They acted in concert, all willing to roll the dice on armed robbery. THEY tied their fates together by doing so. When it goes badly, they don’t get an out by now saying I’m not like them/with them/part of the whole.
I support this law.
Had he driven away and left them, or turned them in afterward he should get a lighter sentence. But he didn’t, he just kept on making bad choices. That come with consequences, unfortunately.
(Yes, we need sweeping prison reform too!)
Not all states have it.
I remember in Arizona a driver in a high-speed chase was charged with felony murder when two media helicopters collided mid-air and someone died. That seems a bit extreme.
I don’t think I agree with you. Fleeing in a car creates a huge and obviously foreseeable risk for other road users, so we want an extremely strong deterrent. Setting a precedent that a fleeing driver is always held responsible for any peripheral consequences seems like a good one. I think I’d feel differently if somebody were (say) fleeing on foot through countryside away from any other people, i.e. not doing something that obviously creates a huge foreseeable risk to others, and two news helicopters collided.
I agree, that seems more than a bit extreme.
I don’t necessarily mind the idea of increased punishment beyond a manslaughter charge for someone participating in a felony that results in a death. I’m less comfortable with the idea that you get the exact same charge as the guy who made the decision to kill.
On a scale of ‘crimey-ness’ I see the driver as more criminally reckless than murdery.
You’re contrasting someone who wants a murder so badly he hires a professional hitman, with a kid who expected no shooting at all? But you think they’re same-same? Got it, I guess.
What about a hedge fund manager who commits felony fraud against his clients, one of whom is bankrupted and driven to suicide. Should that fraudster be charged with murder?
No, I don’t think Machine Elf was suggesting they were equivalent, he was (mistakenly) thinking that doing away with the concept of felony murder would leave us with no charge available for anyone who was not directly physically responsible for the act.
The idea that the hirer of a hitman is less responsible than the person who pulls the trigger seems silly to me. Responsibility isn’t the same as proximity. That’s like saying a crime lord is less responsible for crimes than his henchman.
There’s obviously a difference between someone who plans and intends to kill someone coordinating with others and someone who does not plan to kill someone coordinating with others who either plan to do so without his knowledge or don’t plan to do so but end up doing so.
I was taking issue with Velocity’s suggestion that Isaac should have gotten a very light sentence because he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger. I offered the hitman scenario as an example of a situation where we’re perfectly comfortable nailing someone to the wall even if they didn’t pull the trigger.
As for the suggestion that Isaac might have expected no shooting at all:
Why would Isaac believe that murder was out of the question, if his accomplices went into the store with guns loaded? If his accomplices walk in without weapons and instead beat/choke the clerk to death with their bare hands in order to facilitate their robbery, should Isaac be off the hook?
Hmm, okay. Obviously participating in an armed robbery even as a driver is very serious, and it’s a foreseeable consequence that someone might be murdered. But the primary intent is to steal. Surely hiring a hitman where the explicit primary intent is to kill should carry a harsher penalty?
Absolutely and I would support felony-murder if anyone on the ground were killed as a result of the chase even if the fleeing suspect did not personally hit them. But felony murder for two news helicopters that get to close together angling for the best position? Can’t pin that on the suspect.
Strong arm robbery. Also, robber engaging in things like purse or phone snatching are probably seldom armed.
I think I remember one case where the police heli crashed due to mechanical failure during a search of a wooded area for a suspect on foot. The suspect was charged with the murder of the two state police troopers onboard. That one seems less clear-cut to me.
I’m OK with the general concept of felony murder for willing participants in a murder, but it seems too easy to abuse. A getaway driver makes a tough case to resolve, did he know that the robbers were armed, or even if it was a robbery? It sounds like “Isaac” knew these things, it’s not always clear in other cases. I have heard of cases where a someone was driving another person to pick up drugs somewhere, something went wrong and someone got shot, the driver was charged with felony murder even though it was questionable whether he had any idea that any participant was armed or whether a murder was a foreseeable consequence of his actions. The laws have to be very clear cut on issues like that, otherwise it is too easy convict someone merely by association. The concept of intent is very important in such cases. This is a question of how the law is written and applied more than the basic concept of shared responsibility.
It seems the Supreme Court agrees with you, at least when it comes to the death penalty:
As far as “someone might be murdered” drawing less of a penalty than “someone will be murdered”: this leeway isn’t granted to the guy who actually pulled the trigger during the robbery (even though he went into the store not explicitly planning to murder anyone), so why should it be granted to the driver?
I agree with you on this. The cops had an obligation to pursue the suspect; the news helicopters were under no obligation to film the chase. They made a conscious decision on their part to do so. Their conscious decision in this matter obliterates any claim that the suspect should be liable for their deaths.
I don’t think the “intent” element of murder requires extensive prior planning. If you plan an armed robbery without any explicit prior plan to kill anyone, then on the spur of the moment deliberately kill someone during the robbery, that’s still murder. Surely there’s still a clear difference between a spur-of-the-moment decision to kill and not making any explicit decision to kill.
I got no problem with it. Keep your eye on the sparrow.
So how about this one : you grow pot plants in your garage. A fire starts and a firefighter is killed putting out the fire. A year later, your nextdoor neighbor does the same thing, but with tomato plants. Why should you face a murder charge and they don’t, assuming equally safe or unsafe growing setups?
First, give me an example of a pot grower being charged in such a situation.