EnglishPaul

I'm actually all for the suspension of many rights when people break the law. To me, if you get shot robbing someones house, it was a simple choice: don't break in, don't get shot. It is a bit difficult to blame the houseowner.

However, this law seems absurd. It seems to exist to prosecute someone who in effect sends someone to their death. A kind of murder by incitement. That makes sence in limited cases, but in cases like this it is absurd to label a co-robber as a murderer. They may risk their own life by entering the property, but to accuse them of sending their partner to death is wrong; the dead partner chose the risks.

If I was rockclimbing and I fell off, it would be tragic and my fault. If I was rockclimbing with a friend and I fell off, it would be tragic and my fault (assuming he was not negligent in his role). It would not be right to charge him with my murder. And yet my understanding is that that is what this law would do. He was with me in an activity that had a possible fatal consequence, therefor he was complicit in my death, thus murder!
Great!