Criminal gets murder charge for cop shooting bystander?

[Rosuav]

But Rosuav, you don't take issue with this same idea not being applied to the citizenship in which the police enforce?

I do take issue with that. It's a separate but similar problem. If someone is more likely to be arrested/accused/etc because he's black-skinned, that's wrong. If someone is more likely to be accused because he's a policeman, that's wrong. If someone is more likely to be accused because he drinks lemonade, that's wrong. Anything not actually part of the crime should be ignored when figuring out whether or not someone did (or is likely to have done) something illegal.

[Rosuav]

This mentality is part of the problem - even the police would laugh at it. Im not looking to laugh at it, Im looking to educate it.

If I saw my wife being attacked by a masked man, he was stabbing/violating her in the most horrific ways, and I beat him into the ground while a buddy of mine looked on guess what's going to happen.

(1) I am going to be charged with some form of assault/attempted murder. Sure, I was clearly defending my wife but Im going to get charged and need to spend thousands of dollars to get the case tossed. If Im black... wooooah boy, get ready for a ride.

(2) My buddy might be charged with accomplice liability, even though he has no legal duty to stop me or help me. He can in fact sit there and watch.

The "If I'm black" part is a problem, and that's something that's fairly US-specific so I can't comment on it. (We probably have our own issues here in Australia, just not as obvious. And they'll be just as wrong when they happen.)

Having to spend thousands of dollars to get the case tossed? That's an inherent issue with the expense of court trials. You did something there that was quite plausibly criminal, and it takes investigation and/or court proceedings to prove your innocence. That's expensive, especially the way lawyers are. (And yes, I'm aware of who I'm talking to here. I'm not saying your fees are higher than they should be, just that they're high. It's an expensive business to be in.)

Let's get android cops; make 'em more lawful and less good/evil, then you don't have to worry about which ones are good and which are evil. You violate the law, proceedings get started. It's that simple. We can do this, right?

[Reshad]

Getting all the way back to the base topic of who is responsible for the death:

Cop took the shot, therefore he is responsible. It could be investigated and be determined that he made a reasonable judgement call and he keeps his job without nasty repercussions; however, he made the decision and must accept the consequences.

There's plenty I could say about what I know/feel about police, and about how I think this encounter should have been handled - but that would mean nothing. Simply based on what information we have from the story, charging the suspect with murder for someone else's actions is somewhat stupid.

And I agree with Gromgar that the police (and all government agencies) should expect to have all their actions questioned, weighed, measured, and judged. Without accountability any power will eventually turn only to doing what it wants rather than what it should.

[Frobozz]

Getting all the way back to the base topic of who is responsible for the death:

Cop took the shot, therefore he is responsible.

Simply based on what information we have from the story, charging the suspect with murder for someone else's actions is somewhat stupid.

I kind of bastardized Reshad's post because I think the two important parts as it relates to the original topic are above. The question is "Can a person committing one criminal act be responsible for murder if during the criminal act (a felony) someone is shot and killed by the police?"

The answer, in all 50 states, is: Yes.

This is the hallmark of the second form of felony murder. The normal example is that you drive your buddy to rob a bank (felony here is bank robbery), while inside your buddy (probably Rilthyn) decides to whack someone. You are now responsible for felony murder. The secondary example which is a little different. It works like this: if you go out on your own and commit a crime, which we can call bank robbery again, and a cop shoots at you and hits a bystanders you are now on the hook for felony murder.

It is a law designed solely for the protection of police officers. It does not protect the estate or the family of the murdered bystander, because if that was the real goal we would hold the police liable and allow the families to collect from the police departments and the cities that pay them.

Few people realize how heavily the law favors the police.

[Reshad]

The question is "Can a person committing one criminal act be responsible for murder if during the criminal act (a felony) someone is shot and killed by the police?"

The answer, in all 50 states, is: Yes.

Right. Except that from what I read in the story, while he was wanted on several charges, he was not currently involved in a criminal act (except possibly resisting arrest) at the time of the shooting.

Edit:

Found a follow-up article with a bit more detail: http://www.wesh.com/news/suspect-in-...urder/27838822

[Frobozz]

Right. Except that from what I read in the story, while he was wanted on several charges, he was not currently involved in a criminal act (except possibly resisting arrest) at the time of the shooting.

Edit:

Found a follow-up article with a bit more detail: http://www.wesh.com/news/suspect-in-...urder/27838822

Yeah he was committing a technical felony at the time this all went down. He can certainly be convicted on the 2nd degree murder charge. Also this is the danger of what happens when anonymous people call 911, you can more or less ruin anyone with a 911 call that's false.