A masterpiece of jurisprudence ! A crowd is threatening violence to a group. The group responds by shooting some of the threatening crowd. The crowd is guilty of assaulting that part of itself that is injured by the shooting. If the shooting kills anyone in the crowd, the surviving part is guilty of murder. That is an...er... interesting interpretation of the doctrine of transferred malice ! Or does substituting the word 'police' for 'group' make a difference ? I think it may do !