http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/helicopter.crash/index.html

in that chase where the news helicopters crash they are charging the guy with murder of the 4 people that died in the helicopters. This isn't fair atall. Nobody forced them to follow the chase and they killed each other. Police have their own helicopter and I could maybe undersand a little bit if two police helicopters collided but this is nonsense.

7/29/2007 1:28:34 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=487589&page=2

7/29/2007 1:35:31 PM

Fire those prosecutors.

7/29/2007 1:43:47 PM

there is a special place for a lot of lawyers in Hell

7/29/2007 1:45:20 PM

This phenomenon is nothing new in America's legal tradition.

A Missouri man has been convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a police officer, even though he was hiding in a woods 30 miles away at the time.

Quote :

"The trooper was Ralph C. Tatoian of north St. Louis County, a trained sniper who was rushing along Interstate 44 to join the manhunt in Franklin County on April 20, 2005. He died when he struck a tractor-trailer that had stopped to help another motorist. Even though Stallmann was hiding in woods some 30 miles away from Tatoian’s crash site, prosecutors won the murder conviction. Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest. Taaffe said Tatoian had a slight blood-alcohol level, was late for his callout to duty and drove fast in a construction zone. A prosecution witness said that the low level of alcohol wouldn’t impair the trooper."

To sum up, a man hiding in the woods was convincted of murdering a police officer that had been drinking and drove his car into the back of a parked tractor trailer 30 miles away.

This is not a law ladies and gentlemen. It is a crime against humanity.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D159F9B9C70CFBDC8625731E0012B1E8?OpenDocument

[Edited on July 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM. Reason : link]

7/29/2007 2:45:37 PM

you bring precedent and what the fuck are we supposed to say after that?

...

...

...

this is retarded

7/29/2007 2:50:31 PM

^

7/29/2007 3:48:40 PM

^^^ thats different though because it was a cop

7/29/2007 3:53:53 PM

How? He is still accused of murdering someone he never saw, met, or thought about killing.

7/29/2007 6:35:12 PM

if I was a juror I would fucking laugh at the prosecution

7/29/2007 6:55:19 PM

but most people are stupid as shit

the line of reasoning behind this is retarded

7/30/2007 12:48:13 AM

^^^ cops have to respond

7/30/2007 5:47:53 AM

I can MAAAAAAYBE see the line of reasoning with the cop but the news team?

give me a break.

7/30/2007 7:28:49 AM

If you are going to commit suicide, do so while someone else is robbing the store; that way, it was felony murder.

7/30/2007 8:23:29 AM

If you cared to read anything about the story instead of being a disingenuous fuck you'd have seen that the police officer died looking for the suspect. That is why that individual was charged and convicted.

7/30/2007 9:09:45 AM

wait wait, they are charging the deaths of the NEWS chopper dbags to the guy they were attempting to follow to get that "extra exclusive live feed!"

yeah.... yeah....

7/30/2007 9:40:42 AM

^^^ will your family get the life insurance?

7/30/2007 10:17:47 AM

Quote :

"If you cared to read anything about the story instead of being a disingenuous fuck you'd have seen that the police officer died looking for the suspect. That is why that individual was charged and convicted"

still, that should be no more than manslaughter--certainly not murder.

7/30/2007 3:13:09 PM

My problem is, imagine it was not the cop that died, imagine he lived, but he managed to run over and kill someone. Vehicular manslaughter? Nope, Felony Murder; the cop goes free. I guess the criminal should have know that some of his pursuers had been drinking and would be unable to drive with sufficient care to not kill himself or others.

[Edited on July 30, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/30/2007 3:31:46 PM

the most overlooked ammendment in the country is the one against cruel and unusual punishment

7/30/2007 4:57:45 PM

Quote :

"I guess the criminal should have know that some of his pursuers had been drinking and would be unable to drive with sufficient care to not kill himself or others. "

um, they should know that their actions directly put police officers and innocent bystanders in danger

7/30/2007 5:43:25 PM

^^ nah, the 10th Amendment gets molested more than any of them, I think...

and peaceable assembly gets tossed aside some, too.

7/30/2007 6:46:22 PM

your house catches on fire, you call the fire dept., they hit a kid on your street and kill him.

it is bullshit they want to charge him with the 4 deaths, he should get his ass tyhrown in jail for running but he did not kill those reporters.

7/30/2007 7:43:48 PM

guth, I would argue that the police officer should have known that drinking and driving was a bad plan, given that he was a FUCKING POLICE OFFICER. call me crazy, though.

Oh, and the fact that he plowed into the back of another vehicle... Usually the law finds that when a person plows into the back of another vehicle, he is at fault, NOT the person in the front vehicle... yet, somehow, this random guy is responsible for this? riiiiiiiiiighhhht

7/31/2007 10:30:28 PM

What if the helicopters had crashed into homes on the ground and four people in those homes had been killed? Should the suspect have been charged with these deaths?

What if someone had a heart attack from watching all of the excitement? In person? On TV? Should the suspect be charged in this death?

What if a person were to be shot in the commission of a felony, and a doctor were called in from home to treat the suspect? If the doctor were to be killed in a car wreck on the way to the hospital, should the suspect be charged in this death?

It starts to be a bit of a reach at some point.

8/1/2007 2:11:09 PM

Has no one argued for the affirmative yet?

When you do something like start a car chase or rob a bank, you're willfully putting a number of people's lives in jeopardy.

The fact that you're not directly killing people doesn't mean that you're not responsible for their deaths.

8/1/2007 2:52:33 PM

does that mean we can blame Osama for Iraq? cause 9/11 kind of caused us to go into Iraq

8/1/2007 2:53:41 PM

Well there's a gray area when dealing with the remoteness of the danger you're putting people into.

Thus is why some people are ok with the cop scenario and not the helicopter scenario.

When there's degrees of separation between you and the event then it gets less and less justifiable to blame someone for a death.

8/1/2007 3:00:04 PM

^^^ at most, it's still not murder. no more than manslaughter.

8/1/2007 3:07:46 PM

I'd disagree. The intent to do harm was there.

Or rather, the intent to put people in serious danger was there.


I'm not sure if this is a valid comparison, but I support this for the same reason we can prosecute drunk drivers for murder. You're not directly meaning to harm people, but you're willingly entering a situation in which you're putting lives in jeopardy.

8/1/2007 3:16:35 PM

^ But in that situation, a drunk driver is actually hitting the person whereas here there is a wholly separate incident where the driver may not have even been aware of these helicopters.

There was a case a few years ago where this high school girl OD'd on a bunch of different drugs and they charged her friend with murder because he's the one who sold her the drugs. He didn't force her to take them or anything like that but they still tried to pin it on him and he was acquitted.

People just want someone to blame.

8/1/2007 5:03:35 PM

Quote :

"There was a case a few years ago where this high school girl OD'd on a bunch of different drugs and they charged her friend with murder because he's the one who sold her the drugs. He didn't force her to take them or anything like that but they still tried to pin it on him and he was acquitted."

Eh, I can see why a prosecutor would go after him... Big difference between that and two TV crews trying to get a better view of someone running from police.

8/1/2007 6:42:40 PM

Quote :

"Or rather, the intent to put people in serious danger was there. "

[NO]

8/2/2007 2:37:03 PM

You're rolling the dice regardless of whether you drink and drive, hold up a bank, or evade arrest.

It doesn't seem dissimilar to me in anything other than physical proximity to the death you caused.

8/2/2007 2:43:35 PM

Quote :

"You're rolling the dice regardless of whether you drink and drive, hold up a bank, or evade arrest. It doesn't seem dissimilar to me in anything other than physical proximity to the death you caused."

Yea, and if a police officer or bystander was killed in the pursuit then sure. The TV crews chose to be there and put themselves at risk for profit, unlike police who put themselves at risk for the community.

8/2/2007 2:52:10 PM

How long until someone is charged with negligent homicide regarding the bridge collapse in Minnesota?

8/2/2007 5:08:47 PM

Quote :

"How long until someone is charged with negligent homicide murder regarding the bridge collapse in Minnesota?"

8/2/2007 6:26:49 PM

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=18962

so if the illegals were caught, is this murder?

--------------------------------------------------
as to the helicopters - news choppers chose to get involved, I agree - not murder. I do think it interesting that the news covers their own, nationally - while nobody heard about this on the same day, same city:
http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=18963

ahh, who cares - he was 23 and had 2 kids.... news guys sensationalizing something that isn't really "news" is much more important

now who is it that howls when cops cover their own? could it be that this isnt a "cop thing" but human nature.... but I digress

-------------------------------------------------

if you are breaking the law, and someone dies as a result of your choices - you own the death, you are a murderer (felony murder rule, 1st degree). If a cop/fireman/paramedic dies responding to the aftermath of your choices, you own that death

[Edited on August 4, 2007 at 1:01 AM. Reason : x]

8/4/2007 12:59:49 AM

Quote :

"news choppers chose to get involved, I agree - not murder"

The cops chose to be cops, chose to go to work that day, chose to get involved.
Both the cops and the chopper passengers could have decided to quit their job and turn around and go home at any point.
They didn't. They both chose to get involved.
Cops, firefighters, and paramedics are not entitled to more rights than chopper pilots, newscasters, you or me. They are no different from anyone, they are not of a higher class, they just choose to risk their life to provide a needed service for little to no money. That's what make them heroes.

Quote :

"if you are breaking the law, and someone dies as a result of your choices - you own the death, you are a murderer"

This is absolutely 100% without logic, morality or even basic common sense.
Now, it may be manslaughter, but only if the "result of your choices" is directly malicious or directly negligent and therefore shows direct disregard for human life.

To simply identify the individual least indirectly connected to a death, who just happens to be guilty of a [felony] crime, as being responsible, as "owning" the death, is nothing but immoral and irrational scapegoating.

I think Lonesnark put it well, calling it "a crime against humanity."

8/4/2007 10:05:45 AM

Quote :

"The cops chose to be cops, chose to go to work that day, chose to get involved. Both the cops and the chopper passengers could have decided to quit their job and turn around and go home at any point. They didn't. They both chose to get involved."

This is a terrible line of reasoning. Sure police "choose" to get involved, but they do so for the sake of the community and not personal gain, unlike TV crews. There is a moral difference in those two actions, if you can't see it then I feel sorry for you. An arsonist sets fire to a building, people are trapped inside, the firefighter chooses to go inside and save lives, but the building collapses. The arsonist IS responsible for his death, even though he chose to go inside.

Quote :

"Cops, firefighters, and paramedics are not entitled to more rights than chopper pilots, newscasters, you or me. They are no different from anyone, they are not of a higher class, they just choose to risk their life to provide a needed service for little to no money. That's what make them heroes."

They aren't heroes... No one is giving them more rights. If a criminal puts anyones life at risk, either innocent bystanders, police, EMS, whoever and someone is killed they are responsible. However, the helicopter crews were NOT put at risk by the criminal.

8/4/2007 10:29:52 AM

Quote :

"The arsonist IS responsible for [the firefighter's] death, even though he chose to go inside."

This statement is not logical. At all.

Your emotions and desire for justice are compelling you think illogically.
..same with the courts and legislators.

The firefighter willfully chose to risk his or her life.
That willful action assumes responsibility for the outcome of that willful action. Period.

Quote :

"They aren't heroes... No one is giving them more rights"

Um, yes they are heroes.
They willfully choose to risk their lives "for the sake of the community", like you said.
That makes them heroes in my book.

And yes, the courts and legislators are giving them more rights.
Specifically, the right to not be responsible for the outcome(s) of their willful actions,
unlike the TV crews, or anyone else for that matter.

[Edited on August 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2007 10:50:47 AM

Quote :

"That willful action (setting fire to a building) assumes responsibility for the outcome (the death of a responding firefighter, a foreseeable consequence of setting fire to a building) of that willful action. Period. "

[Edited on August 4, 2007 at 11:19 AM. Reason : toa to a]

8/4/2007 11:18:35 AM

Quote :

"The cops chose to be cops, chose to go to work that day, chose swore an oath to get involved.regardless of personal risk Both the cops and the chopper passengers could have decided to quit their job and turn around and go home at any point. news crews yes, cops no They didn't. They both chose to get involved. you obviously don't understand the nature of emergency workers... Cops, firefighters, and paramedics are not entitled to more rights than chopper pilots, newscasters, you or me. They are no different from anyone, they are not of a higher class, they just choose to risk their life to provide a needed service for little to no money. That's what make them heroes. "

No, heroes can be anyone that is forced into a life/death situation and chooses to ignore personal safety in order to make a difference - a robbery victim that defends themselves isn't necessarily a "hero" - but a bystander who defends the robbery victim would likely qualify. A cop/ff/ems isn't necessarily a hero, but if they go over and above to save someone they might be. It's not about more rights for cops/ff/ems , its about recognizing the responsible party that caused their death - the criminal who chooses to break a law and begins the chain of events that causes a death (citizen or emergency worker) is guilty of the murder.

In this example, the news crews shouldn't qualify as "murdered" because they chose to get involved - it wasn't a public service that they swore an oath to, they didn't have to be there (in fact they shouldn't be allowed to be there), and they weren't just innocent bystanders that didn't know the suspect was about to kill them trying to escape.

Quote :

" [My Quote : "if you are breaking the law, and someone dies as a result of your choices - you own the death, you are a murderer" ] This is absolutely 100% without logic, morality or even basic common sense. Now, it may be manslaughter, but only if the "result of your choices" is directly malicious or directly negligent and therefore shows direct disregard for human life. To simply identify the individual least indirectly connected to a death, who just happens to be guilty of a [felony] crime, as being responsible, as "owning" the death, is nothing but immoral and irrational scapegoating. "

the individual least indirectly connected?

how about the only individual who started the chain of events that resulted in death(s). As in the arson rule above - if you choose to set fire to a building, you don't get to use the defense "I didn't know it would collapse and kill the responding ff'ers" nor do you get to blame the victim ff'ers by saying they chose to enter the building. If you are committing a felony, and someone dies in the events you set forth, then you caused the death. Personal responsibility

Quote :

"This is absolutely 100% without logic, morality or even basic common sense. Now, it may be manslaughter, but only if the "result of your choices" is directly malicious or directly negligent and therefore shows direct disregard for human life. "

Wrong, read the law - felony murder rule. You had intent to commit a felony, and a death resulted.

Manslaughter indicates that the underlying offense had no intent to commit a crime, but still resulted in a death. These are usually traffic offenses, or negligence type offenses. Violent crimes, fleeing to elude apprehension, arson, etc. are offenses that you commit with the intent to violate the law...

[Edited on August 4, 2007 at 1:18 PM. Reason : xyz]

8/4/2007 1:15:10 PM

Reasonable expectations must enter into this somewhere. An arsonist must reasonably expect a firefighter to run into the building.

A man running from the police must reasonably expect to cause car accidents along the way. But is it reasonable to expect people listening to the chase on the radio or watching from helicopters to stop paying attention, dying in the process?

Similarly, is it reasonable to expect a police officer to drive himself into the back of a parked truck?

These deaths occured because the criminals indirectly distracted the victims, nothing more, and I do not believe that is grounds for a murder investigation.

8/4/2007 1:48:07 PM

Quote :

"reasonably expect a firefighter to run into the building."

Exactly. These weren't police helicopters though, Should an arsonist be at fault if some dumb photographer rushes in with his camera into a burning building and dies?

8/4/2007 1:50:44 PM

^^ Agreed actually. In both the instance of the news crews and the cop who was drinking, I don't think that the criminal should be chargd with either of those deaths. It's a matter of what choices the criminal made, the reasonable response expectable and the choices of those who died. But it all need to be dealt with case by case. If the cop who was drinking had not been drinking, then charging the person is reasonable as it's reasonable to expect cops to respond to a crime in comission.

8/4/2007 2:53:04 PM

Quote :

"If you are committing a felony, and someone dies in the events you set forth, then you caused the death."

8/4/2007 11:04:34 PM

which does nothing to address the complete idiocy of the idea.

I'm wondering how it will work anyhow when the idea is broached that the felonies in question were caused by unnecessary elevation in hostility

8/5/2007 7:51:13 AM

Quote :

""If you are committing a felony, and someone dies in the events you set forth, then you caused the death.""

Ok, how in depth do you want to go with that idea.

You rob a bank and someone has a heart attack..you get charged with murder. I can see that.

You rob a bank and on the way a cop drives reckless to the bank and hits someone who dies...getting more unrealistic with that one.

You rob a bank, a cop 5 miles a way turn on his siren, the siren scares a horse, horse rears back and kicks some guy on the ground killing him instantly...you see where I'm going with this?


If it was a police copter, then yes, charge them. However, it was two news copters ignoring the rules of aviation trying to get the better shot.

8/5/2007 2:57:09 PM

thats why there is judicial review to establish probable cause for the offense charged, and a jury to establish 'beyond a reasonable doubt" for conviction.

I bold the word "reasonable" because too often the average citizen nowadays seems to think that a conviction requires proof beyond all doubt.

this entire thread would be moot if people would just stop victimizing each other

8/5/2007 8:45:22 PM