depending on the geographic location of the event. Some states have redefined the word murder to include that, some have not. The traditional legal definition of murder is:
the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought and with no legal excuse or authority.
That did not happen in this case. The death should result in a penalty enhancement however convicting someone of a crime they did not commit or intend to commit is a dangerous direction. Politicians shouldn't be redefining English words to mean something completely different.
If they hadn't commited the crime, nobody would have been shot.
It's all very clear to me.
The doyen of English common-law, Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke (and that's pronounced "cook" - usual English muddle about names), 1552-1634, gave this definition:
There must be, lst. Sound mind and memory in the agent. By this is understood there must be a will, and legal discretion. 2. An actual killing, but it is not necessary that it should be caused by direct violence; it is sufficient if the acts done apparently endanger life, and are eventually fatal. (Emphasis supplied.)
It's not an exaggeration to say that Coke's writings (which glossed and expanded on those of 15th c. judge Sir Thomas Littleton) were the foundation of English common law, which is of course the foundation of our system.
So except to the extent that judges in England were also "politicians" (and they always are, to some extent), it was the judges who made the English common law who came up with a definition of murder that includes felony-murder.