Most of them, actually. Straightforward application of the felony murder rule.

First degree murder? No.
Reckless endangerment and manslaughter? Yes.
Anyone, regardless of background, should be facing 15 to life for killing someone in the commission of such a personal crime.

I would say manslaughter, since he didn't intend to kill her. But really, are we supposed to feel sorry for this asshole? Like this is a miscarriage of justice?

I would say manslaughter, since he didn't intend to kill her.

The law imputes intent because he had the intent to commit a felony--at least I think it's a felony in this case. He acted with criminal intent, causing an injury resulting in death.

we had a case just like this last year here in my town. two girls in thier late teens snatched a purse from an elderly woman in a grocery store parking lot, knocking her to the ground. she died of her injuries. they went up to the big house for a long time.

Fucking old people. You know that old lady was like, "I'll show those vagrants, I'll die. Lesson learned, sonny."

Felony murder consists of a second-degree murder committed in the course of a dangerous felony. Section 30-2-1(A)(2); see State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043, ¶ 17, 122 N.M. 148, 921 P.2d 1266. In New Mexico, and a handful of other states, the legislature has elected to treat this species of second-degree murder as murder in the first degree.

Not only this, but if he had a friend waiting for him in a car to make his getaway, that person could also be charged with first degree murder. (60 Minutes article)

So, if you're going to drag an old lady over asphalt to get the $20 in her purse, you should choose your state carefully.

Hm, looks like you're right, brainwidth and taz. Either way, asshole gets what he has coming to him.

Although, is purse-snatching a felony? Aggravated theft?

I think it is usually a felony if there is force involved...

Robbery--The unlawful taking of property that is in the immediate possession of another, by force or the threat of force. Includes forcible purse snatching but excludes nonforcible purse snatching, which is classified as larceny/theft. Includes attempts.

from this page that is a part of a report on felony sentencing that includes crime definitions.

There's an infamous felony murder story in Colorado -- Lisl Auman. She was recently released from a halfway house. Hunter S. Thompson and other luminaries intervened in her case, but I had to say that I was unmoved -- she instigated the events that led to the death. (The guy she was with shot a cop.)

I'm no Javert -- stealing a loaf of bread is, well, stealing a loaf of bread. But pushing an old lady over to steal a loaf of bread, well, there's a price to be paid.

It's also probably my liberal tendencies which have an aversion to extreme penalization of crimes mostly perpetrated by the poor and the underclass

I consider myself fairly liberal, too, but I think to use poverty as moral diapers is to infantilize the poor, frankly. It's also something of a slight to the overwhelming majority of poor people who aren't criminals. As to the crime itself, it's not first degree murder in the sense of shooting someone during a robbery, but he decided that the money in her purse was more important than her personal safety, which is reckless disregard and a moral lapse. If he's smart he'll plead to manslaughter.

(also, I should add, crime victims are disproportionately poor as well, which throws a monkeywrench into the usual theories. this guy's a straight up criminal. I don't have much sympathy for him, sorry)

Wow. I'm appalled.

you should hear pips' students. They're card carrying members of the underclass and the loathing they have for criminals would curl your hair. Mainly, since, in their neighborhood they have to deal with them more than others. Giving people a pass to commit crimes because of poverty is patronizing and unconciously racist, IMHO; "Oh you poor underpriviliged thing, you just can't help yourself. that old woman made you knock her over to get the $20 in her purse."

it is all very sad and unfortunate... there's no reason to believe he wanted her to die; he just wanted what was in the goodie bag. though, he can be glad that he didn't kill any members of the tongan royal family. really, what are the chances of that.

this is almost always a lose-lose issue for "true" progressives. sure, criminals should be disciplined and reformed whenever possible. but the hardline "tough on crime" moral stance is more about politicians, demogogery, tough-sounding rhetoric, and ratings for your local Action McNews... "criminals" make a nice easy target because the rest of us can feel smug and superior while not having to actually worry about them in the immediate sense... they're locked up and cant even vote lol. of course, as we all learned in psych 101, punishment is the least effective means of behavior modification. but the prison-industrial complex has their own ideas... and voters have been happy to oblige them. there are a lot problems with the right realism approach... although if you're not currently incarcerated, why should you care?

first they came for the jaywalkers, potheads, and mp3 downloaders...

"Giving people a pass to commit crimes because of poverty is patronizing and unconciously racist, IMHO; 'Oh you poor underpriviliged thing, you just can't help yourself. that old woman made you knock her over to get the $20 in her purse.'"

Oh, that's such bullshit. Not the least because no one here has mentioned race except you.

How poor people think about this is exactly as relevant as the fact that racial minorities themselves are often racists. That doesn't make racism right.

Thinking back to the Ken Lay thread, Hugh and (IIRC) myself both argued that to some degree the different ways in which so-called white-collar crime and other crimes are prosecuted and punished are, contrary to warbaby's argument, reasonable because white-collar crime is usually non-violent while the other crimes discussed usually are violent. And so, sure, I'll go along with the point that this purse-snatching was violent and thus deserves to seen differently.

Even so, warbaby's argument had weight because, reasonable or not, this violent/non-violent distinction in practice becomes a standard which maximalizes the seriousness of the types of crimes comitted by the poor while minimizes the seriousness of the types of crimes comitted by the middle-class and wealthy.

When the disproportionate number of black men in prison discussion comes up, some people will take the position to defend this on the simple basis that black men commit, proportionally, more crimes. But even if that is the case, they're missing the point that a great diparity of outcomes between black and white, or poor and wealthy, for whatever reasons, is a cause of concern and is indicative of a social injustice somewhere.

My argument in this case is not against this crime being punished as a violent crime, nor even that the consequences be made more severe because a death resulted. My argument is that escalating the charge to first-degree murder, which is basically an atomic-bomb escalation, is excessive and indicative of a cultural attitude that takes the default position both with the poor, and blacks (for example), that "they had it coming".

In the catalog of crimes, purse-snatching by no one's definition is a crime which is primariliy violent. It is a crime which is not intended to result in physical harm, it is primarily a property crime. In most cases, the victim suffers no physical harm whatsoever. It is, in intent, exactly the same as pickpocketing. A badly executed pickpocket could result in the victim being shoved, falling, and breaking a bone. Resulting in death. So: charge first-degree murder, which can result in the death penalty in New Mexico. These are not morally proportionate punishments. They are bloodthirsty and vindictive, as are some of the preceding comments.

My argument is that escalating the charge to first-degree murder, which is basically an atomic-bomb escalation, is excessive and indicative of a cultural attitude that takes the default position both with the poor, and blacks (for example), that "they had it coming".

I don't disagree with that, but it may simply be a hamfisted technique to get him to plead to manslaughter, which is the appropriate charge, and I said as much in my initial comment, and often there are lesser included counts in the indictment, giving the jury the option of convicting on robbery and manslaughter, which would be appropriate.

In the catalog of crimes, purse-snatching by no one's definition is a crime which is primariliy violent. It is a crime which is not intended to result in physical harm, it is primarily a property crime.

Well, there's always the possiblity of having to shove or knock someone down for it. And in this case, it's a presumably healthy 24-year old man, preying on an elderly woman, which to be frank, is indefensible behavior. (And FWIW, I consider the Ken Lays of the world equally indefensible).

Yeah, but this isn't an accidental fall or anything. He didn't grab her purse and cause her to lose her balance.
She wouldn't let go so he dragged her over the ground for a bit before giving up and taking off. And that, I think most people would agree, is assault.

I'd almost buy the accident argument if she had just fallen and he ran, but he was dragging an 86 year old woman. He most likely didn't think it would kill her, but to drag someone that age? Anyone would know it's going to cause some injuries.

"...but to drag someone that age? Anyone would know it's going to cause some injuries."

Yes, but...first-degree murder?

Not to mention that I strongly suspect that the "drag" and "broken hip" have no relation to each other. Her hip was probably broken when she initially fell—so if the outcome would have been exactly the same, would you feel the same about it if it hadn't included the "dragging" bit? Or, alternatively, if she hadn't broken her hip and died, but he had dragged her, would would still support a charge equivalent to first-degree murder?

No, I wouldn't feel the same if it didn't include dragging. If he had, say, grabbed her purse and she fell because of lost balance, then it would be involuntary manslaughter. And he should still be responsable for the death, legally, but with charges appropirate to the situiation.
But dragging isn't accidental, it's flat out assault. And if he was dragging her, odds are she fell because he pulled her to the ground to get the purse. And, IIRC, killing someone while in the act of assaulting them (even if you didn't set out to kill them), is murder.

I agree with jonmc that the first-degree charge is probably an instance of gamesmanship where the goal of the prosecutors is to end up with a plea to manslaughter. But should government prosecutors really be using this kind of tactic? It would be fair game in business negotiations, but it feels a little dirty in this scenario.

If he was her landlord and he torched her house for the insurance money while he thought she was on vacation would the murder charge still be inappropriate?

And personally I think if any old person died because their electricity was cut off or as a result of the blackouts Ken should have been up on murder charges too.

ianal, but fwiw here's what wiki says...

Involuntary [manslaughter] occurs when the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a wanton disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, which lands on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is usually dealt with as an "unlawful act manslaughter" or "constructive manslaughter".

Misdemeanor manslaughter: In the United States, this is a lesser version of felony murder and covers a person who causes the death of another while committing a misdemeanor: a violation of the law that does not rise to the level of a felony. This may automatically lead to a conviction for the death, if the misdemeanor involved a law designed to protect human life. Many safety laws are infractions, meaning that a person can be convicted regardless of mens rea. Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds persons liable for any death that occurs because of a violation of traffic safety laws.