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

[fyrenza]

Ah, now I see ~ it wasn't that Officer Jones (OJ) tried to pull the red car over,

it was that he Gave Chase, knowing that the school was up ahead.

In that case, yes, I can see that he should be facing some sort of charges, especially if cops have been given the No-High-Speed-Pursuit instructions regarding minor traffic violations.

I took the thing further than I should have, and added what-if's that we couldn't possibly know the validity of, but like many folks, I'm real hesitant to use the laws that they uphold against the cops. My bad.

 

[goldcatt]

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'.

I feel very sorry for you if you've never met a defense lawyer who wasn't a "lying little shit". Your social circle must have appalling taste indeed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

In California 'hot pursuit' is a call made by the watch commander or the patrol officers supervisor. If this is a real case, it is a classic cluster fuck.
Unless a felony is committed most agencies simply back off and issue a BOLO for the vehicle; in the case of felonies policy dictates whether pursuit is continued or called off. That decision is not made by the officer in pursuit, but my his superiors.
I submit If he disobeys he is culpable, and if he follows policy he is not.
The civil issue will protect an officer following policy and or direction of supervisors, it will not prevent the parents of the children from filing suit or the agency/hiring authority from liability.

 

[goldcatt]

Actually, Multnomah County Jail has very good food.


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

I'm not going to ask how you know that.

I'm not sure it would make up for the substandard accommodations, but it does make the idea of next time I agree with George that much less traumatic.

 

[Liability]

If the cop pulls his gun and is forced to shoot at the gun weilding suspect while in an area where a stray bullet might cause injury or death to some uninvolved passers-by, is the cop guilty of an assault, reckless endangerment or murder if a stray bullet does strike an innocent passer-by?

The correct answer is "no." The cop is privileged, under the law, to do that dangerous thing.

Is the result any less tragic just because the cop has a lawful privilege? Nope.

But it would be piss poor public policy to prosecute cops for such tragedies since the expected result of such prosecutions would be the same as denying the cops the privilege in the first place. If we WANT cops to be able to drop a gun-toting and gun shooting suspect under the proper circumstances, then we must be prepared to accept that there are concomitant societal risks.

Turning back to the OP question in that light. UNLESS there is a clear police department policy prohibiting high speed chases for certain (relatively minor) offenses, then the cop is guilty of nothing except maybe (arguably) having used poor judgment. Tragic outcome is not doubted. But that's not the question. The question is whether the cop "should" get prosecuted. In that case, absent a police department policy, the answer should be "no."

 

[Samson]

Man killed in fall, is gravity guilty of murder?

Yes, and Gravity should be given the death penalty.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

DA would probably drop the case against Gravity.

 

[Liability]

Man killed in fall, is gravity guilty of murder?

Yes, and Gravity should be given the death penalty.

The willful violation of the Law of Gravity is punishable by no less than $1,000.00 and no more than $20,000.00 and up to one year in local jail for a first offense.

The Law of Gravity. It's not just a suggestion.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is not the violation of the law of gravity that causes the problem, but the enforcement.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Man killed in fall, is gravity guilty of murder?

Yes, and Gravity should be given the death penalty.

So Glib, so insipid. So typical.

 

[Samson]

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.

No.

The OP said the driver of the red car was driving recklessly (ran the stop sign, as I recall?) BEFORE the pursuit.

The officer has no reason to expect this driver to slow down through a school zone, regardless of whether or not he is being persued. In fact, he could just as easily assumed the driver of the red car was impaired on PCP, hallucinating, and would be lucky not to hit more than just two kids.

As I remember the last time you conjured up a senario like this, George, there is always the false supposition that the officer has a crystal ball on his dash that always sees the perpatrator through rose colored glasses.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I thought we had already repealed the law of gravity months ago?

 

[Samson]

I thought we had already repealed the law of gravity months ago?

Gravity: It is Bush's Fault.

 

[Moon]

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.

Since the driver was never positively identified by the officer, how likely is it the person would be convicted? People loan out their cars often, and since you are not required to self-incriminate and if you refuse to answer any questions, it seems to me you would likely not be convicted of anything.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, so it's possible I'm missing something here.

 

[del]

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?

there is no reason to assume the officer had prior knowledge of why the driver ran. as you imply in your OP, the driver had no real reason to run that could be reasonably expected to be known by the officer; a warrant for a traffic ticket is hardly worth a felony arrest and subsequent trial to anyone who is rational. try again.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The driver of the red car is at fault for the deaths of the two children. Regardless of his intent for speeding through the school zone, it was his duty as a driver of an automobile to give the kids in the crossing the right of way and stop for them. He did not do that and hit the kids with his car causing their deaths. The reason for his speeding has no bearing on why he did not stop and yield so the kids could cross safely. The policeman did not cause him to speed by turning on his red lights to stop the car that had broken a law. The policeman did not prevent the driver of the car from stopping. The policeman did not prevent the driver of the red car from yielding to the children in the crosswalk. He did these things all on his own and therefore is the only one guilty in this tragic event.

 

[MikeK]

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.

Unlike the automatic response behavior imbedded in the military private's orientation the civilian police officer's job must necessarily include the exercise of judgment in many situations -- which is why they are called officers. But because we live in an increasingly authoritarian culture the courts will inevitably manage to support the oversimplified "just doing his job" reasoning because it accommodates and affirms the power of the state.

Have you tried imagining yourself as the father of the two hypothetical children killed by the pursued car? Would you shake the pursuers hand and excuse him for "just doing his job?"

As George Costanza has pointed out, the pivotal question in such a situation must be the reason for the pursuit. Was the risk justified?

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Unlike the automatic response behavior imbedded in the military private's orientation the civilian police officer's job must necessarily include the exercise of judgment in many situations -- which is why they are called officers. But because we live in an increasingly authoritarian culture the courts will inevitably manage to support the oversimplified "just doing his job" reasoning because it accommodates and affirms the power of the state.

Have you tried imagining yourself as the father of the two hypothetical children killed by the pursued car? Would you shake the pursuers hand and excuse him for "just doing his job?"

As George Costanza has pointed out, the pivotal question in such a situation must be the reason for the pursuit. Was the risk justified?

Intervening cause. The officer, once pursuit began, did not set the speed or direction of pursuit nor did he do anything that impeded the driver from stopping. His choice to pursue was to attenuated to be considered the proximate cause of the childrens' deaths.

The question is also not whether the officer may have acted negligently (possible, there are a few facts missing) but whether he acted with such a reckless disregard for the lives of the two children involved that amounts to implied intent or malice.

If the family were convinced the officer negligently contributed to the deaths by initiating pursuit, then he, and his department and the City if he was acting according to policy, should be joined in a civil case and causation can be tried under tort law. But a criminal conviction for second degree murder? Seriously?

 

[Mini 14]

The reality here is that 100% of the blame lies with the driver of the red car, and that the Officer should suffer absolutely no negative affect for doing his job properly. In my State, the driver of the red car would receive the death penalty, but....

That said, this is California.

The driver of the red car will walk, sue the parents of the dead children, the Police Department, and the manufacturer of the car he was driving, winning hundreds of millions. The Officer will be sent to prison for life, without the possibility of parole.

The only thing dumber than a California Judge is a California lawyer.

 

[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.

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.

Pure hyperbole. My guess is you've never been to Singapore [I have] so of course you know every thing about it.