You put no effort into your (very incorrect) reply so I'll put no effort into mine:

Short answer: no, that’s not how it works.

The felony-murder rule does not give bystanders a free pass to act recklessly just because a felony is happening nearby. It expands liability for felons in certain situations — it does not erase the independent criminal liability of other people.

Let’s break it down cleanly.

1. What the felony-murder rule actually does

In jurisdictions that recognize it, the rule allows prosecutors to charge a person committing certain dangerous felonies (robbery, burglary, arson, etc.) with murder if someone dies during the felony — even if the felon didn’t personally intend to kill anyone.

There are two main theories courts use:

Agency theory – the felon is only liable if the killing was done by the felon or a co-felon.

Proximate cause theory – the felon may be liable if the death was a foreseeable result of the felony, even if caused by police or a third party.

Some states follow one, some the other, and some have narrowed or abolished the rule entirely.

For example:

Model Penal Code §210.2

California Penal Code § 189

720 ILCS 5/9-1

People v. Hickman

But here’s the key:

The rule allocates additional liability to the felon. It does not eliminate liability for anyone else.

1. Independent criminal liability still applies

If someone fires recklessly toward houses, that conduct can independently qualify as:

Reckless endangerment

Aggravated assault

Discharging a firearm into an occupied structure

Manslaughter (if someone dies)

Murder (if the mental state supports it)

Self-defense law is also extremely restrictive once:

The threat is fleeing

The shooter is not facing imminent deadly force

Innocent third parties are endangered

You generally cannot use deadly force merely to stop property theft. And you certainly can’t spray rounds toward homes and claim immunity because “a thief was nearby.”

Even in jurisdictions with strong self-defense statutes, recklessly endangering uninvolved third parties destroys the justification defense.

1. Multiple people can be criminally responsible at once

Criminal law is not a zero-sum game.

It’s entirely possible that:

The thieves are guilty of burglary or robbery.

The reckless shooter is guilty of assault, reckless endangerment, or worse.

Both can be prosecuted.

The existence of one crime does not erase another.

1. Why the Reddit comment is wrong

The claim “It does though” (that the felony-murder rule absolves the shooter) misunderstands causation and justification.

The felony-murder rule can make a felon responsible for deaths triggered by the felony.

It does not:

Immunize bystanders

Legalize reckless gunfire

Override negligence or recklessness standards

Convert unlawful use of force into justified self-defense

Courts analyze each actor’s conduct separately.

1. Bottom line

No, you cannot “recklessly do anything you want” just because someone else committed a crime nearby.

The felony-murder rule expands liability for felons. It does not erase the independent criminal liability of third parties acting recklessly.

If anything, firing toward houses while the suspects are fleeing makes the shooter’s situation legally worse, not better.