The felony murder rule is a favorite target of academics and defense lawyers. That is the rule that a killing in the course of certain listed felonies is murder without a showing of intent to kill. The criticism is generally muted, if voiced at all, in the specific case of arson, though. This story by Amy Taxin of AP from Riverside, California, shows why.

Large, destructive wildfires are all too common in the arid "Inland Empire" east of L.A. People often die in them. A person who sets one may not specifically intend to kill anyone, but he has to know that is a strong possibility.

A jury convicted an auto mechanic Friday of murdering five federal firefighters by setting a wildfire that overran them as they defended a home in a rural Southern California mountain community.

Raymond Lee Oyler, 38, was found guilty of five counts of first-degree murder. Because he committed multiple murders and did so while committing another felony -- arson -- he could face the death penalty in a trial phase beginning Tuesday.

At one point, it seemed that the Supreme Court was close to requiring an intent to kill for the death penalty in all cases. They did not do that, however, and California law requires no additional showing for the actual killer in felony murder cases. (There are additional requirements for an accomplice.)  In a case such as this, intentionally starting a wildfire with the knowledge of a strong possibility of resulting deaths is just as culpable a mental state as premeditated murder.