All I can say is... Good

[BubbaQuell]

[Grendalkhan]

This is one occasion when I think we'll all agree.

[Garf]

She really wasn't worrying about her 1 year old kid when she jacked stuff from the store, so boo hoo.

T-t-twenty five por favor.

[Ughbash]

I am in agreement with Bubba, Hmm I hope Shrewd or Gart disagrees hate to wind up agreeing with all of "the enemy"

[Gart]

I certainly agree that speeding away from a crime and striking someone is an act of recklessness and not negligence.

But the paper write up seems to indicate they were convicted of murder and manslaughter both? I haven't parsed it carefully enough, but I'm not sure I understand how that's possible.

I feel nothing for these women, but I am sorry their children begin life with so many disadvantages. Maybe it's an improvement for them to have their mothers in jail, but likely not.

[BubbaQuell]

[Tangurena]

[BubbaQuell]

[kithilin]

[BubbaQuell]

[Ughbash]

[Gart]

I'm familiar with the felony murder rule, but that principle represents the ability to charge someone with murder who had no actual involvement with the murder committed by a felonious co-conspirator, typically. Like the guy driving a getaway car for a robbery can be charged with a murder committed inside the house by a fellow robber, even though the driver had no idea what the other guy was up to. People have been given the electrical chair for murder on those facts.

What I wasn't clear on was how a jury could find facts consistent with both an involuntary manslaughter conviction and a murder conviction, because the standards of intent are so different.

I don't think it's possible under my state's law, but I am really stale on criminal law. These embedded charges get pretty complicated sometimes.

Bubba must be right about the lesser included offense, but I'm still not sure how that would be possible given the very different standards. But obviously it is possible. I just found it a bit odd.

[BubbaQuell]