• Sway@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Felony murder would perhaps work if you were directly involved. For example, if the guy had been active in a shootout with the cops with his friend, or e en if he was then only one shooting at the cops and his friend was shot and killed, then yeah sure I get it. But here, the only common thread in the incident is the robbery, the surviving kid ran into the woods to escape while his friend actively engaged the cops. They weren’t acting together at that point. Otherwise, yeah I agree that there also should have been safe guards in place since he was a minor at the time as well.

    • merc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If there’s a 2-man team of a spotter and a sniper, the sniper is pulling the trigger and the spotter is calling the shots, then sure, charge the spotter with murder too.

      In virtually every other case, there are already crimes for what the other person did. Use those existing crimes.

      This also makes me think of SWATting. Yeah, it’s awful to do that. But, 99% of the blame for a successful SWATting should fall on the cops. Someone makes a claim over the phone, and as a result you kick down a door and charge in, guns blazing? SWATting wouldn’t work if cops could go to prison for kicking in the door at a house where nothing was going on. If that were a risk, they’d stop and verify the facts before making a decision that could ruin their lives. The only reason it works is that cops are given immunity for just about everything, so there’s no real downside to shoot first and verify assumptions later.

      Charging the kid for his buddy getting killed by the cops is some kind of black mirror garbage that can only happen in a world where cops can face no responsibilities for their actions. If we lived in a world where cops could face responsibility for their actions, the cop could get charged with murder. Now, he’d easily beat that murder charge because he was acting in self-defense, as the guy he shot was shooting at him. How twisted is it that the person who actually fired the killing shot could claim self-defense, but the person who was running away at the time can’t make that claim because he wasn’t the one who actually fired the shot?

        • merc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, I’ve heard of that guy. He’s one of the many reasons why the US police suck so much. But, he can only influence cops in a world where cops can’t be held legally responsible for their actions. If cops could be charged with murder / manslaughter people would avoid his course because they’d get sent to prison for following his advice.

      • Rekorse
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You live in a fantasy land where distance apparently prevents consequences.

        You know what, answer one question. What else besides run into the woods could that kid do, considering he had no weapon? Armed home invasion already is a 20 year felony, you don’t think if he had a gun too he wouldnt have engaged the police?

        • merc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It doesn’t matter what he could have done, what matters is what he did. What he did was illegal, he should be charged with that. He shouldn’t be charged for his friend getting killed by a cop. Those were actions taken by other people.