No one coerced her to make the 911 call where she lies through her teeth the whole time.

Well, the girl who got robbed of the necklace Patterson was found with said Patterson punched her in the face and stole it. Patterson was later found with the necklace but claims she just picked it up off the ground.

No, not at all. You’re only on the hook if you participate in the robbery, as Patterson did by taking the necklace. Arguably, had she simply not stolen the necklace, she’d be on the street already.

The 911 call doesn’t help this woman; it totally screws her. I like how the text at the beginning says that Patterson incriminates herself in the call but that her admissions are “not true”.

If I recall, you said that applying the FMR to robbery (don’t remember if you said armed or not) was a new extension or development of the rule. It’s not.

You can quibble about whether the 1794 law was a “true” FMR, or a fake one, but by acknowledging that one was passed about 30 years later just goes to show the FMR isn’t new at all and your argument that it is is wrong.

I see what you’re saying and appreciate your point. Thanks for the good Saturday morning conversation!

You’ve said that. I get it. My only point is, you’re in the minority on that because we’ve had FMR forever. If you want the law modified or repealed, good luck with that.

What “tort concept” are you referring to? Please explain, because I have no idea what you’re getting at.

And, since at least 1794, we’ve carefully and scrupulously enacted laws that say if you participate in certain felony crimes and someone dies in connection with the commission of that felony, you’re on the hook for that death.

I already told you I’d accept your word on it. Frankly, I’m not real interested in the influence of Danish or German law on England, though perhaps I should be. Thanks for the link and I’ll try and check it out.

Neither is people disagreeing about what constitutes “horrific injustice”. We have the 8th Amendment to prohibit that and no one to my knowledge has ever successfully challenged the FMR as cruel and unusual punishment.

I’d have to think that if a fair number of people felt it was “unjust and wrong” it would have been abolished at some point between 1794 and now. You don’t like the rule, which is fine, but it appears you’re in the minority on it.

OK, I’ll remember that.

It says 1794, not 1974. 1794 is not very recent at all. And if you actually read this, you’ll see. It’s at page 10:

I get the general idea that if you commit a crime, you’re almost by definition setting in motion events that can end with you, your buddy, a cop, a property owner, etc. dying in some fashion.

I doubt if you’ll have much success in that effort, but I do appreciate your candid and honest opinion on the issue.

i thought you said earlier that extening the FMR to instances of armed robbery was a recent extension. It isn’t. It’s been around since at least 1794.

No one accused her of helping to plan a murder. She was accused of participating in a felony (armed robbery) that left someone dead.

It is common law and has been around, in some form, forever. See this at p. 10: