That's the dilemma now confronting prosecutors in San Francisco after the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that could effectively dismantle a local murder case against SF men charged in connection with fireworks-related deaths. The ruling clarified how courts should interpret a 2018 state law — one that was specifically designed to narrow who can be held responsible for a murder they didn't directly commit.

Let's back up. California voters passed reforms in recent years aimed at reining in the broad application of felony murder rules, which historically allowed prosecutors to charge accomplices or tangentially involved individuals with murder even when they had no direct hand in a killing. The idea was straightforward: reserve murder charges for people who actually, you know, murdered someone — or at least demonstrated a meaningful intent or involvement.

The Supreme Court's clarification tightens that standard further. And while the specifics of the SF fireworks case are grim — people died, and someone should be held accountable — the legal framework matters. Prosecutors can't just stretch the definition of murder to fit cases where the connection between the defendant and the death is tenuous. That's not justice; that's convenience.

Here's where it gets uncomfortable for both sides of the debate. Libertarians and civil liberties advocates should welcome a court that insists on precise application of the law — overcharging is a real problem in our justice system, and it erodes public trust. But victims' families and public safety advocates are right to ask: if not murder, then what? What charge adequately captures the recklessness of illegal fireworks activity that results in death?

The answer shouldn't be to water down legal standards so prosecutors can rack up convictions. It should be to ensure that the charges actually brought — whether manslaughter, criminal negligence, or something else — stick, and carry real consequences.

San Francisco doesn't need more creative charging. It needs consistent, credible enforcement of the laws already on the books.