4 ms·

What's the problem with the charges? Felony murder is serious business. Yeah, he didn't choose to kill anyone by his own hand directly, but he wantonly created

What's the problem with the charges? Felony murder is serious business. Yeah, he didn't choose to kill anyone by his own hand directly, but he wantonly created the felonious circumstances which directly led to someone's death. As for the "kidnapping", that's an understandable edge case for the legal definition entailing taking a human body (which may or may not have been legally dead at that particular point) without permission. I say committing major felonies sucks. Doesn't matter if he thought bank robbery was "harmless", it is and the consequences demonstrate why. Throw the law library at him.

Dylan16807 12y ago
When felony murder kills a bystander through recklessness, that makes sense. Felony suicide should not count as felony murder by the partners. He got himself killed.
- zaroth 12y ago
  Now when a cop shoots you while you are trying to rob a bank, it's suicide? This seems like a perfect example of felony murder.
  - refurb 12y ago
    I'm with you. If said person had not decided to commit a crime, the person would likely not have died. It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies. Maybe they shouldn't be charged with murder, but maybe manslaughter? Their actions directly contributed to the death of someone.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - caf 12y ago
      It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies. It's vastly different. The old person in your example is not a willing part of your crime. Frankly the concept is absurd. Innocent bystanders and responding law enforcement that are killed in the commission of the crime can be said to have been murdered, but willing participants have died primarily as a result of their own actions, which is not murder under any sensible definition.
      - refurb 12y ago
        Unfortunately the law frowns upon the death of anyone, regardless if they willingly did something to encourage it.
        caf 12y ago
        That is not entirely true. People may put in "Do not resuscitate" elections, people can be left behind to die on mountain climbing expeditions, people can be beaten to death in a boxing ring.
        refurb 12y ago
        Sure, there are exceptions, but I guess my point is that although people may voluntarily enter into an agreement, the law limits contracts where a person may be injured or kill. In other words, you and I could agree that if you don't pay me the $1000 I loaned you, I can break your legs, but I'll still get charged with assault if I do it.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >Now when a cop shoots you while you are trying to rob a bank, it's suicide? The euphemism is "suicide by cop", yeah. >This seems like a perfect example of felony murder. When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act. If you view punishment retributively, as a blood price that must be paid, that argument makes sense -- when you have multiple people available to take the cost, only one of them should need to (of course, if you view it that way, its hard to see how the person who died can, if felony murder has a blood price, be said to pay it.) But, while retribution is no doubt part of the basis of punishments in the American system, its not the sole basis. If two people act together to commit a murder directly, we punish them both as principles. If two people act together to commit a felony in which someone is one of them -- whether or not it is one of them -- why shouldn't both be fully liable (whehter or not both can be punished) for felony murder? A crime doesn't necessarily have only one principal, and when it has more than one, we don't generally only punish one. And if it has multiple principals and one of them is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, or immune to punishment for some other reason, that doesn't absolve the other principals of punishment. I don't see why felony murder, presuming that we should have it at all, should be an exception to that rule.
      - stickfigure 12y ago
        The law may work this way, but our social notions of justice do not. Talk to ten people on the street about the circumstances of this crime ("A and B rob a bank; B gets shot and killed"). Ask them how they feel about these two statements: 1) "It's A's fault that B got killed" 2) "It's B's fault he got himself killed" I doubt you will get much agreement with #1 (I would expect responses like "did A talk B into it?") and I'm pretty sure you will get lots of agreement with #2. The law (effectively #1) is incongruous with our prevailing notions of morality and responsibility.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > This seems like a perfect example of felony murder. Its literally a textbook example -- its one of the standard examples used in teaching the felony murder rule.

Dylan16807 12y ago

When felony murder kills a bystander through recklessness, that makes sense. Felony suicide should not count as felony murder by the partners. He got himself killed.

zaroth 12y ago
Now when a cop shoots you while you are trying to rob a bank, it's suicide? This seems like a perfect example of felony murder.
- refurb 12y ago
  I'm with you. If said person had not decided to commit a crime, the person would likely not have died. It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies. Maybe they shouldn't be charged with murder, but maybe manslaughter? Their actions directly contributed to the death of someone.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - caf 12y ago
    It's not different than if I were speeding recklessly, zoomed by some old person who gets scared, runs off the road and dies. It's vastly different. The old person in your example is not a willing part of your crime. Frankly the concept is absurd. Innocent bystanders and responding law enforcement that are killed in the commission of the crime can be said to have been murdered, but willing participants have died primarily as a result of their own actions, which is not murder under any sensible definition.
    - refurb 12y ago
      Unfortunately the law frowns upon the death of anyone, regardless if they willingly did something to encourage it.
      - caf 12y ago
        That is not entirely true. People may put in "Do not resuscitate" elections, people can be left behind to die on mountain climbing expeditions, people can be beaten to death in a boxing ring.
        refurb 12y ago
        Sure, there are exceptions, but I guess my point is that although people may voluntarily enter into an agreement, the law limits contracts where a person may be injured or kill. In other words, you and I could agree that if you don't pay me the $1000 I loaned you, I can break your legs, but I'll still get charged with assault if I do it.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >Now when a cop shoots you while you are trying to rob a bank, it's suicide? The euphemism is "suicide by cop", yeah. >This seems like a perfect example of felony murder. When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > When the deceased was committing a felony themselves, why can't they take 100% of their own felony murder charge? We don't need multiple people to face full consequences for a single act. If you view punishment retributively, as a blood price that must be paid, that argument makes sense -- when you have multiple people available to take the cost, only one of them should need to (of course, if you view it that way, its hard to see how the person who died can, if felony murder has a blood price, be said to pay it.) But, while retribution is no doubt part of the basis of punishments in the American system, its not the sole basis. If two people act together to commit a murder directly, we punish them both as principles. If two people act together to commit a felony in which someone is one of them -- whether or not it is one of them -- why shouldn't both be fully liable (whehter or not both can be punished) for felony murder? A crime doesn't necessarily have only one principal, and when it has more than one, we don't generally only punish one. And if it has multiple principals and one of them is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, or immune to punishment for some other reason, that doesn't absolve the other principals of punishment. I don't see why felony murder, presuming that we should have it at all, should be an exception to that rule.
    - stickfigure 12y ago
      The law may work this way, but our social notions of justice do not. Talk to ten people on the street about the circumstances of this crime ("A and B rob a bank; B gets shot and killed"). Ask them how they feel about these two statements: 1) "It's A's fault that B got killed" 2) "It's B's fault he got himself killed" I doubt you will get much agreement with #1 (I would expect responses like "did A talk B into it?") and I'm pretty sure you will get lots of agreement with #2. The law (effectively #1) is incongruous with our prevailing notions of morality and responsibility.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > This seems like a perfect example of felony murder. Its literally a textbook example -- its one of the standard examples used in teaching the felony murder rule.