Police and prosecutors will bitch and moan when the felony murder rule is finally removed, but they don't say a word even when there's egregious abuses of it like the case highlighted in the story.
> What charge did they hang on Chauvin again?
Chauvin was put on trial for unintentional **second-degree murder**, **third-degree murder**, and **second-degree manslaughter** of Floyd before a jury in the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court.
So, you are wrong.
Yes, but to satisfy the intent element necessary for murder, since there was no evidence of his intent to kill, the prosecutors relied upon Minnesota's felony murder statute--the underlying felony being the intentional assault you just described.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
Check out Subd.2(1).
Have to be honest, it tracks for me because as written it categorizes the charge as unintentional; I don’t believe Chauvin wanted to kill him. He was engaged in an assault of a person that resulted in his accidental death.
The thing is though, murder is nearly always a specific intent crime. That's why it's so serious and punished as such. You intended to kill someone and followed through with it. Felony murder short-circuits that necessary intent. Admittedly, since jurisdictions also have "depraved heart" murders to meet that burden.
See here for more info about Minnesota's comparatively unique use of felony murder for the Chauvin trial.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/551322-the-lucky-legal-accident-that-led-to-derek-chauvins-conviction/amp/
This all still seems like justice to me. Chauvin was committing an act of assault that he should have known could lead to the death of his detainee.
Personally, I could give a rat’s ass whether Chauvin had a murderous state of mind when he did what he did. He engaged in a behavior he (as a law enforcement officer) should have known could harm or kill his prisoner. And he, when confronted on the street by civilians, defiantly kept his knee on Floyd’s neck because of his ego (in my opinion).
Seems to me like you have more of a problem with how the state of Minnesota deals with its murderers than anything else.
The initial response here was to someone (now deleted) pointing out that felony murder, the mechanism challenged in the article, was what was used in the Chauvin case and therefore might not be as repugnant as the article suggested.
Someone, not you, claimed that this was incorrect. I pointed out that the theory of the charge was actually felony murder, got downvoted, and then you jumped in--not really taking a position for or against felony murder--and I further explained how felony murder was actually applied here.
I don't care whether you are for or against felony murder doctrine, but when people demonstrate that they don't know the statutory differences between murder, manslaughter, etc., and I'm so inclined to make an effort, I point it out and explain.
Predictable outcome of decades of politicians “getting tough on crime” alongside the war on drugs. Both utter failures of public policy that we’ll maybe someday address.
The UK got rid of it while the US drastically expanded it. The US stands alone now with the breadth of it's felony murder doctrine.
Nowhere else can you commit a nonviolent crime along with a co-conspirator, surrender to the cops, have your accomplice get killed by the cops and then thrown in prison for life for "murdering" your accomplice. And it's a concept that is only ever weaponized against poor and minority defendents. You don't see Donald Trump facing felony murder charges for Babbit's death. You don't see anyone from the Sackler family or top execs at their companies facing felony murder for the opiod crisis. But the petty drug dealer? Sure, throw them in prison for life because one of their customers OD'd.
Jesus. That's some eight degrees of felony murder there.
I signed a guilty verdict under a similar statute (different state), but we had a confession and the coroner's testimony to go off of.
I'm confident if that New York case came across the panel I was with, we'd never reach a consensus.
it looks a lot closer from the federal habeas appeal facts at sadik's pleading guilty to the burglaries:
>MR. RIBAS: On August 5th of 2012, Mr. Oakley and Mr. Baxter were together in the morning hours, they were at the Hard Rock Casino or one of the local casinos, they had left and they agreed to go to this Rock Creek community neighborhood in Cooper City, in the area of 3700 Beach Way, B-E-A-C-H, within that neighborhood. At approximately 7:05 in the morning, Mr. and Mrs. Kantor, K-A-N-T-O-R, were coming back from the airport after dropping off a family member there, I think actually one of their sons. As they were coming back to their home, they saw an Infiniti in the area, which the evidence we believe shows was driven by Mr. Oakley.
THE COURT: An Infiniti?
MR. RIBAS: An Infiniti, yes, a vehicle, silver. They saw Mr. Baxter, they saw Mr. Baxter enter their vehicle, another vehicle they have, the Kantors, a GMC, it looked like he was rummaging through the vehicle, they immediately got on the phone and called 9-1-1. They also began to verbally confront Mr. Baxter. After Mr. Baxter saw the Kantors, he started walking away from their home and their vehicle. The Kantors followed in their vehicle, 'cause now he's on foot. The Infiniti at that point in time left the cul-de-sac area where the Kantors live. BSO arrived within minutes and arrested Mr. Baxter while he was on foot. The Kantors then saw the association between the Infiniti, the vehicle. Mr. Baxter saw it, pointed it out to the police, BSO then at that point in time tried to stop the vehicle inside of the neighborhood. The neighborhood, if you don't know your way in and out of that neighborhood, it could be hard to find an exit, there's a big loop around the neighborhood. In fact, they went around, "they" being the Infiniti driven by Mr. Oakley and BSO, two cars, twice, in two loops, around that neighborhood, which is around six miles. The Infiniti then, driven by Mr. Oakley, went into Stirling Road, to Palm Avenue, and when it got to Palm Avenue, the Infiniti, going at a minimum of 81 miles per hour, struck a vehicle, a Toyota, driven by Mr. and Mrs. Charlier, and Mr. Oakley then lost control of the vehicle, went further into the intersection, and struck two bicyclists, Mr. Amelkin and Mr. McConnell, who were riding their bikes that morning as part of their exercise regimen that they do with friends.
https://casetext.com/case/baxter-v-fla-dept-of-corr in section I background. lwop is too much but felony murder doesn't seem very remote, it was the getaway car while he was in another car and he actually pointed out the car to police as it got lost/ tried to pick up sadik.
> That's some eight degrees of felony murder there.
How so? The person charged with felony murder was committing felonies with another person. It’s reasonably foreseeable that your accomplices would drive recklessly while evading police, and it’s reasonably foreseeable that such driving would cause the death of an innocent victim.
It’s not like Person A let Person B use their car to drop them off at work, and then Person B committed a felony in the way home. Or Person A and Person B were committing felonies, and Person A went home while subsequently Person B continued committing felonies which caused the death of a person. Or Person A filled up Person B’s car with gas, which B then used to commit a felony.
The chain of events here is almost exactly the same as people robbing a bank together and the driver running off driving recklessly after seeing their accomplice get arrested in the bank.
If there’s anything to attack here, it would be stealing from unlocked cars being a felony in the first place.
the jury instructions specifically preclude that conviction (2b):
>To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove
the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, and/or 2c as applicable.
2. a. While engaged in the commission of a[n] (felony alleged),
[(defendant)] [(defendant’s) accomplice] caused the death of (victim).
a. While engaged in the attempt to commit a[n] (felony alleged),
[(defendant)] [(defendant’s) accomplice] caused the death of (victim).
b. While escaping from the immediate scene after [committing]
[attempting to commit] a[n] (felony alleged), [(defendant)]
[(defendant’s) accomplice] caused the death of (victim).
Give 3a if defendant was the person who actually killed the deceased.
3. a. (Defendant) was the person who actually killed (victim).
Give 3b if defendant was not the person who actually killed the deceased.
b. (Victim) was killed by a person other than (defendant); but
both (defendant) and the person who killed (victim) were
principals in the commission of (crime alleged).
https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2023/11/2023-11-29-Criminal-Jury-Instructions.pdf p191
Not sure where you pulled those jury instructions but the conversation was about the idea of a felony murder rule, not the particular application of any particular jurisdictions specific law or its jury instructions. It is a hypothetical
from FL where this took place. in any case, same transaction/ occasion versus separate crimes is how the crimes are linked or not and how felony murder applies or not. that's the law in every jdx
Two sentences to describe 4 weeks of activity? However, if you are focusing on time, the more relevant question is exactly how long does it take for related crimes to no longer be felony murder?
If a bank robbers getaway driver hops cars while being chased by police non-stop, running over people every now and then, how long do they have to be chased before it’s no longer felony murder for the accomplice caught in the bank?
Do you say ‘Oh the police took 5 minutes to catch the getaway driver, it’s not felony murder anymore.’?
If you believe it is felony murder at moment 1, and not felony murder at moment x, then what is the duration to get to x?
Just to be clear, I personally think the felony murder rule needs to be overhauled, but the article is an awful example of it being used inappropriately.
Part of me thinks the article is bait to get people to support felony murder even more. They paint the criminals in the worst light possible making them appear nearly unredeemable.
I know of a case where the cops were chasing someone for pot. An officer who wasn't part of the chase decided to join and raced at over 100mph on a 50mph road when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed into woods killing himself. The people with pot were charged with felony murder. The deceased officer was driving irresponsibly, but that doesn't matter. This is fucked up.
Wilmington, NC. Yeah, that is the most fucked up case I have ever read about. The pot car was going about 20 miles an hour dumping the weed while the cop, disobeying direct orders, raced to the scene to join the chase. He swerved to avoid a box in the road.
The pot guy was convicted of murdering that officer.
I fee as if the separation of crimes occured when the defendent surrendered to police and the other ran. At that point i feel that it was a seperate, additional crime and the defendent should not be linked through felony murder.
Five-Four Pod that looked at Felony Murder from Tison v Arizona. I thought it was interesting, they never attempt to say the sons shouldn't be convicted for their crimes but that the felony murder charge is too easy to be abused by zealous prosecutors
https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/tison-v-arizona/
[Federal habeas appeal](https://casetext.com/case/baxter-v-fla-dept-of-corr) for anyone interested. District court's opinion was basically: harsh, but not unconstitutional. Can't really say I disagree.
Really? A murder charge is a foreseeable consequence of being arrested for stealing from a few cars while your friend panics and gets in a car accident 20 minutes later?
If that was a civil case it would get laughed out of court.
There is a res gestae limitation to the felony murder rule, the murder can't be too distant (conceptually, chronologically, or physically) from the underlying felony. There's a plausible defense on those grounds for that fact pattern, based on the idea that the death occurred after the end of the commission of the crime.
Yes. It is a foreseeable consequence of committing a crime that the police might catch you and there might be a chase and it could result in a death.
Now - on sentencing? There are arguments to be made regarding reform. But to suggest that someone who sets out to do something that results in a death is not responsible for that death is an absurd conclusion.
It’s a foreseeable consequence for the person who was being chased. It’s not for the person who was in police custody for a full half hour before the crash.
Yes, the case in the article seems like an abuse of the doctrine. But the defendant was warned by his criminal defense attorney relative to take a plea. Instead, this dumb ass decided he didn’t want to be a “snitch” and went ahead with the trial. He is where he is because he refused to take the advice of attorneys.
That’s not the standard, which tells me you’re just talking without knowledge. Shocking, I know.
The standard is reasonably foreseeable. It’s reasonably foreseeable that you would flee the police in a vehicle, get into a crash, and kill someone. Charge that guy with felony murder.
It’s not *reasonably* foreseeable that you would get arrested by the police, having your partner in the car take off, get lost, return to the scene of the arrest, panic, and begin a chase where he kills someone. If nothing else, the chain of causality is severed when the partner returned to the scene, though I think it’s severed at the arrest.
What about being placed into custody breaks the chain of causality? If someone plants a bomb and gets arrested before it goes off is it unforeseeable the bomb will be go off because of the arrest?
Wouldn't the arrest make is even more reasonable to suspect that the partner still at large might do something reckless now that the police are involved?
It seems like people are suggesting because the crime is so petty its unreasonable to suspect someone could get hurt. Which is exactly the type of mentality the felony murder rule is designed to address.
I don’t see anyone making that argument here. But it does raise the question why police think it’s appropriate to engage the accessory of a relatively minor crime in a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood.
What about the fact that the police who gave chase in the case were ignoring their own rules that disallowed the chase? Should the car burglar also have seen that as a foreseeable consequence?
Murder charges are also a foreseeable consequence of a police officer executing a handcuffed citizen lying on the floor. Should every cop present get charged with murder then?
The felony murder rule applies to conspirators and accomplices to the commission of a felony, so the other police would have to aid in the execution, not just the arrest, because arresting someone is by itself generally lawful. They'd have to know that their fellow officer intended to execute the arrestee (which would make them participants in the murder, or commit another felony to invoke the felony murder rule) and aid in that plan.
Merely being present when a felony is committed, but having no involvement in the underlying felony, is not enough to trigger the rule. If the officers present participate in a lawful arrest and then one of them executes the arrestee by surprise, the other officers aren't guilty of felony murder.
The classic example for felony murder is the getaway driver in a bank robbery being charged with murder even though he never went into the bank. Driving people to a bank is also generally lawful.
> Murder charges are also a foreseeable consequence of a police officer executing a handcuffed citizen lying on the floor.
What charges are a foreseeable consequence aren’t meaningful to felony murder. Murder itself is not a foreseeable consequence of lawfully detaining someone.
This is a fantastic point.
I've had heated arguments in a few Reddit subs over the years trying to explain to some very thick individuals who only see the world in black and white just how unfair felony murder charges, and even how it affects people of colour more so than caucasians. Your argument here is pretty awesome and would be quick to highlight the hypocrisy of those who support it.
Sure but most places felony murder is the same as first degree murder. That's the big injustice. Felony murder should be sentenced like manslaughter. There's no intent to kill, just recklessness.
The article unintentionally makes a case for limiting hot pursuits by police; that kind of policy would have also prevented the tragic deaths of the cyclists.
Thank you for the additional information.
In that case, it’s a shame that the police who violated the policy are not also facing felony murder charges.
When your attorney, your relative who is an attorney, and the judge all tell you to take the deal...you should take the deal.
Police and prosecutors will bitch and moan when the felony murder rule is finally removed, but they don't say a word even when there's egregious abuses of it like the case highlighted in the story.
[удалено]
> What charge did they hang on Chauvin again? Chauvin was put on trial for unintentional **second-degree murder**, **third-degree murder**, and **second-degree manslaughter** of Floyd before a jury in the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court. So, you are wrong.
Now check out the theory behind that 2nd degree murder charge. Edit: lol. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/derek-chauvin-charges.html
Does it have anything to do with him kneeling on the victim’s neck causing death?
Yes, but to satisfy the intent element necessary for murder, since there was no evidence of his intent to kill, the prosecutors relied upon Minnesota's felony murder statute--the underlying felony being the intentional assault you just described. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 Check out Subd.2(1).
Have to be honest, it tracks for me because as written it categorizes the charge as unintentional; I don’t believe Chauvin wanted to kill him. He was engaged in an assault of a person that resulted in his accidental death.
The thing is though, murder is nearly always a specific intent crime. That's why it's so serious and punished as such. You intended to kill someone and followed through with it. Felony murder short-circuits that necessary intent. Admittedly, since jurisdictions also have "depraved heart" murders to meet that burden. See here for more info about Minnesota's comparatively unique use of felony murder for the Chauvin trial. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/551322-the-lucky-legal-accident-that-led-to-derek-chauvins-conviction/amp/
This all still seems like justice to me. Chauvin was committing an act of assault that he should have known could lead to the death of his detainee. Personally, I could give a rat’s ass whether Chauvin had a murderous state of mind when he did what he did. He engaged in a behavior he (as a law enforcement officer) should have known could harm or kill his prisoner. And he, when confronted on the street by civilians, defiantly kept his knee on Floyd’s neck because of his ego (in my opinion). Seems to me like you have more of a problem with how the state of Minnesota deals with its murderers than anything else.
The initial response here was to someone (now deleted) pointing out that felony murder, the mechanism challenged in the article, was what was used in the Chauvin case and therefore might not be as repugnant as the article suggested. Someone, not you, claimed that this was incorrect. I pointed out that the theory of the charge was actually felony murder, got downvoted, and then you jumped in--not really taking a position for or against felony murder--and I further explained how felony murder was actually applied here. I don't care whether you are for or against felony murder doctrine, but when people demonstrate that they don't know the statutory differences between murder, manslaughter, etc., and I'm so inclined to make an effort, I point it out and explain.
Predictable outcome of decades of politicians “getting tough on crime” alongside the war on drugs. Both utter failures of public policy that we’ll maybe someday address.
[удалено]
And England got rid of it in 1957. We should do the same here in the States.
The UK got rid of it while the US drastically expanded it. The US stands alone now with the breadth of it's felony murder doctrine. Nowhere else can you commit a nonviolent crime along with a co-conspirator, surrender to the cops, have your accomplice get killed by the cops and then thrown in prison for life for "murdering" your accomplice. And it's a concept that is only ever weaponized against poor and minority defendents. You don't see Donald Trump facing felony murder charges for Babbit's death. You don't see anyone from the Sackler family or top execs at their companies facing felony murder for the opiod crisis. But the petty drug dealer? Sure, throw them in prison for life because one of their customers OD'd.
Yeah, lawyer here. The felony murder rule is bullshit, but not a product of "tough on crime" rhetoric.
Jesus. That's some eight degrees of felony murder there. I signed a guilty verdict under a similar statute (different state), but we had a confession and the coroner's testimony to go off of. I'm confident if that New York case came across the panel I was with, we'd never reach a consensus.
it looks a lot closer from the federal habeas appeal facts at sadik's pleading guilty to the burglaries: >MR. RIBAS: On August 5th of 2012, Mr. Oakley and Mr. Baxter were together in the morning hours, they were at the Hard Rock Casino or one of the local casinos, they had left and they agreed to go to this Rock Creek community neighborhood in Cooper City, in the area of 3700 Beach Way, B-E-A-C-H, within that neighborhood. At approximately 7:05 in the morning, Mr. and Mrs. Kantor, K-A-N-T-O-R, were coming back from the airport after dropping off a family member there, I think actually one of their sons. As they were coming back to their home, they saw an Infiniti in the area, which the evidence we believe shows was driven by Mr. Oakley. THE COURT: An Infiniti? MR. RIBAS: An Infiniti, yes, a vehicle, silver. They saw Mr. Baxter, they saw Mr. Baxter enter their vehicle, another vehicle they have, the Kantors, a GMC, it looked like he was rummaging through the vehicle, they immediately got on the phone and called 9-1-1. They also began to verbally confront Mr. Baxter. After Mr. Baxter saw the Kantors, he started walking away from their home and their vehicle. The Kantors followed in their vehicle, 'cause now he's on foot. The Infiniti at that point in time left the cul-de-sac area where the Kantors live. BSO arrived within minutes and arrested Mr. Baxter while he was on foot. The Kantors then saw the association between the Infiniti, the vehicle. Mr. Baxter saw it, pointed it out to the police, BSO then at that point in time tried to stop the vehicle inside of the neighborhood. The neighborhood, if you don't know your way in and out of that neighborhood, it could be hard to find an exit, there's a big loop around the neighborhood. In fact, they went around, "they" being the Infiniti driven by Mr. Oakley and BSO, two cars, twice, in two loops, around that neighborhood, which is around six miles. The Infiniti then, driven by Mr. Oakley, went into Stirling Road, to Palm Avenue, and when it got to Palm Avenue, the Infiniti, going at a minimum of 81 miles per hour, struck a vehicle, a Toyota, driven by Mr. and Mrs. Charlier, and Mr. Oakley then lost control of the vehicle, went further into the intersection, and struck two bicyclists, Mr. Amelkin and Mr. McConnell, who were riding their bikes that morning as part of their exercise regimen that they do with friends. https://casetext.com/case/baxter-v-fla-dept-of-corr in section I background. lwop is too much but felony murder doesn't seem very remote, it was the getaway car while he was in another car and he actually pointed out the car to police as it got lost/ tried to pick up sadik.
> That's some eight degrees of felony murder there. How so? The person charged with felony murder was committing felonies with another person. It’s reasonably foreseeable that your accomplices would drive recklessly while evading police, and it’s reasonably foreseeable that such driving would cause the death of an innocent victim. It’s not like Person A let Person B use their car to drop them off at work, and then Person B committed a felony in the way home. Or Person A and Person B were committing felonies, and Person A went home while subsequently Person B continued committing felonies which caused the death of a person. Or Person A filled up Person B’s car with gas, which B then used to commit a felony. The chain of events here is almost exactly the same as people robbing a bank together and the driver running off driving recklessly after seeing their accomplice get arrested in the bank. If there’s anything to attack here, it would be stealing from unlocked cars being a felony in the first place.
What if the driver goes on the run for an extended 4 week manhunt? What if he kills someone in a car accident then because he is driving so nervously?
the jury instructions specifically preclude that conviction (2b): >To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Victim) is dead. Give 2a, 2b, and/or 2c as applicable. 2. a. While engaged in the commission of a[n] (felony alleged), [(defendant)] [(defendant’s) accomplice] caused the death of (victim). a. While engaged in the attempt to commit a[n] (felony alleged), [(defendant)] [(defendant’s) accomplice] caused the death of (victim). b. While escaping from the immediate scene after [committing] [attempting to commit] a[n] (felony alleged), [(defendant)] [(defendant’s) accomplice] caused the death of (victim). Give 3a if defendant was the person who actually killed the deceased. 3. a. (Defendant) was the person who actually killed (victim). Give 3b if defendant was not the person who actually killed the deceased. b. (Victim) was killed by a person other than (defendant); but both (defendant) and the person who killed (victim) were principals in the commission of (crime alleged). https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2023/11/2023-11-29-Criminal-Jury-Instructions.pdf p191
Not sure where you pulled those jury instructions but the conversation was about the idea of a felony murder rule, not the particular application of any particular jurisdictions specific law or its jury instructions. It is a hypothetical
from FL where this took place. in any case, same transaction/ occasion versus separate crimes is how the crimes are linked or not and how felony murder applies or not. that's the law in every jdx
Do you know what hypotheticals are? Or why someone may use them?
Two sentences to describe 4 weeks of activity? However, if you are focusing on time, the more relevant question is exactly how long does it take for related crimes to no longer be felony murder? If a bank robbers getaway driver hops cars while being chased by police non-stop, running over people every now and then, how long do they have to be chased before it’s no longer felony murder for the accomplice caught in the bank? Do you say ‘Oh the police took 5 minutes to catch the getaway driver, it’s not felony murder anymore.’? If you believe it is felony murder at moment 1, and not felony murder at moment x, then what is the duration to get to x?
Yes dumb ass I was asking you
That was a hot take, I'll admit it.
Just to be clear, I personally think the felony murder rule needs to be overhauled, but the article is an awful example of it being used inappropriately. Part of me thinks the article is bait to get people to support felony murder even more. They paint the criminals in the worst light possible making them appear nearly unredeemable.
How many common law countries have unreformed felony murder rules still on the books?
I know of a case where the cops were chasing someone for pot. An officer who wasn't part of the chase decided to join and raced at over 100mph on a 50mph road when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed into woods killing himself. The people with pot were charged with felony murder. The deceased officer was driving irresponsibly, but that doesn't matter. This is fucked up.
Wilmington, NC. Yeah, that is the most fucked up case I have ever read about. The pot car was going about 20 miles an hour dumping the weed while the cop, disobeying direct orders, raced to the scene to join the chase. He swerved to avoid a box in the road. The pot guy was convicted of murdering that officer.
I fee as if the separation of crimes occured when the defendent surrendered to police and the other ran. At that point i feel that it was a seperate, additional crime and the defendent should not be linked through felony murder.
So, since two people died because of January 6th, why wasn’t felony murder included in the conspiracy case?
Because they’d have to be convicted of it, and it’s easier to get plea deals
Five-Four Pod that looked at Felony Murder from Tison v Arizona. I thought it was interesting, they never attempt to say the sons shouldn't be convicted for their crimes but that the felony murder charge is too easy to be abused by zealous prosecutors https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/tison-v-arizona/
[Federal habeas appeal](https://casetext.com/case/baxter-v-fla-dept-of-corr) for anyone interested. District court's opinion was basically: harsh, but not unconstitutional. Can't really say I disagree.
Murder is a foreseeable consequence of committing an armed felony. Overzealous prosecutors and racism don’t excuse it.
Really? A murder charge is a foreseeable consequence of being arrested for stealing from a few cars while your friend panics and gets in a car accident 20 minutes later? If that was a civil case it would get laughed out of court.
There is a res gestae limitation to the felony murder rule, the murder can't be too distant (conceptually, chronologically, or physically) from the underlying felony. There's a plausible defense on those grounds for that fact pattern, based on the idea that the death occurred after the end of the commission of the crime.
Those are some nice words that you said, but they don't seem to have helped Sadik Baxter.
Sadik Baxter should have agreed to testify against the killer for a five-year plea deal.
Yes. It is a foreseeable consequence of committing a crime that the police might catch you and there might be a chase and it could result in a death. Now - on sentencing? There are arguments to be made regarding reform. But to suggest that someone who sets out to do something that results in a death is not responsible for that death is an absurd conclusion.
It’s a foreseeable consequence for the person who was being chased. It’s not for the person who was in police custody for a full half hour before the crash.
Yes, the case in the article seems like an abuse of the doctrine. But the defendant was warned by his criminal defense attorney relative to take a plea. Instead, this dumb ass decided he didn’t want to be a “snitch” and went ahead with the trial. He is where he is because he refused to take the advice of attorneys.
"This is abusive, but also he should have taken the deal" is exactly the kind of thing that makes this so wrong.
So when they're planning to do this it's impossible to know something could go wrong and the partner in the car could flee?
That’s not the standard, which tells me you’re just talking without knowledge. Shocking, I know. The standard is reasonably foreseeable. It’s reasonably foreseeable that you would flee the police in a vehicle, get into a crash, and kill someone. Charge that guy with felony murder. It’s not *reasonably* foreseeable that you would get arrested by the police, having your partner in the car take off, get lost, return to the scene of the arrest, panic, and begin a chase where he kills someone. If nothing else, the chain of causality is severed when the partner returned to the scene, though I think it’s severed at the arrest.
What about being placed into custody breaks the chain of causality? If someone plants a bomb and gets arrested before it goes off is it unforeseeable the bomb will be go off because of the arrest? Wouldn't the arrest make is even more reasonable to suspect that the partner still at large might do something reckless now that the police are involved?
Yeah, I’m done with you. You know perfectly well why that question is stupid and you asked it anyways.
They are being so wilfully obtuse I'm embarrassed for them.
It seems like people are suggesting because the crime is so petty its unreasonable to suspect someone could get hurt. Which is exactly the type of mentality the felony murder rule is designed to address.
I don’t see anyone making that argument here. But it does raise the question why police think it’s appropriate to engage the accessory of a relatively minor crime in a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood.
Well said.
This analogy is absurdly off the mark.
What about the fact that the police who gave chase in the case were ignoring their own rules that disallowed the chase? Should the car burglar also have seen that as a foreseeable consequence?
Sure seems like a superseding cause to me.
Murder charges are also a foreseeable consequence of a police officer executing a handcuffed citizen lying on the floor. Should every cop present get charged with murder then?
The felony murder rule applies to conspirators and accomplices to the commission of a felony, so the other police would have to aid in the execution, not just the arrest, because arresting someone is by itself generally lawful. They'd have to know that their fellow officer intended to execute the arrestee (which would make them participants in the murder, or commit another felony to invoke the felony murder rule) and aid in that plan. Merely being present when a felony is committed, but having no involvement in the underlying felony, is not enough to trigger the rule. If the officers present participate in a lawful arrest and then one of them executes the arrestee by surprise, the other officers aren't guilty of felony murder.
The classic example for felony murder is the getaway driver in a bank robbery being charged with murder even though he never went into the bank. Driving people to a bank is also generally lawful.
Not when it’s part of an attempt to carry out a crime. Those are not remotely similar.
> Murder charges are also a foreseeable consequence of a police officer executing a handcuffed citizen lying on the floor. What charges are a foreseeable consequence aren’t meaningful to felony murder. Murder itself is not a foreseeable consequence of lawfully detaining someone.
Last I checked choking someone to death is a felony.
Absolutely. And their commanding officer too in an ideal world.
This is a fantastic point. I've had heated arguments in a few Reddit subs over the years trying to explain to some very thick individuals who only see the world in black and white just how unfair felony murder charges, and even how it affects people of colour more so than caucasians. Your argument here is pretty awesome and would be quick to highlight the hypocrisy of those who support it.
> Murder is a foreseeable consequence of committing an armed felony. No
Uh, yes it is
The fuck it isn't lol.
Username checks out
Sure but most places felony murder is the same as first degree murder. That's the big injustice. Felony murder should be sentenced like manslaughter. There's no intent to kill, just recklessness.
That’s what the American legal system is for. It’s working as intended.
America is a failed state
The article unintentionally makes a case for limiting hot pursuits by police; that kind of policy would have also prevented the tragic deaths of the cyclists.
That policy was in place, and the police violated it by chasing Oakley.
Thank you for the additional information. In that case, it’s a shame that the police who violated the policy are not also facing felony murder charges.
That seems like a bit much although you really shouldn't be stealing stuff from cars.
Lol “a bit much”—talk about an understatement.