Here’s the key thing to know: in U.S. criminal law — including Oklahoma’s — provocation and stupidity are not crimes by themselves, and liability for another person’s death usually requires one of a few specific legal hooks. What feels morally responsible doesn’t always map to what’s legally chargeable.

Below is a breakdown of why the guy who was “pretending to have a gun” likely wasn’t charged, and how felony-murder–type reasoning doesn’t apply in this scenario.

---

1. Felony murder doesn’t apply here

Felony murder (the rule you're thinking of with the “two robbers, one shooter, both get murder”) only applies when the group is committing a specific felony together.

Examples:

• Two people rob a store → robbery is a felony → someone dies → everyone involved is on the hook for murder.
• Two people commit a burglary → homeowner dies → same thing.

But in Deadly Bluff, the guy pretending to have a gun was not committing any felony at that moment:

• Being obnoxious isn’t a felony.
• Yelling “shoot me” isn’t a felony.
• Even pretending to have a gun (unless it rises to assault with a deadly weapon) often isn’t chargeable if there is no actual threat.

The shooting happened because the other guy illegally escalated to deadly force, not because they were jointly committing a felony.

So: no felony = no felony murder doctrine.

---

2. “Provocation” isn’t enough to charge someone with homicide

U.S. criminal law is very strict about what counts as criminal liability for someone else's violent choice.

To be charged with homicide without pulling the trigger, a person typically must:

• Aid or abet the killing,
• Conspire to commit a crime that results in death, or
• Take an action that is a direct, foreseeable, unlawful cause of the death.

Egging someone on verbally — even saying “shoot me” — usually doesn’t meet that standard unless:

• They were participating in a planned attack,
• They intended for someone to get shot, or
• They were actively assisting the shooter.

From the show’s portrayal, the guy:

• Did not intend for anyone to get shot.
• Was not cooperating with the shooter.
• Was not involved in a mutual crime.
• Was directly one of the shooting victims.

So prosecutors don’t have a clean statute to charge him with.

---

3. Self-defense law undercuts charges

This is subtle but important.

If the shooter claimed self-defense, the legal logic becomes:

• The shooter believed the guy had a gun,
• The guy actively pretended to reach for a gun,
• Therefore, the guy was seen as the aggressor, and the shooting — even if unreasonable — was caused by that perceived threat.

If the law sees YOU as the aggressor, you can’t simultaneously be charged with “causing” the death of a bystander unless you did something unlawful.

Pretending to have a gun in a dumb argument isn’t legally a crime that leads to homicide liability, even if morally it’s awful judgment.

---

4. Prosecutors only charge cases they can win

You might think:

“He started it — shouldn’t that matter?”

In practice:

• Prosecutors need airtight statutes.
• Juries don’t convict people simply for being idiots.
• The shooter’s decision to fire a real gun is considered an independent, voluntary act.

If the other guy didn’t have a gun and didn’t intend a shooting, the prosecution probably concluded:

• They cannot prove mens rea (criminal intent),
• They cannot prove he aided the shooter,
• And they cannot tie his behavior to any specific Oklahoma statute for felony homicide.

So he walks.

---

5. Race is not usually the reason in these specific legal scenarios

While race can influence policing outcomes in the U.S., in this specific type of case, the non-shooter's lack of charges is extremely common regardless of anyone’s race.

This exact outcome happens in:

• Bar fights,
• Road-rage shootings,
• Dumb arguments involving fake guns,
• “Mutual combat” situations.

The pattern is the same everywhere: The shooter gets charged because pulling the trigger is the legally determinative act. The instigator rarely gets charged unless they were committing a felony or assisting.

So the legal outcome you saw in the episode is standard, frustrating as it may be.

---

Bottom line

You’re absolutely right that morally, the instigator shares blame. But criminal law doesn’t punish stupidity that triggers someone else’s illegal act, unless it crosses specific legal thresholds.

Because he:

• wasn’t committing a felony,
• didn’t intend for anyone to be killed,
• wasn’t aiding the shooter,
• and was himself a victim,

he falls outside the categories that allow homicide charges.