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

[George Costanza]

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.

Of course. This makes common sense. The problem is, unless the officer KNOWS why the guy is running, he is not allowed to (and should not) "assume the worst," and treat the fleeing suspect as if he had just robbed a bank or killed someone (or both).

In actual practice, we know that the main reaosn most folks refuse to yield for a traffic stop is that they have a warrant out for them and don't want to get arrested on the spot. The warrant is usually for another traffic violation which they forgot to take care of or a misdemeanor of some kind. Sure, sometimes the warrant is a murder warrant and sometimes they actually do have a dead body in the trunk, but in the vast majority of cases, this is not the situation.

You can bet the first thing a cop does when he is initiating a traffic stop, is run the plate of the car he is stopping. That tells him a lot. If there is a warrant, he will know what it's for. If there are no warrants, that tells him something as well.

Once again, my friend - I am not against high speed chases. They are most certainly necessary some times; just not all the time. And that's really what this thread is about, in a way.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

didn't the driver exacerbate the crime when he refused to obey the cop and stop as ordered?

 

[George Costanza]

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.

didn't the driver exacerbate the crime when he refused to obey the cop and stop as ordered?

Sure. The answer is, that BOTH the cop and the red car driver share responsibility for the child's death. Hell, if the red car driver had stopped in the first instance, there never would have been a chase, and the child never would have been killed. And it was the red car driver that actually killed the child. So he did a LOT of things that contributed to the crime.

But it is also inescapable that the officer had a choice to pursue or not pursue, and the officer is charged with the knowledge that pursuits can lead to the death of innocent civilians. Knowing this, the officer elected to pursue. In my opinion, that's enough. He was acting with "conscious disregard" for the safety of innocent civilians and a death resulted.

Both actors should be prosecuted for implied malice murder.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

didn't the driver exacerbate the crime when he refused to obey the cop and stop as ordered?

Sure. The answer is, that BOTH the cop and the red car driver share responsibility for the child's death. Hell, if the red car driver had stopped in the first instance, there never would have been a chase, and the child never would have been killed. And it was the red car driver that actually killed the child. So he did a LOT of things that contributed to the crime.

But it is also inescapable that the officer had a choice to pursue or not pursue, and the officer is charged with the knowledge that pursuits can lead to the death of innocent civilians. Knowing this, the officer elected to pursue. In my opinion, that's enough. He was acting with "conscious disregard" for the safety of innocent civilians and a death resulted.

Both actors should be prosecuted for implied malice murder.

Unless you provide proof that the officer broke the law or acted outside the scope of his responsibility I say you are wrong.

 

[MikeK]

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.

You should watch COPS. You'll see a lot of high-speed pursuits and the reasons for some of them might amaze you. You'll see quite a few in which the drivers fled because they have small amounts of drugs on them or some equally minor nonsense that in no way justifies the risk involved in the chase. And all too often these pursuits end with major property damage and/or injuries.

You're right that normal people won't run from a traffic stop. But the abnormal exceptions are not necessarily guilty of something that justifies risking the kind of things that can happen when there are two or more two-ton motor vehicles hurtling down populated streets, roads and highways at 80 - 100 mph.

What I am advocating is nothing more radical than simple common sense. Unless there is a known good reason to pursue, such as a dangerous felon, the best thing to do is put the plate number and description on the air and see what comes of it.

What won't come of it is tragedy or costly damage.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm going to have to ask Billy and Dallas what they think about this. I probably won't see them until Thursday though.

(Billy is our Police Chief and Dallas is our new Sergeant.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

please give examples of how many times LEO have stopped someone for no reason, then we will compare that to the total number of stops. I'm sure there are a few times, but you act as if it is an epidemic. Get real.

They always have a "reason." That does not make the stops valid, or legal. Just because it doesn't happen to you does not mean it does not happen.

Harris - Driving While Black

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is where I agree with you, and why. Police who react to challenges to their authority with a instinctive urge to punish the person who challenges them should not be in any police department in this country. I couldn't get away with that attitude in the business world, even if I owned the company, yet police, who essentially work for me, think I have to answer to them if I ask them why I am being stopped.

 

[mudwhistle]

Cops in CA rarely ticket anyone on the interstate because too many of them have been killed by speeding drivers while filling put tickets. The last time I visited there people were driving like maniacs....cutting each other off.....passing going 100 on the right. The cops are safer but we're in more danger because they aren't allowed to do their jobs anymore. I think that they should be given a little leeway because they have a tough job. Lawyers seem to be trying to make it almost impossible. Lawyers have given me the shaft twice this year.....lied to me about the full extent of the conditions of a couple of settlements in two cases.

I don't trust them. Lawyers are running the White House. Is there any wonder why the economy continues to get worse?



Lawyers, car-salesmen, and politicians.....an unsavory batch to be sure.

 

[George Costanza]

I'm going to have to ask Billy and Dallas what they think about this. I probably won't see them until Thursday though.

(Billy is our Police Chief and Dallas is our new Sergeant.)

Talk to 'em - and let us know what they say. I would like to hear. I think you might be surprised.

 

[George Costanza]

Cops in CA rarely ticket anyone on the interstate because too many of them have been killed by speeding drivers while filling put tickets. The last time I visited there people were driving like maniacs....cutting each other off.....passing going 100 on the right. The cops are safer but we're in more danger because they aren't allowed to do their jobs anymore. I think that they should be given a little leeway because they have a tough job. Lawyers seem to be trying to make it almost impossible. Lawyers have given me the shaft twice this year.....lied to me about the full extent of the conditions of a couple of settlements in two cases.

I don't trust them. Lawyers are running the White House. Is there any wonder why the economy continues to get worse?



Lawyers, car-salesmen, and politicians.....an unsavory batch to be sure.

"First thing we do . . . kill all the lawyers." Shakespeare.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well, I don't hate lawyers as a whole. But there is a certain Assistant prosecutor I would love to be locked in a room with for about 20 minutes. He would leave the room with a whole new attitude on life.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I had to go to the Post office so I went on over to the Police station and talked to Billy (Our Police Chief).

He said that no, the Officer did nothing wrong. According to our laws here. He says "I don't know about California."

He also said, "I would have used a little discretion myself."

 

[Zoom-boing]

A person rolling through a stop sign (or a stop-optional as I call them) does not warrant a high speed chase, especially when that chase will take the drivers into school zones. The cop had to know that's where they were headed. In this particular instance, the officer used poor judgment, imo. Had he not pursued red car driver guy those kids would still be alive.

 

[Samson]

A person rolling through a stop sign (or a stop-optional as I call them) does not warrant a high speed chase, especially when that chase will take the drivers into school zones. The cop had to know that's where they were headed. In this particular instance, the officer used poor judgment, imo. Had he not pursued red car driver guy those kids would still be alive.

How do you know?

Maybe the only reason the guy didn't stop at the school and gun down an entire classroom was because he was being chased.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Actually, this rolling stop situation, is what we used to call a California Stop. I don't know why.....

 

[Zoom-boing]

A person rolling through a stop sign (or a stop-optional as I call them) does not warrant a high speed chase, especially when that chase will take the drivers into school zones. The cop had to know that's where they were headed. In this particular instance, the officer used poor judgment, imo. Had he not pursued red car driver guy those kids would still be alive.

How do you know?

Maybe the only reason the guy didn't stop at the school and gun down an entire classroom was because he was being chased.

And maybe not. No one is a mind-reader, not even cops.

A minor traffic violation does not warrant a high speed chase through a school zone. The risk outweighs the benefit, imo.

 

[George Costanza]

A person rolling through a stop sign (or a stop-optional as I call them) does not warrant a high speed chase, especially when that chase will take the drivers into school zones. The cop had to know that's where they were headed. In this particular instance, the officer used poor judgment, imo. Had he not pursued red car driver guy those kids would still be alive.

How do you know?

Maybe the only reason the guy didn't stop at the school and gun down an entire classroom was because he was being chased.

The Constitution does not allow the police to operate on the basis of "maybe." I realize the issue in this thread is not a Constitutional one but, nonetheless, you cannot seek to justify what happened in the OP on the basis of "maybe" and therefore the chase was a justifiable one.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm the lawyer that represents the family in wrongful death cases like this. Not only is there a wrongful death claim, but there could very well be a negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention case (all separate, but similar causes of action). And you can even get punitive damages if there was wantonness. (Knowing disregard of the probable result)

So you can sue the hell out of the cop and the municipality for doing the wrong thing. I make a living at it every day.

 

[goldcatt]

Actually, this rolling stop situation, is what we used to call a California Stop. I don't know why.....

We call them Jersey stops here.