Suspect in police chase likely to face charges for deaths in news copter collision
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/hel...ash/index.html


Yet, earlier in the same article:


I would've understood if, say, police officers died during the chase, but holding the suspect responsible for reporter casualties?

Threatening criminal charges here is just a reaction to being pissed off that innocent people died, but there's no way the fugitive can legally be held accountable for those deaths. Technically he may have been the catalyst of the events, but it's not his fault that the pilots didn't organise their air traffic properly. He didn't directly influence them in any way.

As fucked up as this is, the pilots are responsible for their aircraft. I know that people are excited to see a STOLEN TRUCK WITH A TRALER on TV but that's really not grounds for taking your eyes off the sky; just like it's not acceptable to cause a wreck for talking on a cell phone.

My condolances, in any case. Now I'm wondering which pilot was the cause of the crash.

Basically, I don't think a single pilot was at fault. It must be fucking stressful and confusing for three or more helicopters to fly in close proximity while covering a chase, so frankly it's impressive that such tragedies don't occur more often.

They interviewed a guy who said it looked like they got too close and then just got sucked into each other real quick. Yikes. :\

In a way, it is similar to if a police car hit another civilian's car during the chase and the civilian died. The victim would have had no direct connection to the guy being chased, and in that sense, I think they could charge them.

Consider it this way: what if the reporter was in the back of a police car during the chase, and the police car flipped and the reporter died? The fact that the reporters were covering criminal news that put them in harm's way may make the suspect liable.

It's a stretch, but I could see it happening.

Uhhhh, what? The driver of the police car would be 100% liable in this case, no question about it. Being in pursuit does not give police officers a licence to mow down civilians and shift the blame on the fugitive. Or am I mistunderstanding what you said?

Maybe not in other places, but in the USA, they would never charge the cop for that. The suspect would get stung on it.

If that's true, it's beyond all logic. The idea that you can legally get charged for a crime that someone else commits... Man that's fucked up.

I don't see how they could possibly charge him with those deaths. The cars were in a situation that, although fast, were within the grasp of their respective controls. Two helicopter pilots far out of the way "reporting" on that car chase is far from the grasp of control of either the police OR the criminal.

Screw that criminal for putting everyone in that situation, anyway. I do NOT want him to "get away with it" because of a potential media backlash of questionable charges.

Anyway, my 2 cents ;)

From your first paragraph it seems that you think he cannot be charged as the events were out of his reasonable control, but in the second paragraph you talk about him not being charged because of a potential media backlash. I'm confused here, what exactly do you think should happen? Should he be charged with those deaths or not?

Those pilots were 100% at fault for what happened.

This dude should not be charged with their deaths. They didn't have to crash into each other, after all.

As much as I agree that he should not be charged, the way it works now days is that you're guilty until convicted or proven innocent. Sucks for the family of the pilots and reporters though.

I just hope some sort of sane resolution comes of this. Perhaps we'll be less likely to watch police chases, as 90% of the time I estimate, its mearly done to draw in viewers who might otherwise turn the channel. The populace's bloodlust for car chases is also to blame, but not as much as the Pilot's errors.

Wait, wait, WAIT. Since when is it common practice in the States to charge criminals for tertiary crimes? Damn, Mikey... It's bad enough you Arizona fuckers don't stick with the time zone changes but now you pin crimes on quasi-innocent drivers? You guys got something against the rest of the world or what? :p

It pretty much depends. If he's been in a "high speed pursuit" http://www.runryder.com/fastphoto/15639/buford-9577.jpg, it might depend on how careful and cautious he's been driven (i.e. was it 'necessary'). Of course, if you go at 100 mph (up to top speed) in a city with houses and gas stations, it's pretty obvious that the driver would be 100% liable, but you cannot over-simplify that at all.

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I don't know how likely a case could be, but I'm not saying you can't write it off simply because he didn't directly harm them, direct harm isn't necessary for a crime to be committed.

Except it wasn't a crime, it was an accident. A number of things had to happen for the accident to not occur, but, certainly, one of them was the guy committing the other crime.

What about the crime of reckless endangerment? By fleeing like he did, the suspect put the cops, everyone on the streets, and every reporter covering the story in harm's way.

I just can't see him getting charged on this one. I mean, he was not in control of the vehicles that crashed.

While I do give my condolences to the families involved, and can understand the anger involved with the situation, the fault is of the individual(s) who controlled the helicopter(s).

I mean, suppose Paris Hilton and Bill Gates were seen running off to a hotel together (I know, stupid example, but just go with me here). And suppose two reporters wanted to follow via helicopter to cover the story and this same situation happened. Would it be Gates' and Hilton's fault? Absolutely not. It would be the pilot's because they were in control of the vehicle.

Well, that's not illegal, so it wouldn't exactly be the same situation, you know?

Perhaps he was doing something, like trying to signal the helicopters? That could have distracted the pilots enough to cause a collision.

Of course it doesn't say anything about that in the article, but the details are pretty scant.

That tends to be if you can demonstrate that the negligence of the one being charged led to the death. This guy's negligence can't be tied to the helicopter accident because they're incidental. It's not like leaving a pile of logs unsecured and then later it JUST SO HAPPENS to roll over somebody.

Besides, if somebody was charged in such a case, there's no way it would hold up in a court of law, and even if it did, it could easily make it through appeals.

Of course you could argue the retarded police practice of LET'S CHASE THEM THROUGH CROWDED STREETS for every goddamn thing is pretty reckless too. Stealing a car does not inherently endanger anyone. Let them steal the fucking thing! There are multiple ways of tracing stolen vehicles without chasing them down the highway so you can be a hero.

Running away when a cop chases you is already a crime, it's called resisting arrest. Charge him for that. If you want to know who made the event worth covering on the news, you need to look at who made it into a OMG CHASE! and not just yet another stolen vehicle out of millions.

A guy on a local forum I visit pulled the felony murder statute (bold section can just be read as a sentence, pretty much):

How do you determine "cause"? Would they have crashed their helicopters if the pilots had flown properly? Probably not. Would they have crashed their helicopters if he wasn't fleeing from police? Unequivocally: no.

And note the very last part: "the person or another person causes the death of any person." Another person could be the pilot(s) at fault.

And, sure, that's the defense. Like I said, devil's advocate. All I'm saying is that it isn't air-tight enough for the AG to not consider it.

From the police's perspective it wouldn't be. But it can be argued that these situations are equivalent to the press; they're both titillating scoops. Reporters don't have a pressing legal duty, so to speak, to chase after suspects.

I think it would be a joke if they were to try to charge hat guy for there deaths. If your going to fly a chopper in order to follow along with a chase you better also be looking for any other choppers, trees, power polls, or what not. Say you lose a $5 bill and it blows into the street and somebody runs out to try to take it, but gets hit by a car and getting blamed for it because it was your money which caused the guy to run out into the street.

It was always my notion that the pursuit of fleeing criminals was to apprehend them sooner. If you simply track a stolen car and wait until it stops somewhere, that doesn't mean that police will be on the scene. And, while some criminals are dumb, some of them are also smart. They know that they can be tracked. But if there are no police there to apprehend them when they get out of the vehicle, that leaves the criminal open to capitalize on their situation, perhaps by creating undesirable scenarios like hostage situations and potentially murder. Or more common, they just might get away.


In the case of the helicopter crashes, I doubt that the criminal will be charged with the deaths of the pilots. They placed themselves in a potentially dangerous situation willingly, and through their fault alone they collided. The criminal had no responsibility for the safety of the helicopter crews, and it was not those crews' government mandated duty to be where they were, when they were. If it were a police chopper, it'd be different.

Sort of, the news media has always had different standards when it comes to putting themselves in harm's way. If I remember correctly, sometimes (often?) reporting the news is seen as much of a duty as the police apprehending the guy.

Assuredly having a criminal get away with a felony theft is a horrible, horrible thing and should be prevented by playing Demolition Derby on the interstate, regardless of the implicit risks to bystanders (bydrivers?)

Wait, no

Deliberately engaging in a pattern of behavior dangerous to yourself and everyone around you (which is the nature of nearly any automotive chase) is a hell of a stupid solution to theft of property. It's like throwing knives through a crowded party in the GENERAL DIRECTION of the guy who just lifted your wallet. YEAH, MAYBE YOU'LL HIT HIM. OR UM SOMEBODY ELSE

MOSTLY SOMEBODY ELSE

So sometimes they get away with it. I am ok with that. I think it is a reasonable price to pay in order to have a police force that acts like adults.

Well, they don't have a legal duty, but I assume that sometimes press helicopters do assist the police with information during a chase, as the police likely don't have the resources to send out chopper fleets for every little thing, but the press can apparently do that because toot-toot ratings. At any rate though, it certainly shouldn't free pilots from the responsibility to look where they're flying.

From what I understand the cops have to back down from a chase if there is to much risk to bystanders (tho I am not sure who would decide that

Oddly enough, I was about 4 blocks away at my friend's shop picking up some parts when this shit went down. Crazy as hell.

The crash occurred around 12:45 p.m. in Steele Indian School Park near Third Street and Indian School Road.--The Arizona Republic. Not like any of you care having not been to Phoenix.

Its kind of a crying shame that when the deaths of four people have to be placed on an individual that had no direct contact toward their death.

It is safe to say that if the individual had never committed the crime in the first place then the people in the helicopter would of never went out to monitor the car chase.

Unless that individual had literally any direct contact with how the people in the helicopter were operating their aircraft then he should not be accountable for their deaths. Those people made a conscious decision to decide to monitor that story and unless that person was distracting them or influencing their decisions in a direct way he should not be accountable.

I offer my condolences for the people who have perished during this tragedy and their families who have to go through the burden of burying their loved ones. Overall, this person should not be charged for their deaths. He has already been caught for the crimes he committed.

It wouldn't surprise if the american criminal system actually charged him for their deaths since this criminal system is famous for making incredibly stupid decisions.

Let me clarify my second paragraph: When an event such as this occurs, where questionable actions (on either side of the law) are taken, I don't want this criminal to go unpunished as a whole because of so much light being shone upon it. For instance: Rodney King. Now I'm not trying to start shit here about it, but he was a criminal. Led police on a high speed pursuit, under influence of pcp at the time, resisting arrest, etc. Not to mention him being on parole for armed robbery. I'm trying to remember more, but here's pretty much what happend: he was regarded as the innocent victim. I don't recall hearing about him doing much, if any, time for all that stuff he did. And he's such a nice guy still, getting arrested over and over. THAT'S what I mean by a sort of "media backlash".

Does that seem clearer?

I'm pretty sure that any mildly competent lawyer can get this guy off of a murder charge. I looked up the language for First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder in Arizona. Both contain the word intentional. There's just no way that the death of these people was intentional.

What he can and may go down for is involuntary manslaughter. This law uses "reckless" within it's language, and it wouldn't be too hard to show that the guy's recklessness (running from the police) led to a series of events which caused the death of the pilots.

On the other hand a defense attorney can argue that the chopper pilots were the victims of a hazardous job.

Another thing that's being ignored in this thread is precedence. There's going to be a lot of homework involved here. I'm sure that somewhere there was a car chase which involved harm to a civilian and that civilian or their family sued the criminal fleeing. How did those cases work out? U.S. Law is heavily weighted in precedence and that's going to play a big role here.

In my eyes murder is definitely out of the question, but involuntary manslaughter is very much in the realm of reasonable possibility.

Hotobu, you're reading the statue wrong.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...13&DocType=ARS

Only A.R.S. §13-1105 (A)(1) includes the word intentional. A.R.S. §13-1105 (A)(2) does not.

I do agree that a lawyer should be able to beat any murder charge if the DA brings one, but first degree murder, at least in Arizona, doesn't necessarily have to be intentional; that's the felony-murder rule. Manslaughter would be the wrong charge here because of that rule.

Someone I know tried to find precedence (he just looked briefly) in Arizona case law for this and couldn't find any similar instances.

YouTube Video

Ah yes, nothing like showing pictures of broken helicopters while playing Broken Wings.

It was the only video I could find with the whole news video. =/