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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Originally Posted by Aardark

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 343 Guilty Spark

Wait, wait, WAIT. Since when is it common practice in the States to charge criminals for tertiary crimes?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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

Quote:

A. A person commits first degree murder if:
2. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons the person commits or attempts to commit sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, molestation of a child under section 13-1410, terrorism under section 13-2308.01, marijuana offenses under section 13-3405, subsection A, paragraph 4, dangerous drug offenses under section 13-3407, subsection A, paragraphs 4 and 7, narcotics offenses under section 13-3408, subsection A, paragraph 7 that equal or exceed the statutory threshold amount for each offense or combination of offenses, involving or using minors in drug offenses under section 13-3409, kidnapping under section 13-1304, burglary under section 13-1506, 13-1507 or 13-1508, arson under section 13-1703 or 13-1704, robbery under section 13-1902, 13-1903 or 13-1904, escape under section 13-2503 or 13-2504, child abuse under section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1, or unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle under section 28-622.01 and in the course of and in furtherance of the offense or immediate flight from the offense, the person or another person causes the death of any person.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Guru

They placed themselves in a potentially dangerous situation willingly, and through their fault alone they collided.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

How ya doing, buddy?