Police reveal double homicide details
An attempted robbery leads to the death of two people this weekend in East Lawrence. A minor has officially been charged in the case. Enlarge video
Childhood friend of victim shocked by murder
We made the trip to McLouth today to learn more about Gage Hauk, one of the men involved in Saturday's shooting. Enlarge video
Flowers and a note in memory of Roland Klundt, 20, were left on the front porch of the home at 1311 Del. in east Lawrence where Klundt and Gage Hauk, 18, were shot to death early Saturday. Kellam D. Jones, 16, of Lawrence, was charged Monday with two counts of felony first-degree murder and one count of attempted aggravated robbery.
The police are gone and so is the yellow crime scene tape.
On Monday, the only reminder that two people were shot to death Saturday at 1311 Del. were two bunches of flowers placed on the front porch and a handwritten sign taped to the porch railing.
"Roland, RIP
"We will remember"
A small group of people stood in the driveway at the house and quietly talked about their friend, Roland Klundt, 20, a Baker University scholarship student and 2006 Lawrence High School graduate.
"There is no way to express what an incredible person he was," Rachel Buckner said.
Klundt was shot to death early Saturday morning in what Lawrence police described as a robbery. Also killed was one of the suspects, Gage Hauk, 18, McLouth, police said.
Klundt was identified by friends as the victim occupying the house, but police said they were still waiting for confirmation of the identity from the Douglas County coroner.
Late Monday, Kellam D. Jones, 16, Lawrence, was charged with two counts of felony first-degree murder and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. He is in the Douglas County Juvenile Detention Center and will have a court appearance this afternoon. The law allows someone to be charged with murder in the commission of a felony even if the murder wasn't committed by their hand.
Jones is charged as a juvenile, but prosecutors can file a motion later to have him charged as an adult.
Officials had not released Jones' name before the charges were filed.
Hauk and Jones allegedly went to the Delaware Street home to commit a robbery, police spokesman Sgt. Paul Fellers said. The occupant shot Hauk. Then, Jones shot the occupant and fled on foot, Fellers said.
An investigation led police to Jones on Sunday, Fellers said. After questioning, he was arrested.
Police found a shotgun in the house and evidence that a second weapon was involved. A rifle was later found about a block away, Fellers said. The man in the house was acquainted with Hauk and Jones, Fellers said.
"I think it would be fair to say they were known," he said.
Police responded to the 1300 block of Delaware about 2:45 a.m. Saturday after receiving several reports of gunshots in the area. A neighborhood search led to the discovery of the two bodies, Fellers said.
An older model Acura Integra parked along the side of 14th Street west of Delaware was towed away by police Saturday. Fellers said he had no information about whether it was involved in the shooting investigation.
Police are continuing to investigate the case, and anyone with information is asked to call investigators at 830-7430.
Before the Delaware Street incident police were investigating reports of gunshots fired in the area of 19th and New Hampshire streets. Fellers said police are investigating that shooting and the Delaware Street shooting as two separate incidents.
Klundt lived in the house with his brother, Levi Klundt, friends and acquaintances said. The two had lived there since last summer. Levi was not at the house when the shooting occurred. The brothers often had friends over, and they were pet lovers. They sometimes had several cats, a dog and ferrets, friends said.
Ryan Storck described Roland Klundt as one of the most interesting people he's ever met and a whiz at math.
"He was so alive until a few days ago," Storck said. "I still can't believe he's gone."
"Things like this shouldn't happen to people like Roland," said Ryan Townes, another friend.
In McLouth, Hauk's relatives also were grieving. He had a huge family, including his mother and two little brothers, said his aunt, Kobi Shelton. He also had a young daughter.
"Unfortunately, all it takes is meeting one bad person to make something go bad in his life," she said. "He is a good-hearted, good kid who has a strong, loving family behind him."
Jamie Stauch, a longtime family friend, agreed.
"People make bad choices, but that doesn't sum up their life," she said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
igby (anonymous) says…
Which one is which?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
swhite (anonymous) says…
the photo on the top is the person they found on the porch and the bottom picture is of the person who lived at the house with his brother and was shot inside.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
I've said it many times before: we are too permissive around the matter of addictions in our culture. All these posts about how he was a great guy, etc. are probably true, and if not for drugs (obviously), he'd still be a great guy. But now he's dead.When we decide that all addictions are bad, we'll be able to stop building prisons. Until then, we need to get used to this kind of news story.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Some of the posts have been removed this morning. I don't remember any of them using naughty words. Was it because they revealed too much?
none2 (anonymous) says…
Did they ever say if the 16 year old was able to reclaim his Playstation console (or whatever it was) that the occupant's must not have given back to him?
cs1234 (anonymous) says…
Its interesting how the family is saying that it only takes one bad person to make something go bad in his life. It kinda seems like they are pointing blame at the 16 year old.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
I would say it only takes meeting two bad people to destroy a life. That is why Roland in not with us today. Who cars about the killers playstation it's not like he can have it in prison. I have doubts he had anything over there to begin with, but if the playstation belonged to the killer I would smash it in a million pieces. Playstations are nothing compared to a life.
Statutory_Ape (anonymous) says…
Jones is charged with two counts of murder which indicates that he shot both Roland and Gage. That's kind of interesting. I wonder what went so horribly wrong that caused Jones to kill both his victim and his accomplice.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
"Unfortunately, all it takes is meeting one bad person to make something go bad in his life," she said. "He is a good-hearted, good kid who has a strong, loving family behind him."Wrong. It's called free will. We've all met "bad people" in our lives. If the fortuity of meeting one bad person is capable of profoundly changing a life, then all of us would be thieves, drug dealers, addicts, rapists, and murderers.
Statutory_Ape (anonymous) says…
edit. Nevermind.
Bossa_Nova (anonymous) says…
this was all because of a stupid playstation? that's ludicrous!
cs1234 (anonymous) says…
Ape , I dont think he killed both. The law says that if any accomplices die in the act of a felony that you get charged with their death also
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
No the police already said Rolland shot Gage and that Kellam shot Roland. The second murder charge on Kellam is based on existing law which states a person can be charged with murder in the commission of a felony. The District Attorney used that law to add Gage's murder to Kellam's charges.
cs1234 (anonymous) says…
its called pointing blame to save the memory. Too bad it wont work. Are they going to release the picture of the 16 year old?
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
If you have a Central Jr High or Freestate High year book You will find a picture of him there.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says:"this was all because of a stupid playstation? that's ludicrous!"===========================Bossa_Nova, I was being facetious. What would excite a 16 yo and and 18 yo to break in to a 20 yo's home at 2:45am and be willing to kill someone over. None of it makes sense. This was a senseless robery and senseless murder.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…
Roland rushed my fraternity at Baker. Such a quiet, reserved kid, as I remember, but always very nice.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
The problem with the felony murder charge for Gage is that when the actual death is the result of the lawful act of a third party, felony murder doesn't apply. So when a resident of the home being invaded lawfully kills one of the intruders in self-defense, the surviving intruder cannot be convicted of felony murder for that death.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
The problem with the felony murder charge for Gage is that when the actual death is the result of the lawful act of a third party, felony murder doesn't apply. So when a resident of the home being invaded lawfully kills one of the intruders in self-defense, the surviving intruder cannot be convicted of felony murder for that deathI don't think thats the case. At least, its not what I was taught in law school, ebyrd, but I could be wrong.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
State v. Sophophone from 2001. There was a companion case as well. I want to say Murphy, but I don't promise that's right. Sophophone is the lead case anyway. Sophophone involved a shooting of a co-conspirator by a cop. The other one involved a home invasion, self-defense shooting by a resident. I don't have the cites off the top of my head. But trust me, those cases are the law in Kansas.
Bossa_Nova (anonymous) says…
none2, thanks for clearing that up. i almost had an anuerizm (is that how its spelled?) when i saw that.
Take_a_letter_Maria (anonymous) says…
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/03100... is a story on the case cited by ebyrd.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
Wow. Substantive, informed discussion on this thread. I'm impressed.It's just not grabbing me though...I'm going back to the other threads. I need my morning fix of uninformed snap judgments, rumor, speculation, hearsay, namecalling and anonymous threats.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
july241983 (anonymous) says…
"The law allows someone to be charged with murder in the commission of a felony even if the murder wasn't committed by their hand."______________________There was a good Frontline episode a while back about the number of juveniles who are serving life sentences for "felony murder"- where they did not kill anyone, but only participated in a crime where someone died. It is quite interesting that if Jones had committed second-degree murder, and intentionally killed Klundt, without any criminal history, his sentence would be about 10 years. But if Jones committed the robbery with Hauk, and Hauk killed Klundt, Jones can get a life sentence. Thus, intentional murder gets you way less time than "felony murder" - even where you had no intent to kill anyone.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
TheSychophant....since youve been to law school, isnt it true that a juvinile CAN get the death penalty? And in order to qualify for it there would need to be medigating circumstances, which in this case there are, since the murder was commited int he commission of a felony?? I read yesterday that the bloggers were saying no way a juvinile could ge tthe death penalty, but thats just not true is it??
Take_a_letter_Maria (anonymous) says…
Just to make you feel better geniusman - You're mama's so ugly she makes onions cry!!! :-)
july241983 (anonymous) says…
diva - Roper v. Simmons says juveniles cannot be executed. It was a 2005 case (l believe) from the US Supreme Court.
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
I knew Gage, in fact he was a good friend. He did do stupid things in his life. Now I am not saying that what he did was right in any sense. What I am saying though is that he was a good person, He just did a bad thing. In a perfect world no one would die, but i don't wish death upon anyone, no one should.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
July......http://www.pilc.net/PDF/oppbrf.PDFLast June, in Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Court narrowly ruled against the execution of William Wayne Thompson, who was 15 years old at the time of his crime, in effect making 16 the minimum age for execution in the United States. The next day, the Court agreed to consider the Wilkins case, and by extension, whether it would spare 16-year-old offenders as well. But the closely divided plurality in the Thompson case left in doubt the Court's future direction in the ''juvenile death penalty'' cases which now constitute the cutting edge of capital punishment litigationhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950de5da1e38f931a25750c0a96f948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1**************************************************************I was just wondering since this info is out there, if the guy could get the death penalty if it was sought out??
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
Diva, the NYTimes article you cited was from 1989. July is absolutely correct that the US Supreme Court has outlawed all executions of anyone under the age of 18.Furthermore, there is no way that this crime could be a capital crime in Kansas.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…
It's my understanding that Kansas has a longstanding refusal to impose the death penalty on juveniles, even though in all technicality they could in this instance.
july241983 (anonymous) says…
Here is a summary of Roper v. Simmonshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says: "The problem with the felony murder charge for Gage is that when the actual death is the result of the lawful act of a third party, felony murder doesn't apply."It is a possibility. The Kansas Supremes have ruled that "a felon may not be convicted of felony murder pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3401(b) for the killing of his co-felon, caused not by his acts or actions but by the lawful acts of a law enforcement officer acting in self-defense in the course and scope of his duties in apprehending the co-felon, who was fleeing from an aggravated burglary in which both felons had participated."http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2001/20010309/82647.htmWhile the facts are not identical it is hard to imagine a homeowner acting lawfully in self defense would reach a different result than a LEO acting lawfully in self defense.I agree with the dissenting justices, "The majority has opened a Pandora's box and left the law grossly unsettled. It does not take much imagination to see a number of situations where a death is going to result from an inherently dangerous felony and the majority's opinion is going to prevent the accused from being charged with felony murder."
july241983 (anonymous) says…
and dweez, KS could not impose the death penalty for this case.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
Oh yes, everyone knows Gage. "he was a good friend" "He would do anything for you" " He did stupid things" WTFudge? you kidding right? Did anyone really know this guy or I guess he was a criminal in a secret/second life he was living. When you walk into a situation with the intent to take(anything) AND you are armed, thats a real big "stupid life moment". Pay the Piper. Like I said earlier, No sympathy and No mercy for the perpetrators. They might not have gotten what they wanted but they got what they deserved. Don't think I am pulling this stuff out of my rear. Don't think I am spouting off like this because I feel like being Nancy Grace for a day. I KNOW he was a criminal and I KNOW he wasn't a great guy, and I KNOW they BOTH deserved what they had coming to them
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
And gosh, the very next comment after mine.... I'd call it ironic if it weren't genuinely expected.The death penalty is not an option in all (or even most) murder cases in Kansas. There have to be specific circumstances that raise murder to capital murder. In Kansas, those circumstances include intentional murder:1) in the commission of kidnapping (or various offenses related to kidnapping)2) by agreement or contract with a third party (murder for hire, for example)3) by an someone who's incarcerated4) during the commission of a rape (or various other sexual assault-type crimes)5) of a police officer6) of more than one person at the same timeYou cannot face the death penalty for a crime committed while under the age of 18, after the Supreme Court's 2005's Roper case.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
Sigmund, there is a second case that was decided on the same day as the one you've cited. Sophophone, the one you cite, deals with a leo committing the act. The other case, Murphy, does deal with self-defense by a resident of a home during a home invasion. They have already said that the co-conspirator cannot get felony murder for the lawful self-defense act of a home owner.
dolhingirl212002 (anonymous) says…
people are responsible for there own actions and i dosen't matter who they are with you can choose what path you take all 3 men knew who they where with and they all choose to hang out together and look at the out come people are better off if they just stay to themselfs then they don't have to worry about the people they call friends getting trigger happy
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
OK thanks guys! I was just wondering if this would or could qualify....and now I have the answer! I am aware of the Heath Wilkins case as I went to school with the guy, so thats why I wondered if ks could give it or not.
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
I don't know about the other kid. But I know you are wrong.
Fatty_McButterpants (anonymous) says…
Ironically, if you look at Gage's myspace page (a.k.a. "12 Gage"), the person sitting next to him in the picture looks a great deal like Roland Klundt. Hmm...
karmaxs3 (anonymous) says…
Try him as an adult. "kids" who use guns are absolutely old enough to go to jail forever. Parents who teach their children (through neglect or otherwise) that it's socially acceptable to kill people ought to be on trial as well. sick.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
ebyrd, thanks for updating me on the law. Apparently, the law has been clarified since my law school days. Are you an attorney, or simply a well-informed layperson? In any event, you obviously know what you are talking about. Thanks for informing us all. And ksdiva, thanks for the question. Looks like several knowledgable folks have already answered it. First of all, Kansas has a very limited death penalty, and it appears that the circumstances of this case does not provide for such penalty. And even if the death penalty were applicable, the US Supreme Court, as noted by others above, has ruled it unconsitutional to execute a person for murder committed as a juvenile.
nevermind (anonymous) says…
Knew Gage and remember him talking about holding up a liquor store. Can't blame the other kid for Gage going along . If so every criminal would blame the other guy.
theonetheonly (anonymous) says…
I know the person who is next to Gage in the picture on his Myspace, and it is not Roland Klundt. How do you know Roland was defending himself? Gage was unarmed, Kellam was the one that was armed. I am not defending Gage or Kellam, but we still don't know all the facts. Maybe Roland knew Gage and Kellam (because we know they knew Levi Klundt) and Roland knew what they were there for, and didn't want them to have it so he shot Gage.My condolences go out to Gage's and Roland's family and friends. They were both victims in this.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
Theonetheonly wrote: How do you know Roland was defending himself? Gage was unarmed, Kellam was the one that was armed. I am not defending Gage or Kellam, but we still don't know all the facts"I think it is safe to assume, until we are provided with facts to the contrary, that when a home occupant shoots an assailant who invades his home at 3:00 a.m. , along with an armed comrade, that any shots fired were in self-defense. Come on, do you think Gage and Kellam were there to meeet Roland for an early morning hunting expedition.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
Another point, theonetheonly. If two intruders, one of them armed, burst into my home at 3:00 in the morning, and I have a shot gun, I wouldn't deliberately aim at the unarmed one. I would just point and fire towards both of them. I sincerley doubt Roland made a conscious effort to take out the unarmed one first. That would be absolute stupidity. My guess is that he noticed two intruders, at least one of them armed, and pointed and fired into the relative darkness of a unlit house at 3:00 a.m.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
"how do you know?" Maybe this, Maybe that. Maybe it is plain and simple. get high/get angry/ go commit Armed Robbery/ got shot/ ran away/ got caught. Simple. 2 criminals went in and 1 came out. Maybe they were criminals all along and every one denied it or thought it was "hot" or "cool". I knew they were wanna -be's from the begining. I never once denied it or held back my tongue. Maybe if more so called "friends" could have done the same this never would have happened. And as far as age, did he drive? Did he have sex? It is obvious he can commit murder during a robbery, Sounds like an adult to me. Stupid or smart, and adult never the less. If he had the balls to go through with some wanna-be gangster robbery, he needs to man up and face the hanging block. Sick indeed, sick indeed. This whole ordeal makes me sick to my stomach. Sick that this crap keeps on going on and on and on. Please, when will this stop. Are we not ashamed of ourselves and what this country is becoming. I am not that old, but I do remember when guns took over from knives and fists. I remember a time when we went outside to play as children and didn't have the choice of playing games or watching"Alpha-Dog" or "Scarface" But instead of doing anything first we need to debate the issues for 50 years before we can come to an educated solution. God bless American communication. America F#@* YEAH!
igby (anonymous) says…
Felony murder rules do apply since the resident was the home of the brother "Levi" which was the person who started the crimes by taking Gage's property. Even though, the 20 year old brother did the shooting to protect himself, both of them, Gage and Jones were there to continue the gang style revenge/collection. This is exactly a perfect example of the situation where as, the felony murder law was designed to go after and prosecute. Go back to law school.
theonetheonly (anonymous) says…
It may have been in self-defense. I'm not saying it wasn't. I think there are 2 possible scenarios (that are logical)1. Gage and Kellam entered Roalnd's house. Roland got scared and shot the first person he saw...without knowing if either one was armed. If he did know which one was armed, why would he shoot the one who wasn't?2. Roland knew why they were there, and was "defending" his brother and shot Gage. If Gage was found on the back porch of the home, he was either just getting there or trying to run away because he saw Roland had a gun. I have read that Gage was shot in the back (this was from other comments, I don't know where Gage was actually shot) so that would tell you that Roland shot Gage as he was running away from the house...trying to get away, and unarmed. I am not saying Gage was right in breaking into Roland's house. It was so very wrong, as well as going to his house with a 16-year-old that's packing heat. That was a stupid judgment on Gage's part, but he may not have deserved it. Breaking into someone's house doesn't mean they deserved to be shot. If Gage was threatening him, or harming him then maybe he deserved it but if he was running away Roland should have shot Kellam instead.
Shardwurm (anonymous) says…
Only three people know what happened that night and two of them aren't talking.We'll ever know what 'really' happened. We'll get one version of it...the one where the survivor blames the other two.
jonas (anonymous) says…
dolhingirl212002 (Anonymous) says: "If they just stay to themselfs then they don't have to worry about the people they call friends getting trigger happy."Your solution is to be a hermit? I guess that would work, but I don't think many people would be satisfied by it.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
The fact that Gage's body was found on the back porch does necessarily mean that he was standing on the back porch when he was shot. It is very possible he was shot inside the house, and then exited, in an attempt to escape further danger. Even a person fatally shot in the heart can stagger (or even walk) tens of yards before he collapses.
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
So the occupant just happened to have a gun handy at the time the two guys entered his home? I doubt it. Here is a very likely scenario:Gage and Kellam both showed up with guns. They entered the house and there was a struggle between the occupant and Gage. The occupant overpowered Gage and took his weapon. Realizing that he was now unarmed, Gage got scared and tried to escape out the back door. Occupant shot him and then got killed before he could defend himself against Kellam.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
Igby, before blithely tossing off phrases like "Go back to law school", you might want to, you know, figure out what you're talking about. Everything you just posted was completely wrong, except for perhaps the first sentence, which is so grammatically incorrect as to almost be devoid of meaning.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
I'm sorry, this is 2008 right? This is America right? When you go into a house at 3 am, armed, you deserve to get shot. If two people go into a house at 3 AM, but only one is armed, they deserve to get shot. Going into a situation like that with a loaded weapon is crossing that "life" line. You live by the gun, die by the gun. I friggn hate those types of sayings. I only want to make a simple situation more clear to those who float on the River Dee Nile. Once again, maybe this maybe that. Maybe Roland should have shot both of the thieving punks in the face and he should have lived. There, I feel better now that I have a Sherlock theory. I am trading in my pump shot gun for a semi- auto. h wait, this is Kansas. I think I will go and get me a fully auto assault rifle! america f#@$ yeah!
igby (anonymous) says…
Rolland, was hard to ID, which could mean shot-gun wound to the face. A rifle was found a block away. Gage, was shot in the back. These are facts. Now if the door was kicked in and Gage was the first in who kicked in the door he could of seen Rolland was armed and turned and was shot in the back. While Jones, armed with the shot- gun fired at Rolland. Jones, having empted the shotgun, picked up Rolland's rifle and ran with it dropping it a block away, after he was clear of the location. Jones may not of known who else that may of been there might shoot at him as he was leaving. Thats why he may of picked up Rolland's rifle and left with it, dropping it in the street a block away. His prints could have been on the rifle and therefore prompted him early arrest.
hjarrett (anonymous) says…
I am not perfect and neither are any of you. I didn't know any of the parties involved in this incident, I will not presume or assume anything . Everything known about the case is speculation at this point. I submit that judgement is soley up to God and the courts. Why don't we just leave it at that! No matter what happened, lives were lost and families ere hurt by this event. Have some respect and pray for those that were affected by this incident
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
Nice hjarret, god and courts. what a great pair. You waste you're own prayers. Don't tell me about respect, and keep your religion away from the law.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
your
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
excuse my bad grammer
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
excuse my bad grammar
igby (anonymous) says…
geniusmannumber1: Perhaps you should run for the DA's office, since you think their wrong filing felony murder charges.
nevermind (anonymous) says…
I have a shotgun for hunting and would hope to never use it for anything else ,but if some one was comming into my house armed or not at 2am I would have it out and ready. Pay back or not why would they be there at that time with a gun. Is a game system worth dieing for. How was the adult?Not the 16 year old.
sparkle4596 (anonymous) says…
Did anyone else pick up on that Gage apparently had a daughter? Saw it on his Myspace page, says he is a "Proud Parent" and "I love my daughter and my dog." Hopefully the daughter is in mom's care, since obviously dad wasn't very capable. The only 2 posts on his Myspace page are about 2 different kinds of drugs. I feel bad for the daughter.
theonetheonly (anonymous) says…
Gage did have a daughter. Parents make horrible mistakes sometimes. At least Gage wasn't involving his daughter in any of this. It was not a responsible choice on Gage's part, but his daughter was not involved. There are parents who do horrible things involving kids. Gage loved his daughter. The comments on his myspace were by some girl, they were not said/posted by Gage. A little girl lost her father, and regardless of the circumstances it's a very sad thing that happened.
Take_a_letter_Maria (anonymous) says…
Since you're speculating igby how about this scenario - Gage breaks down the door while holding the shotgun where he is confronted by Rolland. While the two of them are struggling for control of the shotgun, Jones fires trying to hit Rolland but hits Gage instead. During this struggle, the shotgun goes off removing Rolland's face and Gage stumbles out the back door while Jones runs away.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
Igby, as I have said all along, for the felony murder rule not to apply to Gage's death, the actual cause of his death must be the LAWFUL act of a third party.If Roland was part of some bigger fight between these two sides, there is a legit argument that his act of shooting Gage was not a lawful act of self-defense. Perhaps this is the theory under which the DA's office is operating. Presumably they know many more facts surrounding this case than we do.But, just because Roland's brother was involved in something, that doesn't mean Roland himself was. If Roland's brother got into it with Kellam and then Kellam came to Roland's house at 2:30 a.m. looking for Levi, well Roland is still entitled to use lethal force if necessary to defend himself. Roland isn't responsible for the actions of his brother simply because they're brothers. You might want to go back to law school to be reminded that guilt by association is not a viable theory of criminal liability.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
The moment he was involved in this was the moment his daughter was involved. What makes you think otherwise. She will have to live with this the rest of her life. Loved his daughter? Not enough to make her be in a situation where she has a father ALIVE obviously. That is sad, the fact that her father involved her and all families involved in this whole crappy ordeal.
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
"Now if the door was kicked in and Gage was the first in who kicked in the door he could of seen Rolland was armed and turned and was shot in the back."So the occupant just happened to be awake and waiting for them with a rifle in his hands at 3am? Hmmm. I'm sticking with my theory that Gage was armed and that the occupant struggled with him and gained control of the gun. Admittedly, I have nothing more than a couple years of watching "The First 48" as my forensic training.Also, where did you see that Gage was shot in the back? I read that they found him on the back porch, but it doesn't say if he was shot there or if he was shot in the chest and then collapsed as he tried to exit the house.
MattressMan (anonymous) says…
theonetheonly (Anonymous) says: "Breaking into someone's house doesn't mean they deserved to be shot."Riiiiiiight, I get it now, he didnt need to defend himself or property when they came in with a gun, he could have just reached for that bucket of nerf balls and forced the intruders out of his home.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
that's it mattressMan! Now you're are getting it. I think that you should do nothing and lay down on your back so they can walk in with out any type of aggression. What would happen if one of those nerf balls hit the intruder in the eye? Maybe a revenge hit on your family for throwing the nerf balls at them.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
All I know is there is something in the water out there in Mclouth. I got a "Message from xXxXx via LJWorld.com" The contents are not fit for publication on the site but I have to say there is some serious problems in that one's brain functioning. Those people over there really believe Gage was just a good ole boy victim. From the message I got I suspect they are breeding some dangerous elements.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Can someone please answer just what was so important to take at 2:45am with a gun? They seemed to "know" of each other at some level, so I would doubt that they scoped this place out thinking that there were valuable coins, jewelry, electronics, etc inside. What was worth SO much money that young men were willing to die for?
nevermind (anonymous) says…
Maybe Gage should have thaught about that like girl before trying to rob someones house. My kids are what keeps me on the right path. My one year old son got killed by someone I knew vary well (ex-sister in-law) and to this day I still wish vary bad thangs on them. So maybe evrey one should thank about Roland and his brother how has to go back to that house ,and his mom who will never see him again.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
Igby, Not knowing the facts beyond what was printed in the paper (and disregarding the hearsay/rumor/"inside info" on these message boards), I would not presume to offer an opinion on whether the DA is "wrong" to file felony murder charges.However, others on this board have pointed out that you cannot be convicted of felony murder for the death of your co-felon during the course of the felony is the law in Kansas. You have been provided irrefutable evidence that this is the case. The only conceivable argument against it* is the argument you made: "Nuh uh. I don't care about your fancy 'laws'. Yer stupid. i'm covering my ears! i can't hear you! la la la!" At your option, you may add a few sentences that indicate you have no idea what "felony murder" means, and that you are therefore participating in a conversation in which you are completely unequipped to add anything of substance or meaning.*Actually, one speculation not entirely outside the realm of possibility is that charges may be filed in an attempt to overturn a 4-3 ruling from a court of different composition. But I don't think you mentioned that.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
If I were to guess going from the comments made on this board by the Gage team and the things I have heard about the past few months leading up to this. I would have to say those boys were out to hurt the younger brother. I was told there was an incident a couple months ago where a few of them had beaten up the younger boy and hit him in the face with a pipe. I was told the police have been informed of this incident and hope that is true. Tere has been talk that the same boys had stolen from the house before. Makes me wonder why the neighbors didn't notice people taking things out of the house since they seemed to watch the traffic in and out. I still maintain both the brothers were good kids. It is true they knew some not so great people but they both did well in school and other activities.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
You are right littlegrace. You see, I know that area and I know those people. I realized how blind and idiotic people are in their little home town world. They could have been involved and it will still be all right to them. Justice from a home town. Those city foke don't know what they gettin themselves into? Did they threaten a Mclouth gang was going to find you? Did they watch "Next Of Kin" last night and get some good ideas?
daddax98 (anonymous) says…
game, set and match to geniusmannumber1that was some good stuff
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
loki8025I am not in the slightest worried about some country bumpkin punks who want to play hard ball. I'v been pitching for a good while now myself.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
little grace -- ;)
none2 (anonymous) says…
So now we hear the younger occupant got hit in the face earlier. Why? Did he call one of them a "fag"? Did he do damage to their property or steal from them before this weekend? Did he try to rape one of their sisters? Did he insult one of their mothers'? This makes no sense why someone was out to get the brother who wasn't there.
nevermind (anonymous) says…
I grew up in a little town close to McLouth and understand everyone is like famliy but no one has a right to rob someones house. Use your brain most people have guns and will shoot if made to.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
I am glad this is out in public forums like this. Maybe the whole idea of public humiliation as a form of punishment and a form of "tough love", will get some people to understand what they are doing. Some people live their whole lives in a small town thinking to themselves about how smart and righteous they are. It is sad good people ARE involved. It is sad that the crapholes who think they are unfairly portrayed truly believe they are victims as well.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
Hey thats a great idea for a movie. A brother does something. Dudes get pissed off. Dudes go to house and mess with his younger brother. Some one dies. I think I will call it "Alpha Dog" Man what imagination!! I can't wait for the royalties to come rolling through!
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
Don't get me wrong I had movies and TV when I was growing up. At least when we committed crimes there was cool leather jackets and song!! Alot of snapping of the fingers
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
That is true, But in all reality i don't know if it matters how it happened. I think it is more important to realize the pain the families are going through. Regaurdless of whos family two mothers lost sons, one girl lost a father, and many people lost a friend. So instead of saying they got what they deservered, and all this other bs...i think people need to realize what really matters.
yoornotmee (anonymous) says…
I went to junior high and high school with Roland. I just found out that he's dead via this article. That's so hard to believe. He was such a cool guy. We use to eat lunch together in junior high. Why him? Why not some worthless loser? He was a person worth having around. I always enjoyed talking with him. He was so smart. I'm gonna miss him.
none2 (anonymous) says…
So posters started with trashing people from bigger cities like Topeka and KCK for being Thugland, USA. Now we have posters trashing small towns like McLouth for being Hatfield & McCoy territory... No wonder people from outside of Lawrence find Lawrence distasteful. We hear nothing but condescending attitudes from residence towards anybody that is from anywhere else.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
BS? The last time I payed attention I was still in America. You are right about the "deserves" and other BS. I am going on a limb here and will admit to being a hypocrite. I am over the deserves and got what they had coming to them phase. Although I will not back down on that stance I will agree there are other things that matter.For instance, what the &%$# is going on?? Why this massive crapstorm of stupidity and violence. What can we do to stop it? I mean, even a little bit? think of the children!!!!
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
Those posters you speak of. Where are they? I want some!
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
I have told each and every person who has relayed a story to me to contact the police department. The police can then determine what is useful from there. Honesty i do not think people talking or not talking will ease or increase the pain one way or the other. When someone is murdered there is no relief at least not in the immediate future.The child keeps being thrown out there like some kind of token. The thing I think of first is that every time someone from Gage's team brings her up then Rolands family is forced to think how Roland will never be a father. There again my empathy goes to the real victims in this case Roland and his family. So far in all the topics related alot of previous information has been supplied with proof about Gage and his past none of it good. All anyone can say about Roland is he was a good kid, a soldier. a student, intelligent..... There is no history of illegal activity or wrong doing related to Roland. Yet the Gage team keeps coming in and talking trash, making snide remarks about drugs. I will ask again if there were drugs involved why did the police not find drugs and why was it not noted in the reports and the press conference?
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
See I am old and when you said poster I thought you meant like" Poster" of paper on the wall thang. excuse.
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
Yea and so am i which means i have a right to call it bs. But i also know that no matter what we do violence isn't going to stop it has been going on since the dawn of time. Now i am not saying that we shouldn't do things to prevent it. There are just certain things i beileve should be left unsaid. Such as comments..."Why not some worthless loser." I mean just because you know a person doesn't mean that you should wish that on anyone else in any way.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
I wish Roland would have gotten the 16 year old too. I am also still wondering about the white car the neighbor saw leave the scene. Is it too much that I wish them ill too? If you think it is that is just too bad for you.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
It would be nice if we focused on the real victim in this case--Roland and his family. While posters are arguing ad infinitum back and forth whether Gage "deserved" to die, one fact remains beyond dispute: Roland died the innnocent victim of an armed home invasion. May he rest in peace, and may his family come out of this terrible tragedy intact.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
I hear ya.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
That is my point exactly. Roland had a promising future ahead of him that he worked very hard for and because of some worthless people who had no future Roland is gone. I am sick of hearing how everyone should mourn those who caused this pain.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
So my thoughts on this now are this: I believe it is a terrible legacy that Gage left his daughter, she has to grow up knowing, that her father tried to rob someone and was killed in the process. You can wrap it up anyway you want too and sprinkle fairy dust on it all day long, but it will never change the fact that the legacy left her by her father, is what it is.............God bless that baby as she is the only innocent one in all this!
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
I think the child is far better off now then she was on Saturday before 2:45 a.m.
igby (anonymous) says…
geniusmannumber1: You should look at the case history here in Douglas County. The killing of the Rayton kid on Norwood Lane. All four intruders were charge and convicted of Felon Murder. When you graduate from law school may you'll get a job in the DA's office where they can show you how it was done. I been around a long enough to know this in a felony murder case.
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
In all honesty he could be guilty of something..we don't know the whole story. So whatever we want to believe of any of the people involved is purely based on how we knew them personally.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
So far there is no evidence Roland was guilty of anything. The police have done a pretty good job of getting the facts in this case. Your post is yet another snide stab at the real victim in the case.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
Yeah what is up with this "Felony Murder" thang LawDogs? The paper said that they were going to charge him with the Felony Murder count. And if so, would that mean he would do life no parole?
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
No its not, i am not saying he did anything wrong at all. Nor am i saying Gage and the other aren't guilty and that they got the consequences of their actions. Everyone is just ready to jump at the others thoarts because they knew one person. I went to School with Gage and i knew he made dumb choices. So finding this out really wasn't a shock. I also don't know roland or how he was involved with him. None of us know exactly what took place so i am not saying he is guily or innocent.
my2girls (anonymous) says…
I don't know any of these boys and I have to agree with littlegrace. Roland was in his own home. There should be no reason for those 2 boys to come to his house armed at that time of morning. We had a man try to get into our home at 6:00am one Sunday morning. I have never been so scared in my life. Thankfully he was a drunk at the wrong address. We don't have a gun but if we did it may have been used that morning.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
I did know Roland but if you need proof check this quick link out. http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?q=Rol... You will find that his name was all over the news for good and right things. His brother is in there too. I am sure you have already seen the links conected to your friend Gage.
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
I know i would kill anyone that would be coming in my house...although i also know if it was someone i knew it probably wouldn't be my fastest reaction.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
Igby,Since you appear to be incapable of comprehension, I will lay this out for you in bite sized pieces.The incident I assume you're referencing (the only robbery-murder on Kenwood in 1998) is the death of Jimmy Johnson.At that time, there was no clear law regarding felony murder under those circumstances.Judge Fairchild dismissed the felony murder charges. The state appealed.In 2001, the Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, agreed with Fairchild.That case is now binding legal precedent--aka the law of Kansas.Therefore, that is most certainly not an example of felony murder.You could have gotten that information by:1) Looking it up on the internet.2) Attending law school yourself.3) Reading any of the helpful links that some more informed posters left for you earlier--you know, the ones you dismissed by saying "Nuh uh."4) Pulling your head out of...er, the sand.I certainly hope you're not a lawyer, igby. Cause you'd be a terrible one.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Noneshallbe (anonymous) says…
And people wonder why there is violence...
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
thank you, genuismannumber1. I was a little late in responding to Igby. Maybe I was just too stunned that he was using the very incident that gave rise to the precedent we have been citing all day to argue against the existence of the precedent.See, Igby, one of the defendants in that case where Jimmy Johnson died was named Maurice Murphy. That would be the defendant who gave name to the Supreme Court case of State v. Murphy that set out the principle that a defendant cannot be convicted of felony murder when the actual cause of death was the lawful act of a third person.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
If anyone out there still cares about it, that felony murder ruling doesn't apply if the victim was not acting lawfully--that is, if it wasn't a pure case of self defense. For example, in a 2003 case (Bryant), a guy's and his buddies tried to rip off a drug dealer, and the drug dealer shot one of his buddies. They tried to argue that felony murder didn't apply, but the Supremes held that since the drug dealer wasn't acting lawfully--that is, not in self defense, or as a police officer making an arrest--he could be charged with felony murder.Let me make this clear--this is not what I'm saying happened here. Again, I have no personal knowledge about this incident. I offer this up merely as one more possibility, and if anything, it should serve to reinforce the notion that we should realize that all we're doing is speculating when we don't have all the facts.BTW--you don't need to be a lawyer to look up this info. www.kscourts.org has all the cases from the last 15-20 years or so. Some searching skills and reading comprehension skills is all it takes.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
Tink we are all so sorry for your family's loss. I have been in pure disgust since I heard the news. I'm sorry about my vigilanance in posting but this whole thing just angers me.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
littlegrace- good one. Honor roll and such.my2girls- I feel for you. I was not home at the time but I also had a home invasion. I live in the country with my wife and we have a couple of real good farm dogs. They were inside at the time and kept the intruders from coming into the house. They shot my door open with a shot gun. Stole my truck. I am happy myself or my wife wasn't there. My wife was taught to shoot first and don't even ask. Only foe would come into a house like that and she is not afraid of grabbing the largest gun near her and pulling the trigger.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
geniusman, you're braver than I am for getting into the contours of Bryant. I tried to get into that a little bit with my first response to Igby, but decided that trying to explain the facts of Bryant got more complicated than it was worth.You and I may be the only two posters who are really this interested in the depths of felony murder analysis.
costello (anonymous) says…
I'm interested in the felony murder analysis, and I appreciate all the info. I also admire your ongoing attempts to explain it to someone who can't or won't understand. You have more fortitude than I!
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
With my limited searching skills and below average reading comprehension I am still reading K.S.A. 21-3401(b)
Baille (anonymous) says…
State v. Murphy, 270 Kan. 804, 19 P.3d 80 (2001)"After defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and kidnapping, the District Court, Douglas County, Robert W. Fairchild, J., imposed downward dispositional departure sentence, and state appealed. The Supreme Court, Larson, J., held that: (1) downward departure was supported by substantial and compelling reasons, and (2) defendant could not be convicted of felony murder for killing of his co-felon by lawful acts of victim."Although well-briefed and argued by both parties in this appeal, the question reserved by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3) is substantially similar to the facts and issue in a direct appeal of a felony-murder **84 conviction. See State v. Sophophone, 270 Kan. 703, 19 P.3d 70 (2001)."In both Sophophone and this case, the death of a co-felon occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony as enumerated in K.S.A. 21-3436, which is referred to by K.S.A. 21-3401(b)."In Sophophone, the killing resulted from the lawful act of a law enforcement officer. In Murphy, the killing resulted from the lawful act of a victim of the aggravated robbery and kidnapping acting in self-defense for the protection of his residence and the occupants thereof."The reasoning for our findings and rulings in Sophophone are adopted as our decision herein. Additionally, the State here attempts to raise a vicarious liability theory that was not presented to the trial court either in response to Murphy's motion to dismiss or during the hearing on that motion. The argument is based on a California decision, People v. Supreme Court (Bennett), 223 Cal.App.3d, 1166, 273 Cal.Rptr. 71 (1990), which involved a different statute and charge than ours, and has no merit."
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
sorry, my sarcasm is not productive at all.
Baille (anonymous) says…
State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, 67 P.3d 121 (2003)"In Sophophone, this court reversed the defendant's conviction for felony murder based upon the underlying felony of aggravated burglary. During the commission of the burglary, the defendant, along with three others, scattered when police officers arrived **129 at the scene. The defendant was tracked down, secured with handcuffs, and placed in a police car. Thereafter, a police officer chased another of the burglars. The other burglar shot at the police officer, who returned fire, killing the burglar.On appeal, the defendant argued that under the Kansas felony-murder statute, he could not be criminally responsible for the killing because he was in custody at the time of the killing, thus, there was a " 'break in circumstances' sufficient to insulate him from further criminal responsibility." 270 Kan. at 705, 19 P.3d 70. However, the majority disagreed that this was the issue, finding instead the issue to be "whether [the defendant] can be convicted of felony murder for the killing of a co-felon not caused by his acts but by the lawful acts of a police officer acting in self-defense in the course and scope *613 of his duties apprehending the co-felon fleeing from an aggravated burglary." 270 Kan. at 705, 19 P.3d 70. The court found that the defendant could not be so convicted. 270 Kan. at 713, 19 P.3d 70."In State v. Murphy, 270 Kan. 804, 19 P.3d 80, this court held that a co-felon shot by the victim of the underlying felony supporting the felony-murder charge cannot be liable for the death of that co-felon."The causal connection required by LaMae is discussed in State v. Hearron, 228 Kan. at 696, 619 P.2d 1157:'Time, distance, and the causal relationship between the underlying felony and the killing are factors to be considered in determining whether the killing is a part of the felony and, therefore, subject to the felony-murder rule. Whether the underlying felony had been abandoned or completed prior to the killing so as to remove it from the ambit of the felony-murder rule is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury to decide.'"
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says: "You and I may be the only two posters who are really this interested in the depths of felony murder analysis."Ahem *cough* Objection! BTW, I haven't been able to respond very quickly today, but I have an interest. Agency or strict liability? I would think that "inherently dangerous felony" language in the statute argues for strict liability. However, the Kansas Supreme Court disagrees but lots of states would agree with me.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
What do folks continue to say things like Gage "made poor choices in his life." CAll a spade a spade. He was a willing participant in an armed home invasion and paid the ultimate consequence. No more, no less.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
I'll second that and add You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
sows ear YEAH!!!
sugarmagnolia (anonymous) says…
instead of throwing around accusations and coming up with theories that no one can prove why doesn't everyone just take the time to realize something horrible happened. regardless to whose fault it was, or who was to blame. whether it was self defense or not, this is a true tragedy. someone who is not even old enough to vote, someone who is barely old enough to hold a job was involved in something so horrible. and two people whose lives had barely begun will never get to finish them. let the police do their job of figuring out what happened to the best of their abilities, your accusations and theories won't help at all.RIP both Roland And Gagemay the tragic way your life was ended help others to change their own lives
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
"He is a pretty good boy"????? nice, and the other just met 1 wrong person. That's all it took.
none2 (anonymous) says…
loki8025 (Anonymous) says:"littlegrace- good one. Honor roll and such.my2girls- I feel for you. I was not home at the time but I also had a home invasion. I live in the country with my wife and we have a couple of real good farm dogs. They were inside at the time and kept the intruders from coming into the house. They shot my door open with a shot gun. Stole my truck. I am happy myself or my wife wasn't there. My wife was taught to shoot first and don't even ask. Only foe would come into a house like that and she is not afraid of grabbing the largest gun near her and pulling the trigger."===============================Your story seems surreal. You would never think it would happen around here. Those are always stories you think happen to someone in a much bigger city, or in the distant past days of the wild west. Thank God no one was home or no one got killed including your dogs. Did they ever catch the criminals? Did you ever get your truck back?A big story back in western Kansas years ago was the family on the farm near Holcomb, Kansas (near Garden City and also the town with all the coal plant issues). We have all heard about this crime because it was made famous by Truman Capote when he wrote "In Cold Blood". Two evil guys thought they would get a lot of money from a farm family, and they killed them all -- literally in cold blood. It happened on 15-Nov-1959. I guess it doesn't matter where and when you live, there is an element that has total disregard for human life.
igby (anonymous) says…
ebyrdstar: In the appellant brief, there was mention of evidence that the shooter Trampas Hutchinson, was in fact still engaging in the commission of a felony, even though he was placed under duress during the home invasion by Johnson/Rayton, and his three companions, two of which were holding weapons. Hutchinson, offered to return drugs or money and invited Johnson down the hallway into a bedroom where he reached into the top of a dresser and turned and fired two shots at Johnson. This is still a drug deal. Therefore, the 4 to 3 vote was mitigated. I would not rule out that these justices knew of this evidence and some may have viewed it as an ongoing transaction. I would not consider this ruling law just yet. Therefore Branson's office does not as well, or the charges would not be as such. If we go any deeper than that, you might learn that Hutchinson, fired two more rounds into Johnson to make sure he was dead, after the other three had ran out of the house.
littlegrace (anonymous) says…
Looks like the trial will be moving pretty quick. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun...
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
YEAH, Shawnee county sheriff caught a 18 year old Berryton kid. Multiple offender. Meth and armed robbery. First robbery out here in a decade. And with the massive meth movement people are on extra edge out here. Everyone owns a weapon here. Most people shoot at any animal that even crosses the yard let alone any human that would be out there. More than likely that will be the reason for any cranky farmers you meet if you go for a country drive. We work hard enough to live the nice life that I have made for myself. I will and my wife will, defend to the the death not only the right to live but the right to protect our home. Don't get me wrong, I would rather them take my TV or any of my property, ANY, before they did harm to my self or my wife. Yet if there is no choice , then both of us are willing to pull the trigger with no regrets. And if that doesn't dissuade a thief from trying something like this I really don't know what will.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
Igby,Finally! Thank you! Something resembling analysis. Of course, I disagree with you that "I would not consider this ruling law just yet", insofar as it is, in fact, the law of Kansas. But if you're trying to say that it could, conceivably, be overturned...I can't argue against that. Non-unanimous opinions are rare enough in Kansas that I don't have a big enough sample size accurately assess the chances of that happening. This is coupled with the fact that, viewed objectively (not "I disagree with this ruling, therefore that judge has a liberal/conservative bias"), with one (unnamed) sometimes-exception, I don't feel the Kansas Supremes are very ideologically driven. That is, voting patterns are hard to discern.Also, if your point is that the Murphy case really was felony murder, but the higher court didn't take into account certain evidence, that's fine, but it doesn't change the ultimate outcome (or precedential value) of the case, and it doesn't transform it into felony murder (in Kansas).
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
igby (Anonymous) says: I would not consider this ruling law just yet. Therefore Branson's office does not as well, or the charges would not be as such. If we go any deeper than that, you might learn that Hutchinson, fired two more rounds into Johnson to make sure he was dead, after the other three had ran out of the house."If by "law" you mean both statutes and Supreme Court rulings like "State Of Kansas, Appellee, v. Sanexay Sophophone, Appellant." then it IS Kansas law for now.http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2001/20010309/82647.htmIf you are trying to distinguish Sophophone and its companion case based on the number of shots fired by a co-felon, best of luck. Still the DA will probably proceed as filed and after they have it dismissed prior to trial, they can appeal that decision. Supreme Courts everywhere abhor overruling themselves (even more than nature and a vacuum) and if this "loop hole" in the statute is to be closed it will be up to the legislature to rewrite it.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…
If you consider the somewhat fact-specific nature of the holding, as well as the split court, while it may be "controlling" law it isn't well entrenched. Which means it will be challenged, at least until the legal reasoning behind it is better articulated.
none2 (anonymous) says…
loki8025 (Anonymous) says:"YEAH, Shawnee county sheriff caught a 18 year old Berryton kid. Multiple offender. Meth and armed robbery...."=================Well I hope they threw the book at him and didn't try to pedal him off as a "good boy" who just made a simple mistake.Growing up in western Kansas (small town), we only locked the doors when we heard someone escaped Leavenworth or Landsing -- some 400 miles away. I guess those days are gone. You are right, you have no choice but to defend yourself. You would just like to think that most threats are from far away: terrorists half way around the world, religious fanatics in places like Waco, but nothing in your home state, your home county, your own home. Why respect for life & property is so low, is beyond me. However, it isn't anything new I guess. I suppose I could understand it to some level if we had starving people on the verge of dying unless they robbed for a piece of bread and water. However, that isn't the case. It is pure stone cold disregard for others' lives and property.
igby (anonymous) says…
geniusmannumber1: Basically, my read on this ruling was that not any one wanted to establish ultimate-exception of what the true edict of a on going drug deal should be. Lol. Nor did four of the judges was to over-rule Fairchild, notwithstanding a re-trial. It's still clear as mustard.Remember that the felony murder statues were designed to prevent gang violence, which, however, it has done nothing to deter any of such activity.
TheSychophant (anonymous) says…
The ongoing discussion on the felony murder rule is indeed enlightening, and much more interesting than anything I encountered in law school. Nonethless, the analysis is only germane vis-a-vis the shooting death of Gage. The nuances have no relevance regarding the felony murder of Roland. And given the slim prospects of consecutive sentences based on the offender's age, the whole issue is probably moot. But still, an interesting discussion.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
igby (Anonymous) says: "Remember that the felony murder statues were designed to prevent gang violence, which, however, it has done nothing to deter any of such activity."Really? State v. Hoang discussed the felony murder statute in Kansas in 1988 and "modern" felony murder statutes go back to the 18th century.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_ruleCan anyone find State v. Hoang, 243 Kan. 40, 755 P.2d 7 (1988) online?
igby (anonymous) says…
Getting back to the matter at hand.It's really hard to kick in a door with a long gun in your hands.Some people would have to kick it 4 or 5 times. By then, Rolland would had time to grab a weapon and be at the ready. There was reports of rapid fire about 7 shots. This must of been a tense moment for all of them.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
You can't consider Murphy without considering Sophophone. Those two cases, taken together as the court intended them to be, yield one clear, non-fact-specific statement of the outer limits of felony murder liability in Kansas. When the actual cause of death is the lawful act of a third person, there is no criminal liability for felony murder. The holding is a clear rule that has been the law of the state for 7 years now.The legal reasoning in Sophophone is well-articulated. The Murphy case specifically cited that reasoning. There simply is no reason to think this won't remain the law. The district court has no choice but to follow this law. People can try and argue all they want, but this particular rule of felony murder in Kansas is as clear as it can be.
hjarrett (anonymous) says…
I dont know if it is obvious to anyone else but me, but the laws that we live by are based upon religious laws. That means that if take away all aspects of religion then murder is justified then what would we all have to speculate about?
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
If we let religion take over our laws that would be great. I am ready for another Inquisition. f course it HAS to be Christianity right? since this country was founded on the Christian faith right? Nice. I think I will turn the other cheek and forgive and let the bas#@#@ walk all over me and kill and rape and steal what ever they like
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
That wasn't nice. I am picking on Christianity. NO how about let Buddhism take over. Or lets just let all of the religions to come together and forget the differences and write better more religious laws. I feel the Taliban would be great for the job. They have had alot of practice lately with coming up with some great laws
none2 (anonymous) says…
loki8025 (Anonymous) says:"That wasn't nice. I am picking on Christianity. NO how about let Buddhism take over. Or lets just let all of the religions to come together and forget the differences and write better more religious laws. I feel the Taliban would be great for the job. They have had alot of practice lately with coming up with some great laws."--------------------------------------In a meeting of the worlds religions to come up with one set of rules, I would be afraid that we might end up with the Lords of Cobalt religion. Sure it might work out for most of us, but think of the poor Cylons. Some of the final five had nothing to do with any massive destruction of humanity in the colonies...What we really need is tolerance for all sentient beings..
loki8025 (Tim Stempien) says…
;)
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
none2 (Anonymous) says: "In a meeting of the worlds religions to come up with one set of rules, I would be afraid that we might end up with the Lords of Cobalt religion."I am sure that "Thou shall not kill" would make the top 10.none2 (Anonymous) says: 'What we really need is tolerance for all sentient beings.."My tolerance for others behavior stops at the door to my house.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Sigmund (Anonymous) says:"none2 (Anonymous) says: "In a meeting of the worlds religions to come up with one set of rules, I would be afraid that we might end up with the Lords of Cobalt religion."I am sure that "Thou shall not kill" would make the top 10."-----------------------------------It didn't work that way for everybody. Cylons have been shot, thrown out the air lock, stabbed, drowned, etc. So for them "thou shall not kill" had very little meaning.--------------------------------------"none2 (Anonymous) says: 'What we really need is tolerance for all sentient beings.."My tolerance for others behavior stops at the door to my house."------------------------------------------Surely you make exceptions for people that stop by at 2:45am. You don't want to be known as a party pooper.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
none2 (Anonymous) says: "Cylons have been shot, thrown out the air lock, stabbed, drowned, etc. So for them "thou shall not kill" had very little meaning."Having never met a Cylon (and unlikely ever to do so I might add) I suspect they of all people would have much meaning. Still they represent nothing more than a very fringe sect, and that is being kind.none2 (Anonymous) says: "Surely you make exceptions for people that stop by at 2:45am. You don't want to be known as a party pooper."Count me among the killing the little bastards crowd and then suing the parents for the cost of the door and the ammo.
freebird89 (anonymous) says…
dang, this is just overall sad.
zeddicus (anonymous) says…
I've been following this story. I can't believe how people are defending a robber and even calling him a victim. If you are breaking into a house, expect death to be a very real consequence, and deservedly so... no matter the circumstances that led to the break-in. I'm sure the dead robber was a decent person who only made dumb choices. I can certainly believe that. Hell, I might have liked the guy myself if I had ever met him. But you know what? Your actions define who you really are, and he was not a victim. Victims don't come to your door at 3 in the morning with a friend and a gun. Neither Gage or Roland should have died, that's true. And I feel sorrow for BOTH families. But Roland isn't to be blamed at all for this, even if you assume he knew them, argued with them beforehand, his little brother had a tangle with them, or sold drugs to them (which is an absurd assumption, especially since the police didn't find any drugs at the residence). Even if all those assumptions were true, still, all blame goes to the morons that decided it would be a swell idea to break into a house at 3 in the morning. Armed. Roland Klundt was the only innocent party here, the only one that shouldn't have died. The others involved chose their fate. Roland didn't get any choice in the matter. Jones, Gage, and any others involved chose his fate for him, and all living should be held accountable for the innocent person who was murdered.And whoever it will be proven pulled the trigger that night that resulted in Roland's death, then I hope that individual lives a long, hard life with a long, hard Bubba to keep him company at night.
jdmc (anonymous) says…
how does anyone know who had a gun and who didnt i assume that you werent there so dont act like you KNOW what your talking about two people there had a gun not three two. two people shot the guns not three, two. from everything ive heard those two people are the sixteen year old and roland nowhere have i read or heard that gage had a gun. Roland isnt anymore innocent than the sixteen year old and im not saying gage is completely innocent but out of the three who had the guns and who shot the guns .