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.

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

Of course he is. That goes without saying. But the police officer fits within the definition of second degree murder AS WELL, don't you see?

You don't think he comes with the definition of second degree murder? Tell me why not.

 

[George Costanza]

A sub-theme of this thread has been alluded to in previous posts. It has to do with the propensity of police officers to initiate high speed pursuits, regardless of the reason for them. Sad to say, all to many police officers take out after somone solely because the suspect's refusal to stop represents a personal rejection of their authority and NO ONE can get away with anything like THAT.

And then someone ends up dead - all because of some authoritarian cop's ego.

As far as I am concerned, THAT is the "reckless disregard for human life" that should cause the pursuing police officer to also be prosecuted for second degree murder, right along with the person he is chasing.

So many of you are fond of arguing (in the hate crime legislation debate) that "the victim is just as dead" regardless of the thought process of the suspect. Well, in high speed chase accidents, the victim is just as dead, whether you want to blame it on the fleeing suspect, the pursuing cop, or both of them.

I say both of them.

 

[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.

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?

I figured from your position on the cop. Obviously from your point of view it fits though I think the DA might disagree.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

OK. The question is centered on mens rea, correct?

Here you have the officer acting in his official capacity and under color of law. In that case, is it even possible for him to have implied malice toward the citizenry when performing his duties as authorized? CA may be strange that way, but from what I'm familiar with the answer would be NO. The fact that he was carrying out his duties as authorized by policy or law would reduce or negate mens rea. If he had been in violation of policy or protocol, as a defense attorney I think you would have said so - and the answer would change.

I'd be willing to attribute contributory negligence to the cop in a civil court. But I just don't see reckless disregard amounting to implied malice, sorry.

Your cookies do not sway me from the Dark Side.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I will defend the cop in 99 out of 100 cases..... (at least)

 

[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.

OK. The question is centered on mens rea, correct?

Here you have the officer acting in his official capacity and under color of law. In that case, is it even possible for him to have implied malice toward the citizenry when performing his duties as authorized? CA may be strange that way, but from what I'm familiar with the answer would be NO. The fact that he was carrying out his duties as authorized by policy or law would reduce or negate mens rea. If he had been in violation of policy or protocol, as a defense attorney I think you would have said so - and the answer would change.

I'd be willing to attribute contributory negligence to the cop in a civil court. But I just don't see reckless disregard amounting to implied malice, sorry.

Your cookies do not sway me from the Dark Side.

Mens rea . . . I remember, I once had a very bad case of mens rea. Took some over the counter remedy and it cleared it right up. But I digress . . .

The whole idea behind implied malice is that it does NOT require mens rea. All it requires is a reckless disregard for the safety of others in a life threatening situation. (For the non-legal scholars here, mens rea means an "evil mind" - something that is required for the commission of any crime EXCEPT crimes which, by definition, do not require it, such as, implied malice, second degree murder.)

I think the whole point of the argument in favor of finding the cop guilty, is that it IS possible for a police officer, acting under color of authority, to be guilty of implied malice toward the citizenry he is sworn to protect. Don't forget - we are talking in this instance about a high speed chase instituted by the officer for a suspect who is fleeing only a minor traffic offense. I think you may be forgetting that, and picturing the situation as a death that occurs during a bona fide, absolutely justifiable high speed chase. In this latter case, there would never be any question - the officer would not be guilty of anything, even if there was a death.

It isn't the driving that makes the cop guilty - it's the decision to initiate the high speed chase, knowing that a death is foreseeable and that the reason for the chase is a relatively minor traffic offense.

I still think my premise is correct. Practically speaking, of course, no cop will ever be prosecuted for murder, regardless of the reason for the chase. But, academically speaking, I think a case can be made for it.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

OK. The question is centered on mens rea, correct?

Here you have the officer acting in his official capacity and under color of law. In that case, is it even possible for him to have implied malice toward the citizenry when performing his duties as authorized? CA may be strange that way, but from what I'm familiar with the answer would be NO. The fact that he was carrying out his duties as authorized by policy or law would reduce or negate mens rea. If he had been in violation of policy or protocol, as a defense attorney I think you would have said so - and the answer would change.

I'd be willing to attribute contributory negligence to the cop in a civil court. But I just don't see reckless disregard amounting to implied malice, sorry.

Your cookies do not sway me from the Dark Side.

Mens rea . . . I remember, I once had a very bad case of mens rea. Took some over the counter remedy and it cleared it right up. But I digress . . .

The whole idea behind implied malice is that it does NOT require mens rea. All it requires is a reckless disregard for the safety of others in a life threatening situation. (For the non-legal scholars here, mens rea means an "evil mind" - something that is required for the commission of any crime EXCEPT crimes which, by definition, do not require it, such as, implied malice, second degree murder.)

I think the whole point of the argument in favor of finding the cop guilty, is that it IS possible for a police officer, acting under color of authority, to be guilty of implied malice toward the citizenry he is sworn to protect. Don't forget - we are talking in this instance about a high speed chase instituted by the officer for a suspect who is fleeing only a minor traffic offense. I think you may be forgetting that, and picturing the situation as a death that occurs during a bona fide, absolutely justifiable high speed chase. In this latter case, there would never be any question - the officer would not be guilty of anything, even if there was a death.

It isn't the driving that makes the cop guilty - it's the decision to initiate the high speed chase, knowing that a death is foreseeable and that the reason for the chase is a relatively minor traffic offense.

I still think my premise is correct. Practically speaking, of course, no cop will ever be prosecuted for murder, regardless of the reason for the chase. But, academically speaking, I think a case can be made for it.

Recklessness IS a mental state, George.

And yep, you can make a case for it....but I don't think it's a winner.

Academically speaking, the chase was bona fide if the officer, in choosing to initiate it, followed proper protocol. Which is why I believe if you're going to assign any blame to the officer it would be for contributory negligence in civil court, where he is joined in his official capacity along with his employer. As an officer of the law following protocol, "he", individually, cannot be reckless if he followed the procedures in place. The negligence or recklessness is that of the department, the City, or at minimum the superior who authorized the chase under those circumstances.

And you still have that pesky causation problem.

 

[xotoxi]

Man killed in fall, is gravity guilty of murder?

No. The ground is.

 

[xotoxi]

A sub-theme of this thread has been alluded to in previous posts. It has to do with the propensity of police officers to initiate high speed pursuits, regardless of the reason for them. Sad to say, all to many police officers take out after somone solely because the suspect's refusal to stop represents a personal rejection of their authority and NO ONE can get away with anything like THAT.

And then someone ends up dead - all because of some authoritarian cop's ego.

As far as I am concerned, THAT is the "reckless disregard for human life" that should cause the pursuing police officer to also be prosecuted for second degree murder, right along with the person he is chasing.

So many of you are fond of arguing (in the hate crime legislation debate) that "the victim is just as dead" regardless of the thought process of the suspect. Well, in high speed chase accidents, the victim is just as dead, whether you want to blame it on the fleeing suspect, the pursuing cop, or both of them.

I say both of them.

What if the driver of the red car had not just made a rolling stop, but instead had just killed a police officer in a bank robbery?

 

[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.

OK. The question is centered on mens rea, correct?

Here you have the officer acting in his official capacity and under color of law. In that case, is it even possible for him to have implied malice toward the citizenry when performing his duties as authorized? CA may be strange that way, but from what I'm familiar with the answer would be NO. The fact that he was carrying out his duties as authorized by policy or law would reduce or negate mens rea. If he had been in violation of policy or protocol, as a defense attorney I think you would have said so - and the answer would change.

I'd be willing to attribute contributory negligence to the cop in a civil court. But I just don't see reckless disregard amounting to implied malice, sorry.

Your cookies do not sway me from the Dark Side.

Mens rea . . . I remember, I once had a very bad case of mens rea. Took some over the counter remedy and it cleared it right up. But I digress . . .

The whole idea behind implied malice is that it does NOT require mens rea. All it requires is a reckless disregard for the safety of others in a life threatening situation. (For the non-legal scholars here, mens rea means an "evil mind" - something that is required for the commission of any crime EXCEPT crimes which, by definition, do not require it, such as, implied malice, second degree murder.)

I think the whole point of the argument in favor of finding the cop guilty, is that it IS possible for a police officer, acting under color of authority, to be guilty of implied malice toward the citizenry he is sworn to protect. Don't forget - we are talking in this instance about a high speed chase instituted by the officer for a suspect who is fleeing only a minor traffic offense. I think you may be forgetting that, and picturing the situation as a death that occurs during a bona fide, absolutely justifiable high speed chase. In this latter case, there would never be any question - the officer would not be guilty of anything, even if there was a death.

It isn't the driving that makes the cop guilty - it's the decision to initiate the high speed chase, knowing that a death is foreseeable and that the reason for the chase is a relatively minor traffic offense.

I still think my premise is correct. Practically speaking, of course, no cop will ever be prosecuted for murder, regardless of the reason for the chase. But, academically speaking, I think a case can be made for it.

No, the police officer does not know that the driver is fleeing a minor traffic offense. The officer only knows that the driver is fleeing. They do not have any clue as to why.

 

[George Costanza]

OK. The question is centered on mens rea, correct?

Here you have the officer acting in his official capacity and under color of law. In that case, is it even possible for him to have implied malice toward the citizenry when performing his duties as authorized? CA may be strange that way, but from what I'm familiar with the answer would be NO. The fact that he was carrying out his duties as authorized by policy or law would reduce or negate mens rea. If he had been in violation of policy or protocol, as a defense attorney I think you would have said so - and the answer would change.

I'd be willing to attribute contributory negligence to the cop in a civil court. But I just don't see reckless disregard amounting to implied malice, sorry.

Your cookies do not sway me from the Dark Side.

Mens rea . . . I remember, I once had a very bad case of mens rea. Took some over the counter remedy and it cleared it right up. But I digress . . .

The whole idea behind implied malice is that it does NOT require mens rea. All it requires is a reckless disregard for the safety of others in a life threatening situation. (For the non-legal scholars here, mens rea means an "evil mind" - something that is required for the commission of any crime EXCEPT crimes which, by definition, do not require it, such as, implied malice, second degree murder.)

I think the whole point of the argument in favor of finding the cop guilty, is that it IS possible for a police officer, acting under color of authority, to be guilty of implied malice toward the citizenry he is sworn to protect. Don't forget - we are talking in this instance about a high speed chase instituted by the officer for a suspect who is fleeing only a minor traffic offense. I think you may be forgetting that, and picturing the situation as a death that occurs during a bona fide, absolutely justifiable high speed chase. In this latter case, there would never be any question - the officer would not be guilty of anything, even if there was a death.

It isn't the driving that makes the cop guilty - it's the decision to initiate the high speed chase, knowing that a death is foreseeable and that the reason for the chase is a relatively minor traffic offense.

I still think my premise is correct. Practically speaking, of course, no cop will ever be prosecuted for murder, regardless of the reason for the chase. But, academically speaking, I think a case can be made for it.

Recklessness IS a mental state, George.

I never said it wasn't. Of course it is - but you were the one who posited that this whole question centered around mes rea, and I was merely pointing out that mens rea is not a consideration in a case involving implied malice.

And yep, you can make a case for it....but I don't think it's a winner.

You don't think that initiating a high speed chase to catch someone who just rolled a stop sign and who won't stop for your red light, isn't showing a reckless disregard for the safety of other occupants of the road - that a collision and a death as a result of the high speed chase is not foreseeable? Let's see - someone's life against someone getting away from being ticketed for running a stop sign. Yeah, seems about equal to me. Have at it!

Not a winner? OK, if you say so.

Academically speaking, the chase was bona fide if the officer, in choosing to initiate it, followed proper protocol.

Now, we're moving the goalposts somewhat. In my original OP hypo, there was no official protocal in place whatsoever. It was entirely the officer's decision to take out after the red car. He was not guided by any police department policy one way or the other.

I will give you that if the cop's department authorizes high speed chases for stop sign runners, that casts a different light on everything and probably would absolve the officer of any criminal charges if he was following proper protocol.

I don't think there are too many, if any, police departments who authorize chases for minor traffic violations. In fact, I think that most departments prohibit chases for that purpose.

What this all boils down to, of course, is a balancing between the risk to innocent human life on one hand and the harm to society in allowing a fleeing suspect to escape on the other. Into this must be factored the ability to apprehend the fleeing suspect by other means than chasing him (running his license plate and going to his home at a later time). Few would debate the necessity of chasing felons fleeing from the commission of a major crime. Many would (and do) debate the decision to conduct a high speed chase merely to apprhend a fleeing traffic code violator.

Which is why I believe if you're going to assign any blame to the officer it would be for contributory negligence in civil court, where he is joined in his official capacity along with his employer. As an officer of the law following protocol, "he", individually, cannot be reckless if he followed the procedures in place. The negligence or recklessness is that of the department, the City, or at minimum the superior who authorized the chase under those circumstances.

When is the last time you tried to sue a City for negligence of a city employee? Come on, GC - you know how that works. Don't let the folks out there think it can be done. Governmental immunity.

And you still have that pesky causation problem.

Nope. Not pesky at all. Not even there. Intervening causes do not excuse the primary actor if the intervening cause is foreseeable.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

What the knee jeck hack fuckwits that ALWAYS deny responsibility do not understand is that it is not an Either / Or proposition. Of course the driver of the red car is guilty of manslaughter ..murder 2. The police officer used bad verging on if not exceeding criminaly liable judgement. He is not solely responsible for but participated in the crime.

The parents of the children should have no trouble convincing a jury that the cop and the jurisdiction he works for are civilly liable.

 

[George Costanza]

A sub-theme of this thread has been alluded to in previous posts. It has to do with the propensity of police officers to initiate high speed pursuits, regardless of the reason for them. Sad to say, all to many police officers take out after somone solely because the suspect's refusal to stop represents a personal rejection of their authority and NO ONE can get away with anything like THAT.

And then someone ends up dead - all because of some authoritarian cop's ego.

As far as I am concerned, THAT is the "reckless disregard for human life" that should cause the pursuing police officer to also be prosecuted for second degree murder, right along with the person he is chasing.

So many of you are fond of arguing (in the hate crime legislation debate) that "the victim is just as dead" regardless of the thought process of the suspect. Well, in high speed chase accidents, the victim is just as dead, whether you want to blame it on the fleeing suspect, the pursuing cop, or both of them.

I say both of them.

What if the driver of the red car had not just made a rolling stop, but instead had just killed a police officer in a bank robbery?

And the pursuing cop knew that before he took out after the red car? No problem. Obviously a justifiable chase. Someone gets killed as a consequence, too bad.

I thought I had made this clear - I am not against high speed pursuits, only high speed pursuits for chilcken shit reasons. They are way too dangerous to be indulged in lightly.

 

[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.

What the knee jeck hack fuckwits that ALWAYS deny responsibility do not understand is that it is not an Either / Or proposition. Of course the driver of the red car is guilty of manslaughter ..murder 2. The police officer used bad verging on if not exceeding criminaly liable judgement. He is not solely responsible for but participated in the crime.

The parents of the children should have no trouble convincing a jury that the cop and the jurisdiction he works for are civilly liable.

Yes, Hugster - but we're not talking civil liability here. We're talking a criminal prosecution for second degree murder. And yes, I certainly agree with you that the officer, on the facts in the OP, participated in the crime, which makes him a principal, just as subject to prosecution as the main actor, the red car driver.

 

[George Costanza]

OK. The question is centered on mens rea, correct?

Here you have the officer acting in his official capacity and under color of law. In that case, is it even possible for him to have implied malice toward the citizenry when performing his duties as authorized? CA may be strange that way, but from what I'm familiar with the answer would be NO. The fact that he was carrying out his duties as authorized by policy or law would reduce or negate mens rea. If he had been in violation of policy or protocol, as a defense attorney I think you would have said so - and the answer would change.

I'd be willing to attribute contributory negligence to the cop in a civil court. But I just don't see reckless disregard amounting to implied malice, sorry.

Your cookies do not sway me from the Dark Side.

Mens rea . . . I remember, I once had a very bad case of mens rea. Took some over the counter remedy and it cleared it right up. But I digress . . .

The whole idea behind implied malice is that it does NOT require mens rea. All it requires is a reckless disregard for the safety of others in a life threatening situation. (For the non-legal scholars here, mens rea means an "evil mind" - something that is required for the commission of any crime EXCEPT crimes which, by definition, do not require it, such as, implied malice, second degree murder.)

I think the whole point of the argument in favor of finding the cop guilty, is that it IS possible for a police officer, acting under color of authority, to be guilty of implied malice toward the citizenry he is sworn to protect. Don't forget - we are talking in this instance about a high speed chase instituted by the officer for a suspect who is fleeing only a minor traffic offense. I think you may be forgetting that, and picturing the situation as a death that occurs during a bona fide, absolutely justifiable high speed chase. In this latter case, there would never be any question - the officer would not be guilty of anything, even if there was a death.

It isn't the driving that makes the cop guilty - it's the decision to initiate the high speed chase, knowing that a death is foreseeable and that the reason for the chase is a relatively minor traffic offense.

I still think my premise is correct. Practically speaking, of course, no cop will ever be prosecuted for murder, regardless of the reason for the chase. But, academically speaking, I think a case can be made for it.

No, the police officer does not know that the driver is fleeing a minor traffic offense. The officer only knows that the driver is fleeing. They do not have any clue as to why.

Yes, he does. In the OP hypo, it is the officer who observed the running of the stop sign that red lighted the red car and then elected to pursue it when it did not stop.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Mens rea . . . I remember, I once had a very bad case of mens rea. Took some over the counter remedy and it cleared it right up. But I digress . . .

The whole idea behind implied malice is that it does NOT require mens rea. All it requires is a reckless disregard for the safety of others in a life threatening situation. (For the non-legal scholars here, mens rea means an "evil mind" - something that is required for the commission of any crime EXCEPT crimes which, by definition, do not require it, such as, implied malice, second degree murder.)

I think the whole point of the argument in favor of finding the cop guilty, is that it IS possible for a police officer, acting under color of authority, to be guilty of implied malice toward the citizenry he is sworn to protect. Don't forget - we are talking in this instance about a high speed chase instituted by the officer for a suspect who is fleeing only a minor traffic offense. I think you may be forgetting that, and picturing the situation as a death that occurs during a bona fide, absolutely justifiable high speed chase. In this latter case, there would never be any question - the officer would not be guilty of anything, even if there was a death.

It isn't the driving that makes the cop guilty - it's the decision to initiate the high speed chase, knowing that a death is foreseeable and that the reason for the chase is a relatively minor traffic offense.

I still think my premise is correct. Practically speaking, of course, no cop will ever be prosecuted for murder, regardless of the reason for the chase. But, academically speaking, I think a case can be made for it.

No, the police officer does not know that the driver is fleeing a minor traffic offense. The officer only knows that the driver is fleeing. They do not have any clue as to why.

Yes, he does. In the OP hypo, it is the officer who observed the running of the stop sign that red lighted the red car and then elected to pursue it when it did not stop.

It can be argued that most normal people would not run from a simple traffic stop, that there is an unknown underlying reason of which the officer should be suspicious of. I wished we could find a study on something like this.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

What the knee jeck hack fuckwits that ALWAYS deny responsibility do not understand is that it is not an Either / Or proposition. Of course the driver of the red car is guilty of manslaughter ..murder 2. The police officer used bad verging on if not exceeding criminaly liable judgement. He is not solely responsible for but participated in the crime.

The parents of the children should have no trouble convincing a jury that the cop and the jurisdiction he works for are civilly liable.

Yes, Hugster - but we're not talking civil liability here. We're talking a criminal prosecution for second degree murder. And yes, I certainly agree with you that the officer, on the facts in the OP, participated in the crime, which makes him a principal, just as subject to prosecution as the main actor, the red car driver.

Police seldom get charged for any crime. They break the law with immunity all of the time. I have never heard of a LAW that allows a police officer to drive as fast as he wants to in pursuit of a fleeing automobile. Don't missunderstand. I am not against a policeman driving as fast and safely as possible to an armed robbery in progress.

Let's make the scenerio a little more interesting. How about everything the same except the kids jump out of the way of the red car and get killed by the officers car. Does that change the officers criminal liability? Does the guy fleeing from a traffic warrant still face charges of murder?

 

[goldcatt]

Foreseeability doesn't automatically equal recklessness. It can also equal negligence, or depending on the intervening factors and the duty expected it can mean nothing at all.

Everything we do involves some level of risk. I can see possible negligence here, but no way does it rise to recklessness. Under your standard for implied malice the conduct must be reckless, correct? So it does revolve around mental state.

Unless that standard is lower in CA, for conduct to be reckless the result must be not just foreseeable but the officer would have to act in complete disregard for those consequences. Negligence is your violation of the reasonable person's standard of care. And in both situations, there has to be a duty violated. If the officer was acting according to protocol, which there is no reason to believe he was not, then what was his duty? And whose was the duty?

If he was not acting according to protocol, then of course he is not protected - but I still don't see it as more than negligence. Then again, I don't live and never have lived in a State where cops as a general rule can't pursue drivers who run from traffic stops. So maybe that would affect the standard of care where you are.

Different realities.

Wow, CA hasn't done away with governmental immunity for wrongful death yet? For real? No wonder you want to lock the guy up if there are no other options available.

 

[George Costanza]

Let's make the scenerio a little more interesting. How about everything the same except the kids jump out of the way of the red car and get killed by the officers car. Does that change the officers criminal liability? Does the guy fleeing from a traffic warrant still face charges of murder?

I already touched on that one briefly, somewhere way back in this morass of uniformed opinion. Let's see . . .

Your changed scenario should not change the officer's criminal liability. He is still the one who initiated the pursuit for no legally significant reason, it was still foreseeable that death might happen because of his decision and it did. With him as the killing vehicle, it would only increase the chance of an actual filing which, of course, would never happen, as you so wisely observe.

More interesting question about the guy in the red car when it's the cop that killed the child. (This is starting to sound like a bar exam question now.) I think the red car guy would also be in line for a second degree murder prosecution as well as the cop. We know that when several perps are committing a felony and someone dies, they are both liable for murder even if they were not the one doing the killing. The getaway guy out front goes up for murder right along with the inside the store robber who killed the clerk.

 

[George Costanza]

Foreseeability doesn't automatically equal recklessness. It can also equal negligence, or depending on the intervening factors and the duty expected it can mean nothing at all.

Let's review.

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.

This says nothing about foreseeability. That's because it does not contemplate a situation where someone other than the original actor, kills another person. When one person (the cop) sets something in motion (the high speed chase) the consequences of which are dangerous to life, and then a second person (the red car driver) actually kills the child while being chased, additional questions must be answered. As I see it, there are two of them: (1) did the officer act "with conscious disregard" for the lives of innocent civilians who might become victims of the high speed chase and (2) was what happened foreseeable, thereby making the red car dirver merely an intervening cause (cop still liable) rather than a superceding cause (cop is off the hook).

I suppose if I was dealing directly with this problem, I would want to research the cases, looking for decisions covering whether or not the cop's action in this case would amount to a "conscious disregard" for the safety of human life. I suspect I would be able to find such decisions, but I don't know. Certainly the cop has to know that a high speed chase could result in an innocent civilian being killed - especailly when (as in the OP) the chase is proceeding directly toward Taylor Elementary at the time when school lets out. Not too big a stretch to hold that his continuing the chase at that point showed a conscious disregard for human life.

With all due respect, GC, your statement above here smacks a tad of smokescreen. The issue, as presented in the OP, isn't that hard to figure out. I submit it more than qualifies for a second degree murder prosecution.

Everything we do involves some level of risk. I can see possible negligence here, but no way does it rise to recklessness. Under your standard for implied malice the conduct must be reckless, correct? So it does revolve around mental state.

Unless that standard is lower in CA, for conduct to be reckless the result must be not just foreseeable but the officer would have to act in complete disregard for those consequences. Negligence is your violation of the reasonable person's standard of care.

As mentioned above, California's standard is a "conscious" disregard, rather than a reckless disregard. But I don't think it makes any difference. Conscious or reckless, I think the cop's actions qualify on both counts.

And in both situations, there has to be a duty violated. If the officer was acting according to protocol, which there is no reason to believe he was not, then what was his duty? And whose was the duty?

Of COURSE the cop has a duty. All drivers owe a duty of care to all other drivers on the road. Torts 101. That includes police officers who launch high speed chases that end in the death of another motorist. Remember - we are talking a criminal prosecution for murder here, not a civil wrongful death action.

If he was not acting according to protocol, then of course he is not protected - but I still don't see it as more than negligence. Then again, I don't live and never have lived in a State where cops as a general rule can't pursue drivers who run from traffic stops. So maybe that would affect the standard of care where you are.

Different realities.

This explains a lot.

Wow, CA hasn't done away with governmental immunity for wrongful death yet? For real? No wonder you want to lock the guy up if there are no other options available.

I don't know what CA's rule is on that. I have't messed with civil law in decades. I do know that the courts seem to go out of their way to find any way they can to protect governmental bodies and governmental employees, you betcha . . .

A side question - on my computer, this thread has huge, wide posts on it. I have to scroll horizontally in order to read everything. It only does it on this thread. Are you seeing the same thing on your computer?