I think it's controversial, and wrong, to charge a criminal for the death of an accomplice at the hands of law enforcement or a person resisting criminals.
The felony murder rule was generally understood as the notion that anyone involved in criminal enterprise is fully responsible for any crime that results. If two people rob a store and the clerk is killed, the accomplice is equally guilty as the person who pulled the trigger.
When the police or a homeowner kill a burglar, the killing was not a crime but a lawful act of self defense, and blaming the accomplice does not make the killing a crime, despite this novel new theory. Jack McCoy, call your office.
You can't be serious? A person who, for instance, enters another mans dwelling knows the possible outcomes unless they are SEVERELY mentally incompetent. Everyone knows it's a dangerous game to break into a home, and I mean everyone. If you set that crime in motion, you are absolutely responsible for any potential outcomes. Participation in such acts is outright and blatant top-tier disregard for the life and safety of every single person involved. The charges are more than appropriate.
I agree with Lonesome. I thought these laws were intended to be able to charge all of the perps with the most serious crime committed. In the example cited there was no murder, so how can anyone be charged with murder?
Different example. Two perps break into a house. Cops arrive and arrest both. While restrained cop kills one perp (unjustified). Do you charge the other with murder? He set the events in motion.
I’ve heard of cases where an arsonist is charged with murder because the fire truck has an accident and kills somebody. The people driving the fire truck were not committing a crime either, but felony murder applied.
Thus proving that you're in the right state.