randy wrote:If I understand the Felony Murder principal correctly, they were co-conspirators/participants in a felony, and someone died as the result of said felony. Who died and how they died/who killed them is not relevant.
IOW, the final determination of the Pharmacist's case is separate from the felony murder issue.
yes and no...
felony murder is that any participants in a crime should have had reasonable expectations that their actions of committing a crime could lead to a death... thus they are responsible for those deaths no matter who actually caused the death...
BUT...
if the pharmacist's prosecution for 1st degree murder is based on that the perp had ceased being a threat and the killing of the perp was done AFTER the threat was over.... then the felony murder case will be hard to make... because the perp's death happened after the crime was over and a new crime (the 1st degree murder of the perp) had begun...
i really cannot imagine that the prosecutor will get very far with these cases... one is in direct contradiction to the other...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
frankly, the case for felony murder is MUCH stronger than the 1st degree murder charge against the pharmacist and would do much more for the community... that pharmacist is unlikely to ever again commit any crime... the other perps are likely to have a long life of crime...
but prosecutors do not always act in the best interests of the community...
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” - Norman Thomas, a six time candidate for president for the Socialist Party, 1944