The felony murder rule is basic stuff.
I’ve never heard of it being “controversial” in any way.
It’s “controversial” only when it is applied against one of ^Obama’s sons^.
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.
This is a girbilist writing.
Consequences for actions is a controversial topic.
“Controversial” only in the minority community.
It is when the accused is a member of the din-do-nuffin crowd.
Right, criminals all agree without controversy, they want it gone!