Seems a bit of a stretch...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
No, he got off on burden of proof after the investigator/prosecution were shown to be cheating or lieing with regard to few small bits of evidence, and significant doubt made about the veracity of some other bits. If the prosecution has been caught even once lying, it is very hard to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the evidence doctrine of Falsa in unum, falsa in omnia is is reasonable and fair for a jury to doubt all evidence presented by a person caught in any falsehood or deception. I am a lawyer, and a rather anti crimminal pro prosecution one, and I can not fault that jury.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Krill
Californian law

Don't just fault California - almost every state enforces some formulation of the felony-murder doctrine. If you rob a hot-dog vendor with a kitchen knife and the resulting high-speed chase causes a drunk driver to accidentally runs over a pedestrian, for instance, you're technically as guilty of murder as Hannibal Lecter. In other words, don't go robbing anybody.

[Proteus_MST]

Does this also hold true if I don´t use a kitchen knife?

I.e. I go to the Hot Dog vendor, steal a Hot Dog (without threatening the salesman or using force) and the resulting high-speed chase causes a drunk driver to accidentally runs over a pedestrian

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Does this also hold true if I don´t use a kitchen knife?

I.e. I go to the Hot Dog vendor, steal a Hot Dog (without threatening the salesman or using force) and the resulting high-speed chase causes a drunk driver to accidentally runs over a pedestrian

The high-speed chase (evading arrest and reckless endangerment) is the felony that leads to the deaths, not stealing the hotdog.

And yes, in most states you're responsible for what happens during the commission of a felony unless it has absolutely nothing to do with you. Eg, if you rob a bank and a bank employee, who had been planning suicide for months, shoots himself on the roof, you might have an argument against a felony murder charge.

Don't just fault California - almost every state enforces some formulation of the felony-murder doctrine. If you rob a hot-dog vendor with a kitchen knife and the resulting high-speed chase causes a drunk driver to accidentally runs over a pedestrian, for instance, you're technically as guilty of murder as Hannibal Lecter. In other words, don't go robbing anybody.

This is misleading. The real lesson is, don't go on a high speed chase that endangers everyone on the road.

[Zevico]

I think felony murder has been abolished in England...some places in Australia too...seems a bit of a silly rule to me. No point to it at all. If it's murder, call it murder. If someone robs a place and accidentally kills someone in the process--that's manslaughter and robbery. In such cases judges can at impose cumulative sentences.

[Wiglaf]

So, let's say you're in crappy little England, rob a bank and hold hostages. The police show up and you won't come out. As the cops enter, they see you with a gun and fire, but they miss and kill a civilian.

In England, there's no blame on the criminal for that? What a screwed up little place. Those people are dead because of your serious breach of the law and disregard for the public's safety, not the police's. They only tried to help resolve the situation.

[Zevico]

Ack, made a mistake.
I'm not completely sure about England, so don't take my word for it there. In Victoria "felony" murder" is restricted to crimes that 'necessarily involve violence'--e.g. robbery. So yes, they would be guilty of 'Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence'. Same penalty as murder, different name.
You could charge them with murder regardless though--as the robbers were reckless as to the probability of death or GBH. Not really a popular charge in most cases as juries don't differentiate it with manslaughter a lot of the time--but if there's one place where it'd stick it's here.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So, let's say you're in crappy little England, rob a bank and hold hostages. The police show up and you won't come out. As the cops enter, they see you with a gun and fire, but they miss and kill a civilian.

In England, there's no blame on the criminal for that? What a screwed up little place. Those people are dead because of your serious breach of the law and disregard for the public's safety, not the police's. They only tried to help resolve the situation.

Wiglaf,

Different countries aren't crappy just because they aren't just like the US. Stop embarrasing the rest of us.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He chose to come unprepared to a gun fight.

That's why I live in a townhouse and I sleep upstairs. The invader is always unprepared.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


At fault of what?

There is NOT one universal "at fault".

You can be at fault of something and not at fault of something else.

Heck, both sides can be at fault of the same thing or of different things.

This isn't a Disney movie with the bad guys and the good guys and we just have to find which is which. I don't think anybody is arguing that the robbers should get away clean, the argument is whether they should be prosecuted for murder.

I said earlier in the thread that the robbers are at fault for everything.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
...we are not in the habit of putting dead poeple on the witness stand, it smells bad.

They tend to fall apart under pressure.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I'd charge him with ManSlaughter if he was tagging along/recruited into this thing. If he was the ring-leader then Murder might be apropriate (not that its possible to determine this after the fact). Oh and throw in that Attempted Murder on the kid too while thier at it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Does this also hold true if I don´t use a kitchen knife?

I.e. I go to the Hot Dog vendor, steal a Hot Dog (without threatening the salesman or using force) and the resulting high-speed chase causes a drunk driver to accidentally runs over a pedestrian

States have their own widely varying statutes enumerating particular aggravated felonies to which the doctrine can apply. All of them include robbery, but I'm not aware of any that include petty larceny.

Contrary to what Wiggie noted, it's not uniformly recognized that a vehicular fleeing/eluding charge is sufficient in itself; in most states the pursuit must be connected with an enumerated offense.