merc

Yes, I can say the charges are bullshit because they're bullshit. Felony murder in general is bullshit. Felony murder for a murder not committed by a member of the group is extra bullshit. Felony murder charges for a member of the group getting killed by the cops is ridiculous bullshit.

They're not really equivalent. With RICO if you've committed multiple times of crimes from a certain list, and those crimes are related to an "enterprise" you can be charged with racketeering.

You're not being charged with crimes someone else did. You're being charged with masterminding a bunch of crimes. RICO charges are used against people at the head of an organization. Felony Murder is used against people who have the bad luck to be part of a group when someone else in the group pulls the trigger.

RICO goes after the organization in organized crime. It fills in a gap in the laws that maybe wasn't there already, because none of the other laws went after the planning and organizing of the crimes. Felony murder seems to just exist to pile additional charges on someone who had already committed crimes that were already on the books, and make that person additionally responsible for the actions of a different person.

What, now you're also accusing the cave diver of being a pedophile?

He could lose 99.999% of his wealth, and still be among the richest 1% in the world.

To be in the richest 1% worldwide you need to be a millionaire. He's worth $242 billion. If he only lost 99% of his wealth, he'd still be a billionaire, and still be 1000x richer than people who were merely in the top 1% worldwide. To be in the top 1% in the US you'd have to shave a 9 off that. He could lose 99.99% of his wealth and still be in the top 1% in the US.

In what way?

The day before this burglary, Smith and others were involved in the murder of another man. The stolen car used in the burglary came from yet another murder.

Gee, it's almost as if there were real crimes he could have been charged with, instead of the bullshit crime of his friend getting killed by the cops.

If the plan was "go into this house and kill the occupants" and the group executed that plan even though only one person pulled the trigger, that would be one thing.

The plan was never "go into this house, wait for the cops to show up, get into a shootout with the cops, and get shot by the cops". Or, if it was, the kid who was charged sure didn't follow that plan because he ran away instead or getting into a shootout. There are a variety of possible crimes for someone who was part of a group: conspiracy to X, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.

At a bare minimum, if someone in a group is charged with X, it should be necessary to prove that the group's plan was to do X. In addition, it should be necessary to prove that the group did X. That seems like it should be the absolute minimum. In this case, what's absurd is that the group didn't even do X.

In this case, the "murder" was the "murder" of one of the criminals, and the person who did the "murder" was the cop. It's absolutely ridiculous that if the cop were charged with that murder (and somehow wasn't just automatically immune) the cop could invoke their right to self-defense, and would almost certainly be acquitted. But, the person who was running away from the crime scene at the moment the murder happened can't use the self-defense justification because he wasn't the person who fired the shot.

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?

I think the idea of felony murder makes sense, you’ve helped create a scenario where someone ended up

Imagine we used that on white collar crimes.

A lawyer helped register a company that later went on to commit fraud. Charge her because she helped create a scenario where someone committed fraud. Charge the IT manager because he hooked up the computers that were later used in the fraud.

It seems pretty basic, but you should charge people for things they actually did. If multiple people planned a crime but only one person was caught executing the crime, you can charge them all with conspiracy. That makes sense. On the other hand, this seems to involve charging someone with a crime that wasn't part of the plan. If it was a potential foreseeable consequence of the plan, there are crimes for that: reckless endangerment, negligence, etc.

I just can't imagine a real scenario where someone did something wrong, but there are no laws on the books that match the wrong thing they did. So, instead, you have to charge them with the crime someone else did instead.

Yes, you're reading it right: "whom was shot".

Whomsoever wrote that should be shot.