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

[George Costanza]

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.

Well done. Let's analyze:

First off, no one is trying to absolve the red car driver (Smith in your example) of anything. In either example, Smith would be prosecuted for second degree murder, and properly so. (Did you get that, CG?)

The question is, what about the cop? In all of these case, if the cop elects not to go in pursuit, there isn't going to be a high speed chase, period. Everyone pretty much agrees that there are situations where high speed chases are necessary - where the crime involved is very serious and the officer knows that. The tough cases, and the ones causing all the controversy, are the ones where the reason for the chase is a minor one, usually just a minor traffic violation where nothing more is known to the officer at the time he goes in pursuit.

It is just common sense that the risk to society cause by high speed chases outweighs the benefit to society of apprehending someone following a high speed chase merely to give them a ticket for running a stop sign.

The OP takes this one to a slightly higher level. Shouldn't the police be held responsible for initiating high speed chases for some minor reason, when the chase results in the death of an innocent civilian? I think they should.

 

[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.

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.*

Ah, CG, you never disappoint me.

 

[goldcatt]

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.*

Watch it, sister.





Actually it's more a question of framing the issue than twisting the facts. And defense lawyers perform a valuable service in actually forcing the government to prove individuals are guilty before locking them away. Would you prefer the government be able to lock folks up uncontested, based on accusation and with only the best efforts of the accused (who is likely mostly or completely untrained in the process) to rebut it? The Sixth Amendment exists for a very good reason.

 

[Modbert]

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.*

I truly hope you're not serious and that you're just joking.

 

[California Girl]

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.*

I truly hope you're not serious and that you're just joking.

Not really. I would have no real objection to more lawyers going to prison along side their clients. If there is one profession that I struggle to have respect for it is that of lawyers. As a profession, I think they've done quite a lot of harm to the US as a society. And I particularly dislike those who try to shift blame from their client who acted unlawfully to a police officer who acted lawfully.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Implied malice second degree murder involves someone acting in reckless disregard of human life when that person knew or should have known of the danger to human life caused by his actions, followed by a death as a consequence of those actions.

In the scenario presented, the officer fits squarely within this definition.

The only legal issue is whether or not the driver of the red car is an intervening cause, thereby relieving the officer of any liability. He is not, because what happened is reasonably foreseeable.

It does not depend upon whether the officer violated any police policy. If he did, that strengthens the argument, but it is not required that a policy be violated.

Reckless is the standard in California. A cop who initiates a high speed chase for a traffic violation is acting recklessly - especially when he continues that chase into a school zone.

Now come on - you can join me in jail for trying to help our clients.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

It's called Probable Cause that a felony had taken place when anyone tries to evade.

Evading the officer with a vehicle is a felony. If he hadn't committed a felony before....the attempted escape sealed the deal.

The perp was using his vehicle as a weapon and the officer was duty bound to arrest him in the safest manner possible. Ramming into him wasn't one of them. So he followed him and called for back-up.

Personally I think they should allow police to blow them up with a cannon when they try to get away. It would simplify things a great deal. But then somebody would claim police brutality.

 

[George Costanza]

It is CG, and people like her on boards such as this, that have gone a long way to shape my conception of today's conservative.

I wish it were otherwise, believe me.

 

[George Costanza]

Evading the officer with a vehicle is a felony. If he hadn't committed a felony before....the attempted escape sealed the deal.

Bootstrap argument.

And evading may or may not be a felony, depending on how recklessly the fleeing suspect is driving. If he is not driving recklessly, then it is merely a misdemeanor. And, at the outset of any chase, the suspect is never driving recklessly. He only starts driving recklessly when he sees that he is being pursued.

 

[Modbert]

Not really. I would have no real objection to more lawyers going to prison along side their clients. If there is one profession that I struggle to have respect for it is that of lawyers. As a profession, I think they've done quite a lot of harm to the US as a society. And I particularly dislike those who try to shift blame from their client who acted unlawfully to a police officer who acted lawfully.

So basically lawyers are allowed to defend their clients not to the best of their ability but rather whatever restrictions you put on them. And if they break those restrictions, they get to go to jail for merely doing their job. Man, that will encourage people to be defense lawyers.

You remind me of one of those people who would of admonished John Adams for being the legal counsel for the eight soldiers who were accused of killing civilians in the Boston Massacre.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The jerk in the red car could just have rolled to a stop, got the ticket and most of the time rolled on. He chose to be stupid, and it was his acts that caused the deaths, not the officers. It was not the officer who did the driving over the kids.


You are totally responsible for what you do. What others do is up to them.

 

[California Girl]

Not really. I would have no real objection to more lawyers going to prison along side their clients. If there is one profession that I struggle to have respect for it is that of lawyers. As a profession, I think they've done quite a lot of harm to the US as a society. And I particularly dislike those who try to shift blame from their client who acted unlawfully to a police officer who acted lawfully.

So basically lawyers are allowed to defend their clients not to the best of their ability but rather whatever restrictions you put on them. And if they break those restrictions, they get to go to jail for merely doing their job. Man, that will encourage people to be defense lawyers.

You remind me of one of those people who would of admonished John Adams for being the legal counsel for the eight soldiers who were accused of killing civilians in the Boston Massacre.

I dislike lawyers who corrupt the process to save the guilty. I have little respect, in general, for defense lawyers. Seems like every single one I've come across is a lying little shit. They're vermin.... not all, but certainly, a substantial 'minority'.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

There are restrictions on lawyers that can get them disbarred.

English common law heritage is that the state has the total obligation to prove its case. If the defense can show there is a problem with the state's argument, then the case is not proved.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's never a good idea to give the bad guys the benefit of the doubt or more time to act. We tried that after the 93 WTC bombing, how'd that work out for us?

The driver of the red car did not slow down because of the initial police chase, do you think he's suddenly going to become a law abiding citizen because he's driving past a school?

I've been pulled over in at least 4 different states and ever time, I pull over, turn the engine off and wait with both hands on the wheel. It should be on the driving test and you should not get a license of you answer incorrectly.

 

[mudwhistle]

It is CG, and people like her on boards such as this, that have gone a long way to shape my conception of today's conservative.

I wish it were otherwise, believe me.

And what is your conception?

Blanket assumptions are usually dead wrong.

Personally folks like you are why conservatives sometimes lose their patience with the left. What is obviously right and based in common-sense seems to be a thing of ridicule.

I like a society that doesn't coddle the perp but instead deals out punishment rather then a slap on the wrist. Singapore is a prime example of just such a society. Their quality of life is head and shoulders above ours.

 

[George Costanza]

The driver of the red car did not slow down because of the initial police chase, do you think he's suddenly going to become a law abiding citizen because he's driving past a school?

But the idea here is, Frank, that if the cop had never decided to pursue in the first place, then the driver of the red car would never have been driving recklessly.

I've been pulled over in at least 4 different states and ever time, I pull over, turn the engine off and wait with both hands on the wheel. It should be on the driving test and you should not get a license of you answer incorrectly.

Correct. I agree. But you and I aren't the problem, now are we?

 

[SFC Ollie]

When you decide to run from the police it is an admission of guilt, the Officer simply doesn't know what you are admitting to yet.

 

[George Costanza]

It is CG, and people like her on boards such as this, that have gone a long way to shape my conception of today's conservative.

I wish it were otherwise, believe me.

And what is your conception?

Blanket assumptions are usually dead wrong.

Personally folks like you are why conservatives sometimes lose their patience with the left. What is obviously right and based in common-sense seems to be a thing of ridicule.

I like a society that doesn't coddle the perp but instead deals out punishment rather then a slap on the wrist. Singapore is a prime example of just such a society. Their quality of life is head and shoulders above ours.

Singapore. Ah, yes - what a wonderful place that must be. Not too many personal freedoms, of course, with a draconian criminal justice system that executes citizens for just about any infraction.

What is my conception of today's conservative? That, my right wing friend, is an entire topic for another thread - I couldn't even begin to touch it in one post here.

 

[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.

Implied malice second degree murder involves someone acting in reckless disregard of human life when that person knew or should have known of the danger to human life caused by his actions, followed by a death as a consequence of those actions.

In the scenario presented, the officer fits squarely within this definition.

The only legal issue is whether or not the driver of the red car is an intervening cause, thereby relieving the officer of any liability. He is not, because what happened is reasonably foreseeable.

It does not depend upon whether the officer violated any police policy. If he did, that strengthens the argument, but it is not required that a policy be violated.

Reckless is the standard in California. A cop who initiates a high speed chase for a traffic violation is acting recklessly - especially when he continues that chase into a school zone.

Now come on - you can join me in jail for trying to help our clients.

Obviously I disagree about causation. The red car's driver (I'll call him Bob - it's easier) made the choices, the cop simply reacted as his position requires. Bob made the choice to fail to stop, there's cause #1. Bob made the choice to continue the chase when the officer began pursuit, cause #2. Bob made the choice to drive at high speed past an elementary school while children were emerging, cause #3. And finally, Bob failed to see or react to two children crossing the street, Cause #4.

The cop simply pressed the accelerator in the chase car, which possibly contributed an additional few MPH to an already high speed chase so contributory negligence may be at play, but did not cause injury or death.

I find it interesting that police policy has no bearing on mens rea where you are. The officer was acting in his official capacity. Why does CA not take that into consideration?

Can't join you in the cell on this one, maybe next time. I hear it's cheap rent, but the food is lousy.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Actually, Multnomah County Jail has very good food.


Except for the beans. they have beans way to often.