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

[goldcatt]

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."

That's about what I thought....which would make it negligent, at best. At least under the standards as they exist where we are.

I still say civil court is the way to go, not criminal.

 

[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.

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.

Heh....don't be conveniently duplicious: You put together a hypothetical,

The cop had to know that's where they were headed

and then expect no one else to operate on the basis of "maybe?"

Indeed, the cop had no idea where, physically, or situationally, "where they were headed." He ALL he did know that the perp was being evasive. He could have not given chase, and let the perp run into the school with a Glock 9mm, or he could give chase and risk the perp hitting two kids: How is he supposed to know what MAYBE will happen?

Once again, I think you should reserve judgeing the precognitive abilities of the police for a time when they'll install dashboard crystal balls.

 

[Samson]

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."

That's about what I thought....which would make it negligent, at best. At least under the standards as they exist where we are.

I still say civil court is the way to go, not criminal.

The Court of Monday Morning Quarterbacking

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Heh....don't be conveniently duplicious: You put together a hypothetical,

The cop had to know that's where they were headed

and then expect no one else to operate on the basis of "maybe?"

Indeed, the cop had no idea where, physically, or situationally, "where they were headed." He ALL he did know that the perp was being evasive. He could have not given chase, and let the perp run into the school with a Glock 9mm, or he could give chase and risk the perp hitting two kids: How is he supposed to know what MAYBE will happen?

Once again, I think you should reserve judgeing the precognitive abilities of the police for a time when they'll install dashboard crystal balls.

The cop knew where he was headed because he was following the guy and the cop sped up when he was approaching the school zone.

Regardless, a stop-optional simply does not require a high-speed chase.

 

[goldcatt]

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."

That's about what I thought....which would make it negligent, at best. At least under the standards as they exist where we are.

I still say civil court is the way to go, not criminal.

The Court of Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Perhaps. But it fits much, much better than an implied malice second degree murder charge for the individual officer.

 

[Samson]

That's about what I thought....which would make it negligent, at best. At least under the standards as they exist where we are.

I still say civil court is the way to go, not criminal.

The Court of Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Perhaps. But it fits much, much better than an implied malice second degree murder charge for the individual officer.

He'll if I heard another officer was found guilty of......"an implied malice second degree murder" charge, then I'd never leave the donut store until AFTER a crime was comitted.

 

[goldcatt]

The Court of Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Perhaps. But it fits much, much better than an implied malice second degree murder charge for the individual officer.

He'll if I heard another officer was found guilty of......"an implied malice second degree murder" charge, then I'd never leave the donut store until AFTER a crime was comitted.

Do they now?

But seriously, you have a good point. Not that law enforcement shouldn't be held accountable when they screw up, but intentional homicide charges? Overkill.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps. But it fits much, much better than an implied malice second degree murder charge for the individual officer.

He'll if I heard another officer was found guilty of......"an implied malice second degree murder" charge, then I'd never leave the donut store until AFTER a crime was comitted.

Do they now?

But seriously, you have a good point. Not that law enforcement shouldn't be held accountable when they screw up, but intentional homicide charges? Overkill.

True, when we bitch and moan about the inability of the police to act proactively, we need to remember that there's a George Costanza lurking behind every accident, waiting to pounce on the local cops....on the other hand, when they ignore those screams coming from the basement of that abandoned house, who will be alive to complain to George?

Yep, time for another donut before our coffee gets cold.

 

[goldcatt]

He'll if I heard another officer was found guilty of......"an implied malice second degree murder" charge, then I'd never leave the donut store until AFTER a crime was comitted.

Do they now?

But seriously, you have a good point. Not that law enforcement shouldn't be held accountable when they screw up, but intentional homicide charges? Overkill.

True, when we bitch and moan about the inability of the police to act proactively, we need to remember that there's a George Costanza lurking behind every accident, waiting to pounce on the local cops....on the other hand, when they ignore those screams coming from the basement of that abandoned house, who will be alive to complain to George?

Yep, time for another donut before our coffee gets cold.

Nah, George performs an important function in our system. I disagree with him on this case, Vanquish is the one on target IMO. But without defense attorneys and people willing to question the authorities we'd be living in something that looks a lot more like Stalin's USSR or the Third Reich than the US.

There is a happy medium. It's finding it that can be problematic - but it makes for some interesting threads on message boards.

 

[Samson]

Do they now?

But seriously, you have a good point. Not that law enforcement shouldn't be held accountable when they screw up, but intentional homicide charges? Overkill.

True, when we bitch and moan about the inability of the police to act proactively, we need to remember that there's a George Costanza lurking behind every accident, waiting to pounce on the local cops....on the other hand, when they ignore those screams coming from the basement of that abandoned house, who will be alive to complain to George?

Yep, time for another donut before our coffee gets cold.

Nah, George performs an important function in our system. I disagree with him on this case, Vanquish is the one on target IMO. But without defense attorneys and people willing to question the authorities we'd be living in something that looks a lot more like Stalin's USSR or the Third Reich than the US.

There is a happy medium. It's finding it that can be problematic - but it makes for some interesting threads on message boards.

Sure, on the other hand, George is the only thing that keeps all the donut-eaters from slipping into jackboots and pounding down our doors in the middle of the night, but frankly, I think a cop that pursues someone evading a simple traffic stop is doing more of his job than promoting a Stalinist Police State.

 

[goldcatt]

True, when we bitch and moan about the inability of the police to act proactively, we need to remember that there's a George Costanza lurking behind every accident, waiting to pounce on the local cops....on the other hand, when they ignore those screams coming from the basement of that abandoned house, who will be alive to complain to George?

Yep, time for another donut before our coffee gets cold.

Nah, George performs an important function in our system. I disagree with him on this case, Vanquish is the one on target IMO. But without defense attorneys and people willing to question the authorities we'd be living in something that looks a lot more like Stalin's USSR or the Third Reich than the US.

There is a happy medium. It's finding it that can be problematic - but it makes for some interesting threads on message boards.

Sure, on the other hand, George is the only thing that keeps all the donut-eaters from slipping into jackboots and pounding down our doors in the middle of the night, but frankly, I think a cop that pursues someone evading a simple traffic stop is doing more of his job than promoting a Stalinist Police State.

On that we agree.

 

[Samson]

Nah, George performs an important function in our system. I disagree with him on this case, Vanquish is the one on target IMO. But without defense attorneys and people willing to question the authorities we'd be living in something that looks a lot more like Stalin's USSR or the Third Reich than the US.

There is a happy medium. It's finding it that can be problematic - but it makes for some interesting threads on message boards.

Sure, on the other hand, George is the only thing that keeps all the donut-eaters from slipping into jackboots and pounding down our doors in the middle of the night, but frankly, I think a cop that pursues someone evading a simple traffic stop is doing more of his job than promoting a Stalinist Police State.

On that we agree.

Then, I must be wrong.

 

[goldcatt]

Sure, on the other hand, George is the only thing that keeps all the donut-eaters from slipping into jackboots and pounding down our doors in the middle of the night, but frankly, I think a cop that pursues someone evading a simple traffic stop is doing more of his job than promoting a Stalinist Police State.

On that we agree.

Then, I must be wrong.

I changed somebody's mind today!

 

[Vanquish]

You're both right

There's just no blanket categorization of LEOs these days. There are some truly great ones and some truly awful ones. As in any profession. (Except lawyers...all great )

When you think about the amount of constitutional and case law protections for state agents...and then on top of that protections against municipal liability...it's a lot harder to sue law enforcement than it could be.

I say could and not should, because I agree that these ladies and gents put their lives on the line for us every day. No matter what rank. No matter where they are geographically. It should be hard to come after police/sheriffs/municipal appointees because they exercise discretion...and no human gets every decision right.

That being said, there are lots of situations where cops do have situational knowledge that, if you aren't involved, you wouldn't know about. And where they use that knowledge to take short cuts that end up in real damage to real people "because they know better."

You can't have it both ways. You can't get tons of protection for discretion-making then abuse your discretion and protect yourself behind the blue line.

 

[rikules]

If you run from a lawful stop, you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that action.

I hate defense lawyers who try to place the blame on anyone but their clients. If I had my way, the defense lawyers who use this tactic would go to prison, along with their clients.

"If you run from a lawful stop, you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that action."



"The Waco Siege began on February 28, 1993, and ended violently 50 days later on April 19.[2] The siege began when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property located nine miles (14 km) east-northeast of Waco, Texas. On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly 2 hours. In the aftermath of this armed exchange, four agents and six followers of David Koresh were killed. Upon the ATF's failure to execute the search warrant, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The siege ended 50 days later when a second assault on the compound was made and a fire destroyed the compound. Seventy-six people (24 of them British nationals)[3] died in the fire, including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and Koresh himself."

 

[Samson]

On that we agree.

Then, I must be wrong.

I changed somebody's mind today!

 

[goldcatt]

You're both right

There's just no blanket categorization of LEOs these days. There are some truly great ones and some truly awful ones. As in any profession. (Except lawyers...all great )

When you think about the amount of constitutional and case law protections for state agents...and then on top of that protections against municipal liability...it's a lot harder to sue law enforcement than it could be.

I say could and not should, because I agree that these ladies and gents put their lives on the line for us every day. No matter what rank. No matter where they are geographically. It should be hard to come after police/sheriffs/municipal appointees because they exercise discretion...and no human gets every decision right.

That being said, there are lots of situations where cops do have situational knowledge that, if you aren't involved, you wouldn't know about. And where they use that knowledge to take short cuts that end up in real damage to real people "because they know better."

You can't have it both ways. You can't get tons of protection for discretion-making then abuse your discretion and protect yourself behind the blue line.

See? This is exactly why I missed you being around. You just have to go and make sense. Whaddaya think this is, anyway? A reasonable discussion of an interesting hypothetical that raises a nuanced issue with a lot of gray areas?

Pfft.

 

[goldcatt]

Then, I must be wrong.

I changed somebody's mind today!

 

[Samson]

I changed somebody's mind today!

 

[goldcatt]

When have I ever claimed to be gracious?


LINK