Call this post a somewhat off-topic hijack and a threadshit if you wish, but —
Of all the stories and anecdotes I’ve ever read about “felony murder” here and elsewhere, most of them don’t make any sense to me to call them murder. The death doesn’t even have to be in circumstances that would normally be “murder” yet can be called “felony murder”, and doesn’t even have to happen at the time and place of the related felony.
Case that I heard of:
Guy robs a bank, tries to run. Cop shoots him dead.
Police decide, somehow, that he and his wife had planned it together, so go to their house to arrest wife for conspiracy and felony murder.
I can’t see that being a felony murder. First of all, the death was no murder in the first place (a point made in some post up-thread). Second, if the wife was at worst involved in conspiring to commit the crime, so she could at worst be guilty of “conspiring” to commit the murder, or being an accomplice or something along those lines, if indeed the death was a murder. I know, none of this is legally technically correct. But —
If I were on a jury in a felony murder case, I might very well refuse to vote to convict. I couldn’t convict someone in a case like that. But first, if I were in jury selection, I would very likely tell them up-front that I would not likely be willing to convict anyone of “felony murder”. They need to find someone else for that jury.
The point is, if you plan a violent act (like an armed robbery) it’s a reasonable assumption that someone could get killed in the process. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a guard or a robber, the person was killed because of act of robbing a bank. You planned it, you assume the risk, you pay the price. In this case, I think it’s completely reasonable to call it murder.
If your friend is assaulted, the only way she’s going to be able to use the brass knuckles is if she’s already wearing them.
If she thinks she will have time to fumble through her purse (or even grab them from a pocket) and slip on brass knuckles between the time she realizes she’s in trouble and she is physically attacked she is sorely mistaken.
So for the weapon to be any use she’s going to have to be wearing them all the time, therefore any act she makes will be considered premeditated by anyone able to follow a logical trail.
If she really wants to carry a “weapon” like brass knuckles, tell her to carry a roll of nickels or quarters wrapped in plastic tape. Legal, cheaper, and will have pretty much the same effect if she manages to punch someone.
On the other hand, the odds of her stopping anyone with a punch is unlikely unless she’s trained for it.
IANAL, so take what I say here with a grain of salt.
As far as I can tell from looking at the California penal code, possession of brass knuckles is a misdemeanor in most cases. It’s a felony for a prisoner in a penal institution to have brass knuckles.
According to the Shouse California Law Group, the felony murder rule only applies in California if the felony is one listed in Penal Code section 189 (which doesn’t include possession or use of brass knuckles), or if the felony is one that is “inherently dangerous to human life.” Courts have defined an inherently dangerous felony as “one that cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed,” or is one “carrying a high probability that death will result.” The site gives examples of felonies that have been ruled inherently dangerous (such as running a meth lab) and ones that have been ruled not to be inherently dangerous (such as treating a patient without a medical license). I don’t know whether a court would consider possession of brass knuckles to be an inherently dangerous felony (it seems to me that it shouldn’t be, but that doesn’t mean a judge would see it the same way).
One interesting thing is that while California law makes it illegal to sell, lend, give or possess brass knuckles, it doesn’t specifically make it illegal to use them. I suspect using them in a fight could be considered assault with a deadly weapon. The law allows someone to use deadly force in self defense, even if it involves using a deadly weapon. I don’t know what the law is on using an illegal weapon in self defense.
The larger question is what actions could cause someone to be guilty of murder under the felony murder rule if the killing would otherwise be considered legal self defense? While I don’t think possession of brass knuckles would do this, it’s possible that something else would. I can’t think of any examples, though.
Legitimate self-defense is an absolute defense in murder cases. It can’t come up in a felony murder case, because the act resulting in death and demonstrating intent is a dangerous felony that you were already in the act of committing. (“so, let me get this straight - you were robbing the bank in self-defense?”)
As for the brass knuckles, they might or might not be considered a reasonable or proportionate level of force - if not, the defense is “imperfect,” and while the charge or the sentence might be reduced, there will still be jail time. However, given your friend’s size and circumstances, any real threat would make that unlikely.
I don’t buy wearing brass knuckles as a sign of premeditation unless she knows the deceased or there’s evidence she was looking for someone to hit. If she puts them on when traversing dangerous territory and hasn’t hit anyone before, I’d probably let her walk. IANAL, much less a judge, but that’s my call.
I’m not going to say that situation has never happened, or even that it didn’t fit most of the cases you’ve heard about. But it doesn’t fit most cases overall - there are different versions of the felony murder rule in the US and the version where the death of a participant (the husband) caused by a non-participant (the police officer) qualifies is the least common. And the reason you heard about/remember the case is probably due to its rarity - the three guys who robbed the gas station and were all charged with murder when one of them shot the clerk is neither going to result in a story explaining the felony murder rule nor will it be particularly memorable.
