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

[MikeK]

ah, but you forget, there are some on this board who believe that they have a right to not only resist arrest, but to aid in the resistance of others if they don't want to be arrested. There are even some who wish to see LEO killed for doing their jobs.

Not the good ones. Just the scumbags who like kicking people's doors down at 3AM for bullshit "offenses."

Some people are just stupid.

You got that right.

 

[MikeK]

If the driver ran because of a minor infraction, why did they run? You see automatically if they run the Officer I hope would suspect they are hiding something. And that something will normally be more than some minor infraction. At least that's the way I would see it.

The possibility does exist that the driver ran because he is a wanted felon. But there is an equal possibility that he (or she) is an adolescent who is joy-riding in Dad's car and dad doesn't know. Or the driver could be a high-strung screwball who should not be provoked into jeopardizing the public safety.

It's a judgment call. If you are the cop, what do you think the wisest thing to do is? Risk causing a major tragedy and then having to say you did it because of a minor traffic infraction? You got the plate number, let the detectives take it from there. In my opinion there is not sufficient cause to (a) initiate a high speed pursuit or (b) start shooting. Because one is as potentially deadly as the other.

 

[MikeK]

that is of course the way any sane person sees it, because it is reality. NO ONE runs from LEO over a minor traffic violation.

You're quite wrong (which is not surprising).

I sometimes watch the TV documentary, COPS. In a recent segment a rural trooper pursued a station wagon at fairly high speed for a couple of miles. The wagon left the road on a turn and sideswiped a house. The driver was a fifteen year-old girl who took the keys from her sleeping father's pocket and was "practicing" her driving. Luckily nobody was hurt. There was several thousand dollars worth of damage but it could have been much worse.

It is rare to watch a COPS segment which does not cover at least one high-speed pursuit and in many cases there is not, in the opinion of any reasoning mind, sufficient cause to justify the way these chases end.

Another documentary showing nothing but high-speed police pursuits showed one in which a pursued car ran through a red light at an intersection and plowed right into a sedan knocking it upside-down onto the sidewalk. It was a fast clip and didn't mention if anyone was killed but from the appearance of it I can't imagine how anyone could survive such a violent wreck.

These high-speed pursuits represent a very serious threat to public safety and they should be conducted only under the most necessary circumstances.

 

[editec]

Cops love to chase people.

In that sense they're much like dogs.

 

[mudwhistle]

Only in the movies? The case I am talking about happened in the 50s or 60s, but it has happened since then.

Tampa police search for rapist who posed as a cop - St. Petersburg Times

It is far from happening only in the movies.

OMG Wow. I mean...Wow!!!!

Back in the 50s? Wow!!!

Why don't we just take a stroll down night-stick lane and relive all of the ass-whuppings the pigs unleashed on our grandparents. That should cause a shiver to go up your leg.

Why do you have a need to give other people the authority to stop you at their will? Do you think that you might do something wrong if the police do not have the right to invade your privacy at the slightest whim?

I don't believe in dwelling in the distant past and making it a point of contention today. If this kind of thing happens you address it then. I don't see why anyone would want to dream up crazy scenarios for the purpose of focusing hatred towards cops. Their jobs are tough enough already without this BS.

 

[George Costanza]

that is of course the way any sane person sees it, because it is reality. NO ONE runs from LEO over a minor traffic violation.

You're quite wrong (which is not surprising).

I sometimes watch the TV documentary, COPS. In a recent segment a rural trooper pursued a station wagon at fairly high speed for a couple of miles. The wagon left the road on a turn and sideswiped a house. The driver was a fifteen year-old girl who took the keys from her sleeping father's pocket and was "practicing" her driving. Luckily nobody was hurt. There was several thousand dollars worth of damage but it could have been much worse.

It is rare to watch a COPS segment which does not cover at least one high-speed pursuit and in many cases there is not, in the opinion of any reasoning mind, sufficient cause to justify the way these chases end.

Another documentary showing nothing but high-speed police pursuits showed one in which a pursued car ran through a red light at an intersection and plowed right into a sedan knocking it upside-down onto the sidewalk. It was a fast clip and didn't mention if anyone was killed but from the appearance of it I can't imagine how anyone could survive such a violent wreck.

These high-speed pursuits represent a very serious threat to public safety and they should be conducted only under the most necessary circumstances.

You are absolutely correct. About the ONLY reason people refuse to stop for a cop is they have a warrant. We get evading cases on almost a weekly basis, sometimes several per week. Invariably, the defendant's reason for evading is existence of a warrant - usually for some minor traffic matter or a misdemeanor.

 

[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.

You can always use me as a model. I seem to agree with you about half the time, which must mean all conservatives are not all bad.

It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. Rather, it has to do with HOW a person disagrees. Sadly, all too many of today's conservatives do not understand the art of disagreeing agreeably or, if they do, they seem to take great pleasure in ignoring it.

 

[George Costanza]

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."

An excellent analysis of an OP or any given post, is where the analysis causes the author of the OP or post to rethink what they wrote.

This is one. Good shot, Liability.

I'm not saying I am changing my mind - but you do present some good arguments here. Comparing the need to fire a weapon to a high speed pursuit for a minor traffic violation is not one of them, however. The two are not the same thing at all, as Skull Pilot aptly points out, below.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Man killed in fall, is gravity guilty of murder?

So if a cop shoots into a crowd in order to kill a perp and shoots 2 kids is that OK?

Chasing a speeder through a school zone at 3 PM is not that different.

 

[George Costanza]

There have been a lot of posts on this thread and, as I read them, not ONE of them addresses the issue raised in the OP. That issue is, simply: On the facts given, does the officer fit into the definition of second degree murder? That's all. Instead of anyone addressing that issue head on, all we have so far are a bunch of emotional OPINIONS as to why the officer should not be in any trouble.

The question is not, SHOULD the cop be charged with murder. The question is, DOES HE COME WITHIN THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF IMPLIED MALICE SECOND DEGREE MURDER. I think it is very clear that he DOES.

Now, SHOULD he be charged is an entirely different question. We all know that, as a matter of fact, officers are NEVER charged with second degree murder when there is a death as the result of a high speed chase which they decide to pursue.

I would like someone to come on here and tell me why the officer does NOT fit within the definintion of implied malice second degree murder. So far, no one has been able to do that. Hell, so far, no one has even TRIED.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't see why anyone would want to dream up crazy scenarios for the purpose of focusing hatred towards cops.

Oh, come on, MW - you're smarter than this. No one "hates" cops here. If you would like to know, I was playing golf over the weekend with several of my lawyer buddies and one of them (my golfing partner, as a matter of fact) brought up the situation. It is an interesting legal question and one that I thought would be a good one to discuss on in this particular Forum.

I might as well ask you, why do you hate innocent civilians? See how inappropriate a comment like that is? Now Man Up and address the issue.

 

[Ringel05]

There have been a lot of posts on this thread and, as I read them, not ONE of them addresses the issue raised in the OP. That issue is, simply: On the facts given, does the officer fit into the definition of second degree murder? That's all. Instead of anyone addressing that issue head on, all we have so far are a bunch of emotional OPINIONS as to why the officer should not be in any trouble.

The question is not, SHOULD the cop be charged with murder. The question is, DOES HE COME WITHIN THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF IMPLIED MALICE SECOND DEGREE MURDER. I think it is very clear that he DOES.

Now, SHOULD he be charged is an entirely different question. We all know that, as a matter of fact, officers are NEVER charged with second degree murder when there is a death as the result of a high speed chase which they decide to pursue.

I would like someone to come on here and tell me why the officer does NOT fit within the definintion of implied malice second degree murder. So far, no one has been able to do that. Hell, so far, no one has even TRIED.

You're a defense lawyer ain't ya.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There have been a lot of posts on this thread and, as I read them, not ONE of them addresses the issue raised in the OP. That issue is, simply: On the facts given, does the officer fit into the definition of second degree murder? That's all. Instead of anyone addressing that issue head on, all we have so far are a bunch of emotional OPINIONS as to why the officer should not be in any trouble.

The question is not, SHOULD the cop be charged with murder. The question is, DOES HE COME WITHIN THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF IMPLIED MALICE SECOND DEGREE MURDER. I think it is very clear that he DOES.

Now, SHOULD he be charged is an entirely different question. We all know that, as a matter of fact, officers are NEVER charged with second degree murder when there is a death as the result of a high speed chase which they decide to pursue.

I would like someone to come on here and tell me why the officer does NOT fit within the definintion of implied malice second degree murder. So far, no one has been able to do that. Hell, so far, no one has even TRIED.

Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[George Costanza]

There have been a lot of posts on this thread and, as I read them, not ONE of them addresses the issue raised in the OP. That issue is, simply: On the facts given, does the officer fit into the definition of second degree murder? That's all. Instead of anyone addressing that issue head on, all we have so far are a bunch of emotional OPINIONS as to why the officer should not be in any trouble.

The question is not, SHOULD the cop be charged with murder. The question is, DOES HE COME WITHIN THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF IMPLIED MALICE SECOND DEGREE MURDER. I think it is very clear that he DOES.

Now, SHOULD he be charged is an entirely different question. We all know that, as a matter of fact, officers are NEVER charged with second degree murder when there is a death as the result of a high speed chase which they decide to pursue.

I would like someone to come on here and tell me why the officer does NOT fit within the definintion of implied malice second degree murder. So far, no one has been able to do that. Hell, so far, no one has even TRIED.

You're a defense lawyer ain't ya.

Yup. What's your point? And do you have any thoughts on whether or not the cop in the OP fits the prescription for murder two?

 

[George Costanza]

There have been a lot of posts on this thread and, as I read them, not ONE of them addresses the issue raised in the OP. That issue is, simply: On the facts given, does the officer fit into the definition of second degree murder? That's all. Instead of anyone addressing that issue head on, all we have so far are a bunch of emotional OPINIONS as to why the officer should not be in any trouble.

The question is not, SHOULD the cop be charged with murder. The question is, DOES HE COME WITHIN THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF IMPLIED MALICE SECOND DEGREE MURDER. I think it is very clear that he DOES.

Now, SHOULD he be charged is an entirely different question. We all know that, as a matter of fact, officers are NEVER charged with second degree murder when there is a death as the result of a high speed chase which they decide to pursue.

I would like someone to come on here and tell me why the officer does NOT fit within the definintion of implied malice second degree murder. So far, no one has been able to do that. Hell, so far, no one has even TRIED.

Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Point well taken. However, when the stakes are really high, malice trumps stupidity, and that's what happens with implied malice second degree murder. It's the death thing that tips the scale, I think.

 

[MikeK]

[...]Police tend to have issues with people not doing exactly what they say, when they say it. I have a problem with that, and always will.

Therein lies the tale!

And well you should have a problem with it. In the final analysis the factor that motivates some cops to engage in high-speed pursuits with minimal cause is authoritarian police ego. They simply are not concerned about the risk to public safety but are determined to force a defiant person into submission. It is the same perverse sense of personal power that motivates some cops to exert excessive force at every opportunity; e.g., slamming an already submissive subject face down "on the ground," driving a knee onto his neck and twisting his arms with unnecessary force while applying handcuffs. Anyone who watches the tv documentary, COPS, sees this scenario played out time after time.

The bottom line is force is acceptable whenever necessary. But the theme of this discussion is the gratuitous exertion of authority which is manifest in the majority of unnecessary high-speed motor vehicle pursuits.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

No. The person guilty of second degree murder is the man in the red car.

 

[MikeK]

We already had that thread, the guy was an idiot for not dialing 911. End of story.

If you ever wonder why you rate so high on the jerkoff list this is a good example.

If my wife or child is in what appears to be desperate need of immediate medical attention and I am sure I can deliver her to an ER doctor much faster than an EMT unit can reach us, that's what I'm going to do. And a pursuing cop can follow me to the hospital, follow me inside, and after I do what needed to be done he can arrest me or issue me all the summonses he wishes to.

My reason for speeding is just as valid as was his and I will pay the price when it gets to court. But I don't want to hear any of his ego-driven bullshit.

Or yours.

 

[MikeK]

Cops love to chase people.

In that sense they're much like dogs.

I am not a fan of NASCAR and I've never engaged in drag-racing but I recognize that such activities are a major stimulus for many people -- some of whom are cops who welcome every opportunity to turn the public thoroughfare into their personal race tracks.

 

[MikeK]

I don't believe in dwelling in the distant past and making it a point of contention today. If this kind of thing happens you address it then. I don't see why anyone would want to dream up crazy scenarios for the purpose of focusing hatred towards cops. Their jobs are tough enough already without this BS.

Your assertion that criminal activity by police impersonators has occurred only in the distant past is misleading. The fact is fake cops have in recent years committed such crimes as armed robbery and forcible rape and the practice is ongoing.

Here is an excerpt from a recent CBS News feature:

(CBS) Flashing lights in your rearview mirror usually means one thing: Pull over, and get your license and registration ready. But some criminals count on that, using fake badges and realistic-looking police lights to mislead potential victims of acts they intend to carry out.

There's growing concern over crimes being committed by phony cops, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales.
Fake Cops, Real Crimes - The Early Show - CBS News