First a short explanation. So-called felony murder doctrine involves holding a criminal responsible for something they did not actually do, but which wouldn't have ended up happening if they had not committed the crime. Typical example: Someone breaks into a house, thinking nobody's home. The homeowner hears an intruder breaking into the house and grabs his gun. It's dark and he sees a shadowy figure suddenly moving across the darkness towards him. He shoots, and accidentally kills his wife. The intruder is charged with felony murder for the death, even though the death was accidental and committed by the homeowner. Another example: Two criminals are in a car speeding away from the police in close pursuit. The police see what appears to be a gun in the hands of the passenger and shoot, killing him. The driver of the car is then charged with felony murder for the death of his accomplice, because he was driving the vehicle fleeing from police and that death wouldn't have happened if he wasn't driving away. How do you feel about this legal logic? It's actually common in several U.S. states. I personally am very much against it, and find it outrageous that the law would hold someone responsible for something they did not actually do (or do directly, to be more precise), nor had any reasonable cause to believe that their actions would cause that outcome. Just because something happens to be illegal, I don't think that automatically justifies holding that person responsible for any indirect consequences their actions may have contributed to.