Leon wrote:
On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but
you do see the stark difference?

You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.

Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
what should be the even hand of justice.

Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do
the robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the
robbery, a teller is shot and killed.

Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with
double-parking? No, you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But
HE didn't rob anybody or even attempt to do so! He was merely
sitting in the car outside the bank with the engine running.

The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible
for any act that any member undertakes.



Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make
a deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
go to jail responsible for his death.

No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of criminal
law is that every offence is predicated on the state of mind of the accused.
In the example you posit, there is no "mens rea", or guilty mind. Without
the requisite criminal (or negligent) intent, there is no crime. Period. End
of story. The driver must have known, or should have known, that a robbery
was planned before any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough
because, as you proposed, the presence was entirely innocent.