High Speed Chase Ends in Death - Is The Officer Guilty of Murder?

[George Costanza]

All right, folks - hang on. Here we go:

In California (and many other states as well) someone who is responsible for the death of another person in an automobile accident, can be convicted of second degree murder. In order to be convicted of murder, malice must appear - but malice can be implied.

If it appears that ". . . the defendant deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life," malice may be implied, and the defendant can be convicted of second degree murder.

Prosecutions for murder in auto accident cases usually involve a drunk driver as the defendant. If the defendant got really blitzed, got into his car, went on to the highway and killed someone, he/she can be convicted of murder if the the defendant knew or should have known what they were doing was life endangering and they still acted in conscious disregard for the safety of others on the highway.

OK - all of this is pretty well established. But what about this situation?

Officer Jones spots a red car rolling through a stop sign without making a full stop. He decides to ticket the driver. He flips on the reds. The driver does not pull over. In fact, he takes off. (The driver of the red car knows he has a warrant out for him for not paying a traffic ticket. He flees because he does not want to get arrested for the traffic warrant. There is no other reason for him to flee.)

Officer Jones turns on the siren, calls dispatch and goes into pursuit. Seeing that the police car is pulling up on him, the red car driver gooses it, now pulling away from the police car. The chase is proceeding down Taylor Avenue. Five or six blocks away is Taylor Elementary School. The time is 3:00 p.m. Officer Jones is well aware of the location of Taylor Elementary School and the fact that school gets out at 3:00 p.m. In an effort to apprehend the red car driver, he increases his speed even more, but the red car has a hot engine, and pulls away once again. Four seconds later, the red car runs over two Taylor Elementary School children, killing them both.

Officer Jones decided to go in pursuit of a motorist for running a stop sign. No other reason. He could have recorded the license plate number of the red car and gone by the guy's house later in the afternoon to arrest him there for evading. But he chose not to do that and to initiate a pursuit, thereby causing the red car driver to try to get away.

As the chase approached Taylor Elementary School, Officer Jones could easily have terminated the chase, but he chose not to. In fact, he increased the tempo of the chase, causing the red car driver to speed even faster, killing the two children.

I submit that Officer Jones deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life, and that Officer Jones (along with the driver of the red car) should be prosecuted for second degree murder.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Unless the PD where Officer Jones works has a regulation prohibiting high speed chases in certain areas, Officer Jones is in the clear. (With his department)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Man killed in fall, is gravity guilty of murder?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the strip mall nearest to me, a young man was shot and killed while in his car apparently after trying to run over a police officer or two. One officer was on the hood of the car. Was the officer wrong to draw his weapon? Should he have let the kid run him over a few times before he acted?

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, but it sure sounds like the driver of the red car should be.

 

[uscitizen]

The driver of the red car should be executed for terminal stupidity if nothing else.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The driver who was wrong in not pulling over is the sole cause of the deaths. The officer was doing his job. Had the driver obeyed the law and pulled over there would have been no chase.

 

[George Costanza]

Focus on why the officer was chasing the guy. What had the guy done? Why was he running? Is this the type of case that is deserving of a high speed chase with the attendant risk of life to innocent civilians?

 

[RadiomanATL]

The driver who was wrong in not pulling over is the sole cause of the deaths. The officer was doing his job. Had the driver obeyed the law and pulled over there would have been no chase.

Bingo.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Focus on why the officer was chasing the guy. What had the guy done? Why was he running? Is this the type of case that is deserving of a high speed chase with the attendant risk of life to innocent civilians?

The officer has no clue why the guy would run. For all he knew there was a body in the trunk.

 

[Mini 14]

The guy killed himself, the officer was just a spectator.

No, the officer isn't liable.

 

[fyrenza]

All right, folks - hang on. Here we go:

In California (and many other states as well) someone who is responsible for the death of another person in an automobile accident, can be convicted of second degree murder. In order to be convicted of murder, malice must appear - but malice can be implied.

If it appears that ". . . the defendant deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life," malice may be implied, and the defendant can be convicted of second degree murder.

Prosecutions for murder in auto accident cases usually involve a drunk driver as the defendant. If the defendant got really blitzed, got into his car, went on to the highway and killed someone, he/she can be convicted of murder if the the defendant knew or should have known what they were doing was life endangering and they still acted in conscious disregard for the safety of others on the highway.

OK - all of this is pretty well established. But what about this situation?

Officer Jones spots a red car rolling through a stop sign without making a full stop. He decides to ticket the driver. He flips on the reds. The driver does not pull over. In fact, he takes off. (The driver of the red car knows he has a warrant out for him for not paying a traffic ticket. He flees because he does not want to get arrested for the traffic warrant. There is no other reason for him to flee.)

Officer Jones turns on the siren, calls dispatch and goes into pursuit. Seeing that the police car is pulling up on him, the red car driver gooses it, now pulling away from the police car. The chase is proceeding down Taylor Avenue. Five or six blocks away is Taylor Elementary School. The time is 3:00 p.m. Officer Jones is well aware of the location of Taylor Elementary School and the fact that school gets out at 3:00 p.m. In an effort to apprehend the red car driver, he increases his speed even more, but the red car has a hot engine, and pulls away once again. Four seconds later, the red car runs over two Taylor Elementary School children, killing them both.

Officer Jones decided to go in pursuit of a motorist for running a stop sign. No other reason. He could have recorded the license plate number of the red car and gone by the guy's house later in the afternoon to arrest him there for evading. But he chose not to do that and to initiate a pursuit, thereby causing the red car driver to try to get away.

As the chase approached Taylor Elementary School, Officer Jones could easily have terminated the chase, but he chose not to. In fact, he increased the tempo of the chase, causing the red car driver to speed even faster, killing the two children.

I submit that Officer Jones deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life, and that Officer Jones (along with the driver of the red car) should be prosecuted for second degree murder.

Though I would say that the officer sort of caused the children's deaths,

I wouldn't say he was responsible, at all.

He shouldn't have been in the patrol car, because he lacked the mature judgment required to make a decision regarding a "chase," perhaps,

BUT, the dumbass that had the warrant for a ticket? Please! How much could that cost a person?

THAT is the murderer.

If that person was Running For Their Lives? Regardless of whether Officer Jones ended the chase, as soon as he realized the dangerous situation ahead,

That Person would STILL have been running, ninety-to-nothing to Get Away,

figuring that OJ ( ) had called the episode in,

and if it was that vehicle that killed the children?

Well.

You'd have to figure out a way for it to NOT be correct procedure for a cop to pursue and ticket folks that disobeyed the most basic of traffic rules, imho.

p.s. I'm playing devil's advocate, here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All right, folks - hang on. Here we go:

In California (and many other states as well) someone who is responsible for the death of another person in an automobile accident, can be convicted of second degree murder. In order to be convicted of murder, malice must appear - but malice can be implied.

If it appears that ". . . the defendant deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life," malice may be implied, and the defendant can be convicted of second degree murder.

Prosecutions for murder in auto accident cases usually involve a drunk driver as the defendant. If the defendant got really blitzed, got into his car, went on to the highway and killed someone, he/she can be convicted of murder if the the defendant knew or should have known what they were doing was life endangering and they still acted in conscious disregard for the safety of others on the highway.

OK - all of this is pretty well established. But what about this situation?

Officer Jones spots a red car rolling through a stop sign without making a full stop. He decides to ticket the driver. He flips on the reds. The driver does not pull over. In fact, he takes off. (The driver of the red car knows he has a warrant out for him for not paying a traffic ticket. He flees because he does not want to get arrested for the traffic warrant. There is no other reason for him to flee.)

Officer Jones turns on the siren, calls dispatch and goes into pursuit. Seeing that the police car is pulling up on him, the red car driver gooses it, now pulling away from the police car. The chase is proceeding down Taylor Avenue. Five or six blocks away is Taylor Elementary School. The time is 3:00 p.m. Officer Jones is well aware of the location of Taylor Elementary School and the fact that school gets out at 3:00 p.m. In an effort to apprehend the red car driver, he increases his speed even more, but the red car has a hot engine, and pulls away once again. Four seconds later, the red car runs over two Taylor Elementary School children, killing them both.

Officer Jones decided to go in pursuit of a motorist for running a stop sign. No other reason. He could have recorded the license plate number of the red car and gone by the guy's house later in the afternoon to arrest him there for evading. But he chose not to do that and to initiate a pursuit, thereby causing the red car driver to try to get away.

As the chase approached Taylor Elementary School, Officer Jones could easily have terminated the chase, but he chose not to. In fact, he increased the tempo of the chase, causing the red car driver to speed even faster, killing the two children.

I submit that Officer Jones deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life, and that Officer Jones (along with the driver of the red car) should be prosecuted for second degree murder.

I agree, but we both know there is no way a prosecutor will bring charges. Police get away with a lot of things that would land anyone else in jail. That is exactly the opposite of the way it should work.

 

[Toome]

Citizen Smith is a successful drug dealer. So far, he's managed to stay under the radar with his activities. The only thing he has on his record is some unpaid parking ticket. Today, he's on his way to Taylor Elementary School to sell some more drugs to the kids but has to hurry because he's running late. Smith rolls through a stop sign without making a full stop. He sees a police car, hears the siren and sees the lights. Problem is that Smith has a full stash of drugs he intended to sell at the school and can't afford to be caught with them in his possession. He decides to race towards the school. As the chase proceeds down Taylor Avenue, Smith figures that the police car will be forced to ease up, so Smith drives even faster. Four seconds later, Smith's red car runs over two Taylor Elementary School children, killing them both.

Smith hires a lawyer named Constanza. His defense is that Officer Jones, the officer in the police car, decided to go in pursuit of a motorist for running a stop sign. No other reason. He could have recorded the license plate number of the red car and gone by the guy's house later in the afternoon to arrest him there for evading. But he chose not to do that and to initiate a pursuit, thereby causing the red car driver to try to get away. As the chase approached Taylor Elementary School, Officer Jones could easily have terminated the chase, but he chose not to. In fact, he increased the tempo of the chase, causing the red car driver to speed even faster, killing the two children. Officer Jones deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life, and that Officer Jones (along with the driver of the red car) should be prosecuted for second degree murder.

The charges against Smith are dropped. Officer Jones is put on temporary suspension, pending the outcome of an investigation, and Smith goes back to selling drugs to elementary school kids.

 

[California Girl]

If you run from a lawful stop, you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that action.

I hate defense lawyers who try to place the blame on anyone but their clients. If I had my way, the defense lawyers who use this tactic would go to prison, along with their clients.

 

[George Costanza]

Focus on why the officer was chasing the guy. What had the guy done? Why was he running? Is this the type of case that is deserving of a high speed chase with the attendant risk of life to innocent civilians?

The officer has no clue why the guy would run. For all he knew there was a body in the trunk.

True - but the officer did have a clue as to the initial reason for the stop. All the guy did was run a stop sign. He was not coming out of a bank with bags of money in one hand and a smoking gun in the other. The officer had not been informed by dispatch that the guy had kidnapped someone. In other words, in the situation posed here, the only reason for the pursuit was a minor traffic violation.

Most police agencies have chase policies dictating to officers when they can and when they cannot initiate a high speed pursuit. Many of those policies say the officer should NOT initiate a pursuit of a suspect who refuses to stop when the triggering reason is a minor traffic violation. Why a policy like that? On balance, it isn't worth the potential loss of life to innocent civilians merely to collar someone for only a minor traffic violation.

 

[George Costanza]

If you run from a lawful stop, you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that action.

I hate defense lawyers who try to place the blame on anyone but their clients. If I had my way, the defense lawyers who use this tactic would go to prison, along with their clients.

You are always such a charming person.

I only presented this situation because it is a legally interesting question. Instead of indulging in your usual technique of ranting and insulting, why not try using that pretty sharp brain of yours and address the issue.

Take a look at the definition of implied malice second degree murder, as it is set forth in the OP. Don't you think that, on the facts given, the officer comes within that definition? I sure do. If you do not think the officer could be prosecuted on these facts, why not?

From the first part of your post here, I gather you feel the fact that the guy in the red car was the one who actually killed the children absolves the officer of any guilt. That would be what we call in the law, an intervening cause. Yes, intervening causes can have the effect of absolving the original actor of any responsibility, unless they are foreseeable intervening causes. Here, it is foreseeable that cars being chased by officers might kill innocent civilians, so that argument does not fly.

What if it was the police officer who had happened to have killed the children? That could easily have been the case. What then? Second degree murder? Remember the definition in the OP.

 

[uscitizen]

Focus on why the officer was chasing the guy. What had the guy done? Why was he running? Is this the type of case that is deserving of a high speed chase with the attendant risk of life to innocent civilians?

The officer has no clue why the guy would run. For all he knew there was a body in the trunk.

True - but the officer did have a clue as to the initial reason for the stop. All the guy did was run a stop sign. He was not coming out of a bank with bags of money in one hand and a smoking gun in the other. The officer had not been informed by dispatch that the guy had kidnapped someone. In other words, in the situation posed here, the only reason for the pursuit was a minor traffic violation.

Most police agencies have chase policies dictating to officers when they can and when they cannot initiate a high speed pursuit. Many of those policies say the officer should NOT initiate a pursuit of a suspect who refuses to stop when the triggering reason is a minor traffic violation. Why a policy like that? On balance, it isn't worth the potential loss of life to innocent civilians merely to collar someone for only a minor traffic violation.

Well that is the bleeding heart liberal view for sure.

where is personal responsibility for ones actions?

with your line of reasoning it would encourage all to run.

 

[California Girl]

If you run from a lawful stop, you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that action.

I hate defense lawyers who try to place the blame on anyone but their clients. If I had my way, the defense lawyers who use this tactic would go to prison, along with their clients.

You are always such a charming person.

I only presented this situation because it is a legally interesting question. Instead of indulging in your usual technique of ranting and insulting, why not try using that pretty sharp brain of yours and address the issue.

Take a look at the definition of implied malice second degree murder, as it is set forth in the OP. Don't you think that, on the facts given, the officer comes within that definition? I sure do. If you do not think the officer could be prosecuted on these facts, why not?

From the first part of your post here, I gather you feel the fact that the guy in the red car was the one who actually killed the children absolves the officer of any guilt. That would be what we call in the law, an intervening cause. Yes, intervening causes can have the effect of absolving the original actor of any responsibility, unless they are foreseeable intervening causes. Here, it is foreseeable that cars being chased by officers might kill innocent civilians, so that argument does not fly.

What if it was the police officer who had happened to have killed the children? That could easily have been the case. What then? Second degree murder? Remember the definition in the OP.

There is no 'issue'. He ran from the police. People died as a direct result of his actions. He's guilty. The police are not.

Of course, being a defense lawyer, you may try to play a variety of cards in defense of a client. Personally, I'd be happy to see you in prison beside him. Maybe if there were tougher consequences for defense lawyers who twist facts to save the guilty, we'd have more honest lawyers.

*Snickers at the though of honest lawyers.*

 

[goldcatt]

The officer? No, unless he was in violation of policy by pursuing the red car he was negligent at best.

But it was the driver of the red car who first failed to stop, then chose to take the chase past the elementary school at that time. The cop was only following his lead.

Would the deliberate choice to carry a high speed chase past an elementary school while the children were exiting be considered implied malice? Reckless, absolutely. I don't know what the CA standard is for implying malice, it's a maybe.