Is Fatally Shot By Would-be Victim

Posted on April 25, 2014

If you commit the crime, then you better be ready to serve the time.

Not many people would object to this statement. Especially when it references the charge of murder. Most people would agree if an individual is proven in the court of law to be guilty of murder, then they should be forced to deal with the consequences of their deadly actions.

What if the defendant didn’t actually commit the crime directly, but was, in some capacity, responsible for the chain of events that led to the crime occurring. Then should this person be charged with murder and forced to rot in a cell next to those that were directly responsible for death of another human being?

Guns.com reported on an attempted robbery in Massachusetts that left one robbery accomplice dead from a gunshot wound, and the other accomplice in jail charged with the murder. The story gets unusual when you find out that the shot that killed the robber was fired by the would-be victim in self defense, but the prosecution is seeking to convict the other robber for murder.

At about 12:30 a.m. the would-be victim was approached by 17-year-old Jahleel Sanders Williams and 18-year-old Amoy Blake in the first floor hallway of a residential housing unit,local media reported.

Blake apparently held a gun to the victim’s head, but unbeknown to the teens, their victim had a license to carry a concealed weapon and was legally armed. The victim then pulled out his own pistol and shot Blake.

At that point, Williams fled the scene, but he far from escaped the incident altogether.

District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett’s office justified the murder charge by claiming that felony murder charge can be filed when a person is killed while committing a felony. The prosecution will argue that the 17-year-old Williams was legally liable for Amoy Blake’s death because he was participating in the robbery.

The state of Massachusetts defines murder as follows:

Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury.

When I first saw this story, I thought the prosecution could be justified in charging the accomplice in a failed robbery attempt with the murder of his partner in the crime. The longer I examined the facts and compared them with the principles and morals that would comprise the backbone of a libertarian legal system, the more against the charge of murder I became.

In a truly liberty oriented legal system based on property rights, there would be two parties that would have the standing to pursue legal action against the lone surviving robber. They would be the would-be victim and the family of the dead accomplice. Of course, the family of the deceased robber could also file a lawsuit against the intended victim of the robbery, who supposedly killed their family member in self defense. The State could not bring charges for crimes against “society” as they do in the current system.

Continue Reading on lionsofliberty.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

16 thoughts on “Mass. Teenager Faces Murder Charges After Robbery Accomplice Is Fatally Shot By Would-be Victim

  1. petes farm says:

    every story continued-sick of flipping thru pages & pages when this could be on 1 article per page-get rid of all the ads as ur reportimg isn't worth a chit-all plaglarized

  2. Take Action Now says:

    I beg to differ with petes farm… you are doing a good thing to alert us to news stories on other web sites. Copying an entire article would be plagiarizing. What you are doing is fair use. You are right, pete is wrong.

  3. Pete’s farm,
    Thanks for reading.
    This article was submitted to TPE with the permission of the author, me. I apologize for the all of the mouse clicking, but that’s generally how the internet works. Like minded sites share articles with each other. Have you ever heard of Drudge Report? To run articles in their entirety does not give credit to the author and/or website that put in the time to put a story together for your reading pleasure.
    In liberty,
    John

  4. Now that the hows and why of publishing an article are settled, the question remain about the fairness of the law. In my opinion, it is absolutely fair and just. You should look at the totality of the crime. It is not made from bits and pieces. It is one fully formed scenario. If you are any part of that scenario you bear responsibility for the whole. More to the point, if the surviving thug goes to jail, he will not be a threat to society. That is a good thing. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  5. TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Yep. I agree with RLOwen.

  6. I disagree. The dead man was not murdered. He was killed in self-defense. That is not a crime at all. The only crime committed here was attempted robbery with a gun.

    That is what this accomplice should be tried for.

  7. Had the surviving perp not agreed to accompany and assist the robber who died, it seems quite likely that man would not have died. Thus the accomplice to the robbery is also an accomplice to the death of his partner in crime. And an accomplice to murder is guilty of the murder, ssaid murder not being possible without the actions of the accomplice. This man KNEW or reasonably shuold have known his partner was armed, and that the risk of death for someone was real. Yet he willingly lent his aid to the commission of the crime.

    You also fail to account for the very real possibility that the intended victim could have been killed in the commission of their robbery. This man failed to place a sufficiently high value on life– neither valuing that of their victim nor of his accomplice.

    Certainly, the surviving criminal did not pull the trigger of the weapon that ended the life of his partner in crime. Yet in a very real way he is directly and willfully responsible for his partner's death.

  8. What of the eggshell skull doctrine then? You mildly hurt someone yet they die because of a congenital defect that even he didn't know about yet you are responsible for causing that person's death?

  9. "Had the surviving perp not agreed to accompany and assist the robber who died, it seems quite likely that man would not have died."

    So what? That doesn't mean the other guy is responsible for murder. Geez, the logical twisting people do just to tack on more charges. Cowards. So no, he is not responsible AT ALL. The person responsible is the guy who got killed. He KNEW the RISKS. If he didn't want to get killed he shouldn't have agreed to rob someone.

    End of story.

  10. This notion of the dead man's family suing the shooter who acted in legal self-defense annoys me greatly. Perhaps the shooter should sue the family, because their incompetent child rearing raised a thug and lead to mental distress of the shooter. At the very least, the shooter could recover the cost of the ammo. 😉

  11. mike6080 says:

    COULD OF SAVED THE TAXPAYERS A LOT OF MONEY IF HE GOT THE OTHER ONE

  12. bamabasher says:

    Good now convict him. it would have been better if both had been killed and then no need to spend more time and money on them but it is what it is and now just give him the needle

  13. "Had the surviving perp not agreed to accompany and assist the robber who died, it seems quite likely that man would not have died. Thus the accomplice to the robbery is also an accomplice to the death of his partner in crime."

    This is all correct, your logic is impeccable so far.

    "And an accomplice to murder is guilty of the murder, ssaid murder not being possible without the actions of the accomplice."

    BZZZT!! Wrong answer Tionico…would you like to go for double jeopardy where the scores can really change?

    Murder? What murder? There was no murder, remember? The man who was shot was shot in self-defense. That is why the shooter is not being charged. Congratulations, you just argued that the accomplice to the robbery is also an accomplice to self-defense.

    Since when is being an accomplice to self-defense a crime?

    "This man KNEW or reasonably shuold have known his partner was armed, and that the risk of death for someone was real. Yet he willingly lent his aid to the commission of the crime. You also fail to account for the very real possibility that the intended victim could have been killed in the commission of their robbery."

    Wrong again Tionico. I DO take into account the very real possibility that the intended victim could have been killed in the commission of the robbery. Did you read my words…"The only crime committed here was attempted robbery WITH A GUN"

    Did you see it now that I capitalized the words? Armed robbery is always a more serious charge than unarmed robbery. When you rob someone with a weapon, someone could get killed.

    "Certainly, the surviving criminal did not pull the trigger of the weapon that ended the life of his partner in crime. Yet in a very real way he is directly and willfully responsible for his partner's death."

    Which, as everyone agrees, was a death due to self-defense.

    If you think self-defense is a crime, then you are free to argue for the law to be changed so it becomes a crime. Until then, it isn't a crime. Since there was no murder, how can you charge a man with murder?

  14. The "Felony Murder Rule," which is on the statute books in most states, says that if you participate in a felony crime, and a death occurs in the commission of that crime, then you are guilty of violating that statute, the penalty for which is generally the same as for murder itself (perhaps not pre-meditated, first degree murder, but murder none the less).

    Fair enough, if you ask me.

  15. Darren says:

    If they convict him of murder than would that now make this a murder and then they can charge the man who shot him with murder.

  16. Do you have a spam problem on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; many of us have created some nice procedures and we are looking to exchange solutions with others, be sure to shoot me an email if interested.