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

[George Costanza]

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.

"Intentional", GC? Look again. We are talking IMPLIED malice here, stemming from a conscious disregard for human life. (Take another look at the OP.) There is nothing intentional about it. It is the same theory as a Watson murder (drunk driver gulty of second degree implied malice murder when he kills someone while driving drunk).

No one claims the drunk INTENDED to kill anyone, just as no one claims that the officer INTENDED for a death to result.

I would agree with you that attempting to prosecute a cop for an intentional killing would not only be overkill, it would be legally stupid.

Have you been operating all along on this thread on the assumption that the OP was proposing prosecuting the officer on some sort of intentional theory?

 

[goldcatt]

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.

"Intentional", GC? Look again. We are talking IMPLIED malice here, stemming from a conscious disregard for human life. (Take another look at the OP.) There is nothing intentional about it. It is the same theory as a Watson murder (drunk driver gulty of second degree implied malice murder when he kills someone while driving drunk).

No one claims the drunk INTENDED to kill anyone, just as no one claims that the officer INTENDED for a death to result.

I would agree with you that attempting to prosecute a cop for an intentional killing would not only be overkill, it would be legally stupid.

Have you been operating all along on this thread on the assumption that the OP was proposing prosecuting the officer on some sort of intentional theory?

Habit kicking in there, George. Where I was trained and practiced second degree murder was always a crime of intent. I'll admit, implying malice to elevate a negligent homicide at best to a second degree murder charge is a little mind boggling when you're coming from that POV.

But no, I get the implications. I simply disagree. Pardon the slip.

 

[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.

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.

I'm blushing over here.

I'd like to thank all the little people that made this award possible.

And it's funny that people single out defense lawyers. You know plaintiff lawyers are eeevul too.

 

[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.

I'm blushing over here.

I'd like to thank all the little people that made this award possible.

And it's funny that people single out defense lawyers. You know plaintiff lawyers are eeevul too.

You think that's bad, take a look at those gawd-awful appellate sharks that make a living out of overturning jury verdicts. The will of the people, no less. Fry 'em all!

 

[MikeK]

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.

I agree with all you've said here. But as you well know the outcome of this kind of litigation depends entirely on the collective mentality of a jury. As the content of this thread clearly reveals, the disposition of Americans who are eligible to serve on a jury is predominantly authoritarian and is receptive to the police assertion that pursuits for any reason are essential to the purpose of protecting and serving the public.

Considering the amount of death, injury and property damage caused by high-speed police pursuits every year it seems reasonable to expect there would by now be some universal restrictions limiting this activity to occasions of expedient necessity. But the fact that these pursuits continue to occur with little or no constraint is evidence of the general public's predisposed deference to police authority.

I challenge anyone who doubts the American public's preconscious infatuation with authority to compile a list of every law-enforcement-oriented drama they can recall seeing on television or in the movies. The size of the list should convince the most stubborn skeptic.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

You do see how ridiculous that is, don't you? Which is more likely: (1) if a cop does not give chase to a fleeing suspect, the suspect might stop off at a school and kill a large number of children with a Glock or (2) a high speed chase in an elementary school zone, might result in a death?

You can argue better than this.

 

[ConHog]

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.

You do see how ridiculous that is, don't you? Which is more likely: (1) if a cop does not give chase to a fleeing suspect, the suspect might stop off at a school and kill a large number of children with a Glock or (2) a high speed chase in an elementary school zone, might result in a death?

You can argue better than this.

You are of course WRONG. It's called probable cause. When a driver runs, that gives LEO probable cause to assume he's done far more than a simple traffic violation. You of course know this, but insist on being dishonest.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

I'm blushing over here.

I'd like to thank all the little people that made this award possible.

And it's funny that people single out defense lawyers. You know plaintiff lawyers are eeevul too.

You think that's bad, take a look at those gawd-awful appellate sharks that make a living out of overturning jury verdicts. The will of the people, no less. Fry 'em all!

Yeah, yeah . . . or . . . or those slimy PARALEGALS who ooze around law libraries, researching all those CASES which they then give to those appellate sharks. THEY need to hang too, right along with all them damn LAWYERS!!!

I don't know about y'all, but I think it's about time to put this thread to bed, hmmm?

 

[misteroboto]

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.

You do see how ridiculous that is, don't you? Which is more likely: (1) if a cop does not give chase to a fleeing suspect, the suspect might stop off at a school and kill a large number of children with a Glock or (2) a high speed chase in an elementary school zone, might result in a death?

You can argue better than this.

so then basically youre saying if a criminal does something bad ( minor or major) the best route police can take in chasing said criminal is to stop chasing when it gets dangerous for other people?


heres some maybes

what if a federal building got blown up killed a bunch of kids and the guy that did it may have been driving a car that has a traffic violation for equipment or commits a operational violation and the officer that decided to stop said driver for whatever traffic violation decided to give chase but then broke off the chase because in george costanza land cops goto jail ( or just plain old lose their jobs ) as they speed towards a deaf mute elementary school .

oack youre bags cut off the lights - it makes perfect sense - vehicular criminals do your self a favor - commit your minor crimes with no fear of possibly getting caught so long as youre making sure you disproportionately threaten the lives of others against your petty minor infractions.....oh and all of your child abduction mass murdering body carting to your dump site serial killers .. yeah you guys should also take heed of the new rules in george coztanza land

 

[George Costanza]

so then basically youre saying if a criminal does something bad ( minor or major) the best route police can take in chasing said criminal is to stop chasing when it gets dangerous for other people?

That isn't "basically" what I am saying - that is EXACTLY what I am saying. I'm glad you got it.

what if a federal building got blown up killed a bunch of kids and the guy that did it may have been driving a car that has a traffic violation for equipment or commits a operational violation and the officer that decided to stop said driver for whatever traffic violation decided to give chase but then broke off the chase because in george costanza land cops go to jail ( or just plain old lose their jobs ) as they speed towards a deaf mute elementary school.

Does the cop KNOW that the guy driving the car has blown up a federal building? If he does, then high speed chase away until he catches the bastard, regardless of the danger to civilian life. That would be a justifiable reason for a high speed chase. No problem.

That is not the type of high speed chase I am talking about. I am talking about killing innocent people in order to chase down a guy who ran a red light and didn't stop when the cop tried to pull him over - end of story. No federal buildings blown up. No bank robbery just finished. No body in the trunk with a bloody arm hanging out the back.

Get it?

Be honest - would you feel your children's lives were worth a cop chasing someone for running after committing a minor traffic violation? I sure wouldn't, and I don't think you would either.

oack youre bags cut off the lights - it makes perfect sense - vehicular criminals do your self a favor - commit your minor crimes with no fear of possibly getting caught so long as youre making sure you disproportionately threaten the lives of others against your petty minor infractions.....oh and all of your child abduction mass murdering body carting to your dump site serial killers .. yeah you guys should also take heed of the new rules in george coztanza land

This isn't even worth commenting on.

 

[ConHog]

George, you're insane. Under YOUR theory, the police should NEVER respond to a bank robbery because compared to someone possibly being killed the theft of a little money is a minor thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

George, you're insane. Under YOUR theory, the police should NEVER respond to a bank robbery because compared to someone possibly being killed the theft of a little money is a minor thing.

Did you know that banks have exactly that attitude about robberies? They train tellers to cooperate, because human life is more important than money. To most people anyway.

 

[ConHog]

George, you're insane. Under YOUR theory, the police should NEVER respond to a bank robbery because compared to someone possibly being killed the theft of a little money is a minor thing.

Did you know that banks have exactly that attitude about robberies? They train tellers to cooperate, because human life is more important than money. To most people anyway.

yes, banks do, but police do not. You do realize that the role of the police is entirely different than the role of a bank in that instance don't you?