not to excuse criminals, but...

So let me get this straight. A police officer shoots and kills a burglar. That killing is determined to be lawful and justified. The officer faces no punishment.

A burglar two blocks away is in police custody. He's sitting in handcuffed in a car while his partner is shot. The same killing is determined to be unlawful and unjustified. He faces murder charges without having firing a shot.


That strikes me as very wrong. A murder is an unlawful killing. If the killing was unlawful than the person who shot the victim (the police officer) should be charged along with the accomplice (the captured criminal). If the killing was lawful and justified, than no murder has taken place and no one should be charged. As I see it, it can't be a murder and not a murder at the same time.

This is where my objections come from, but when you put it like that a counterexample comes to mind. What if a stray bullet from an officer kills a bystander? The officer likely wouldn't be charged, so in relation to him the shooting would be lawful...but at the same time wouldn't the actions of the criminals have led to the shooting (obviously it would not have occurred but for their actions), and thus couldn't they be held responsible for it and it be found to be unlawful in regards to them?

As for it being murder and not-murder at the same time, I think that's part of the point of "felony murder" charges. Your commission of a crime led to a death, and whether it was intended or not and whether you actually killed the person or not you are responsible and it is defined as a murder. Obviously some kind of line needs to be drawn as too how loosely connected the death can be (again, the accidental death of an officer on his way to the scene is definitely on the other side of the big fuzzy line in my book) but the entire point is to hold criminals responsible for actions that are unintended, even out of their control, but that they are still ultimately responsible for. (Sorry to repeat myself there.)

Basically it's the idea that you can kill somebody indirectly. That you can be responsible for their death without actually holding the gun. I'm not sure I'm entirely opposed to the idea, and if we were talking about a bystander here rather than accomplice I'm not sure that I'd have given it a second thought.
 
We need more information about…

why the officers felt that they had to shoot the second perp who chose to run.

Am I a hardass for being totally fine with the concept of felony murder as it is usually constructed? If you go around with an associate holding up convenience stores and your associate ends up dying…too bad for you.

Of course, the suspect who didn't run would benefit from the competent lawyer that he can't afford (as evidenced by the fact that he was trying to rob a convenience store in the first place).

Oh well.
 
Am I a hardass for being totally fine with the concept of felony murder as it is usually constructed? If you go around with an associate holding up convenience stores and your associate ends up dying…too bad for you.
The difficulty derives from the police being exonerated from killing anyone associated with a crime, simply shifting blame onto the accomplice. It authorizes police executions on the spot, or at least within proximity to the original crime scene. It's particularly bad when there are no credible witnesses to contradict police testilying.
 
My first reaction was "that's not right", but I think that is only if you look at it outside of the charge: felony murder. If looked at as if it was an intentional act to kill his partner, it does seem wrong. But within the charge it's logical.

I'm not an expert on felony murder, but I believe it simply means you are responsible for all consequences of a criminal act that you freely initiated. Because the results would not have occurred without your criminal action.
It's like an accident you cause while drunk: you hit a car that spins out of control and that car kills a pedestrian. That death is a result of YOUR act, not the person driving the car you hit who spun-out. And you will be held accountable by law for the death I believe. Or simpler: if your restaurant fails to clean up grease that spilled, and a person falls and breaks their hip who already had difficulty walking, it's your fault, not the disabled person's who fell, because absent the spill they would not have fallen -

Think it works like that.
 
This is where my objections come from, but when you put it like that a counterexample comes to mind. What if a stray bullet from an officer kills a bystander? The officer likely wouldn't be charged, so in relation to him the shooting would be lawful...but at the same time wouldn't the actions of the criminals have led to the shooting (obviously it would not have occurred but for their actions), and thus couldn't they be held responsible for it and it be found to be unlawful in regards to them?


Good point. That gives me something to think about. I still stand by my position, but the reasoning is a little less clear now. Yes, I think the criminal should be punished in the case you presented.

The bystander in that example is just a victim of circumstance and didn't make any criminal decisions leading to their death. The criminal who was shot did make a criminal decision when he pulled a gun on a police officer (or whatever he did to deserve getting shot). The other criminal cannot be held accountable for that conscious decision.
 
Felony murder imposes criminal liability for the death of someone that occurs during or after the commission of a felony. It is not "strict liability" for any death that occurs. There are certain conditions that apply before criminal liability for the death of another may be imposed. You'll have to research the particular state law (statutory or common-law) to discern what the conditions are.
 
The less loop holes given to criminals, the better. On my wish list is a much bigger acceptance from the legal system when good civilians step in in a situation which is driven on by criminals, to stop it (beating, robbery, etc).
 
Here's some stuff explaining felony murder from Wiki:

The felony murder rule is a legal doctrine current in some common law countries that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when a victim dies accidentally or without specific intent in the course of an applicable felony, it increases what might have been manslaughter (or even a simple tort) to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an obviously dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.

According to most commentators, the common law rule dates to the twelfth century and took its modern form in the eighteenth century[citation needed]. Because the rule requires no intent to kill, or even to do bodily harm, it has been criticized as unjust[citation needed]. Accordingly, it was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1957 by the Homicide Act of 1957. In some jurisdictions (such as Victoria, Australia), the common law felony-murder rule has been abolished but replaced by a similar statutory provision. [1]

In reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions. To "qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote. If the receiver of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder. Furthermore, the merger doctrine excludes felonies that are presupposed by a murder charge. For example, nearly all murders involve some type of assault, but so do many cases of manslaughter. To count any death that occurred during the course of an assault as felony murder would obliterate a distinction carefully set by the legislature; however, merger may not apply when an assault against one person results in the death of another[2].

To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many jurisdictions in the United States explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviant sexual intercourse, arson, burglary, kidnapping, and felonious escape. Federal law specifies additional crimes, including terrorism and carjacking.

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the felony and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death.

Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.
 
Back
Top