It was bound to happen eventualy.....

[angryrobots]

I agree with geoff, and i think the case he stated sets a terrible precedent.

Alright so the criminal involved was a really bad guy so maybe you feel having the officer's death also charged to him is ok. But by extention anyone who is unlucky enough to have an officer get killed/injured during their arrest could potentially face charges.

What if someone is arrested for a crime they did not commit, and they are exonerated, have the charged dropped, whatever, but an officer is killed during their arrest. How is the guy in the above case more guilty than this hypothetical person?

Even if a person IS a criminal, it is not their fault if an officer is an idiot and can't drive and slams into a tractor trailer while trying to multitask.

[angryrobots]

If the police dispatcher choked on a gumball while calling more units in for backup, i suppose he'd be responsible for that as well.

[Low-Tech Redneck]

Originally Posted by angryrobots

But by extention anyone who is unlucky enough to have an officer get killed/injured during their arrest could potentially face charges.

Only if it's for a felony, misdemeanor arrests, detainments, etc. don't count. So it's not like you could ever face this happening if you're intoxicated on the sidewalk, and an officer goes to question you and gets plastered crossing the street. Caselaw is pretty clear there has to be a felony in progress at the time.

Originally Posted by angryrobots

What if someone is arrested for a crime they did not commit, and they are exonerated, have the charged dropped, whatever, but an officer is killed during their arrest. How is the guy in the above case more guilty than this hypothetical person?

That would remove the base felony, and thus, also remove the felony murder charge. If the base felony was bogus, so was everything that went with it, that's caselaw, "Fruit of the poisoned tree", anything that happens to you stemming from a single charge is null and void if that base charge is deemed illegal. (save for some technicalities, but to go into them here would cloud the issue)

Felony murder is something that's been around for a long time, and it occasionaly can lend itself to some wierd sounding charges, like robbers charged with felony murder because their accomplices were shot and killed by an armed store clerk during a robbery, or arsonists charged with it for resulting firefighter deaths, so I don't see why it's not applicable in this case.

yes, the defendant wasn't the most charasmatic of defendants, but, you have to have committed a felony for that charge to even be brought against you in the first place, so good luck finding a charasmatic felon a jury will feel sorry for in excess of a dead law officer ......

[DiRF]

Again I'll state; to be charged with Felony Murder:

-You have to be committing a felony, not just a misdemeanor.
-The death has to result during the time the crime is being committed. If it happens after you are arrested/detained/secured/handcuffed/whatever, the crime is no longer taking place, thus any deaths that happen then would not fall under felony-murder.

I can't stand the "OMG YOU COULD GET CHARGED FOR A MURDER DURING A TRAFFIC STOP" knee-jerk reaction to the felony-murder doctrine.

[angryrobots]

alright i was wrong about that but i think it's a faulty mindset that SOMEONE has to be held responsible for every bad thing that happens, especially when the death could be due to the dearly departed's own foolishness.

[CamaroRS90]

god has a plan.




*dives for bushes*

[angryrobots]

should we automatically charge all felons with felony-attempted murder if someone could have gotten killed in the course of their crime?

[DiRF]

Originally Posted by angryrobots

should we automatically charge all felons with felony-attempted murder if someone could have gotten killed in the course of their crime?

You're kinda going off the deep-end trying to argue your side, aren't you?

That's like asking, "Should we charge everyone who drives a car over the speed limit with attempted vehicular manslaughter, since vehicular manslaughter is a charge for someone who accidentally hits a pedestrian?"

[Low-Tech Redneck]

Originally Posted by angryrobots

should we automatically charge all felons with felony-attempted murder if someone could have gotten killed in the course of their crime?

Caselaw also sets the burden of proof on attempted or incohate crimes as ones in which you have taken "substantial steps" into comitting or attempted to commit but failed only but for chance.

THus, it would be extremely difficult (read impossible unless the judge was a trained chimp) to argue the case that you had taken "substantial steps" to cause another person to do something that MIGHT have resulted in thier death....

Judges, prosecutors and juries have brains you know? I'm always shocked about how nobody seems to trust them to see through the bullshit that we can see through right here on a message board.

The prosecutor is welcome to bring charges, but I have a feeling a jury is going to see it the way we see it and dismiss it as too inconsequential.

[General Geoff]

Judges, prosecutors and juries have brains you know? I'm always shocked about how nobody seems to trust them to see through the bullshit that we can see through right here on a message board.

Yes, because as we all know, all jurors are informed of their rights as jurors before any trial. And nobody is ever rejected from a Jury because they know their rights and privelages (nullification included) beforehand. And prosecutors never bring charges against those who don't deserve them.

Nope, judges juries and prosecutors all work in perfect harmony. *sigh*


It's not that they can't see through bullshit. It's that they make up their own bullshit all the time.

[Low-Tech Redneck]

You can always request a bench trial, it's your right, if you have that dim a view of the jury system, me, I'll take a jury, I've served on them, watched them work, been part of cases presented to them, I have yet to see anything that makes me think that system doesn't work 99.9% of the time,

The case I was on the jury for we ended up acquitting on 4 charges because we all agreed the DA had just thrown them in and hoped we'd convict on inertia, as she was guilty as hell of the first 6 counts........ we basicaly agreed they were junk charges that hadn't been proven.

[FastFord58]

I'm afraid this guy is going to be charged for a problem that we have created.

If we did not crave tragedy, every car chase that happens would not have to be broadcast live so arm chair rubber-neckers can get an adrenaline rush.

[Low-Tech Redneck]

Originally Posted by FastFord58

I'm afraid this guy is going to be charged for a problem that we have created.

If we did not crave tragedy, every car chase that happens would not have to be broadcast live so arm chair rubber-neckers can get an adrenaline rush.

That's kinda what my whole point was in posting the article, was it really worth the loss just to get the footage?

[angryrobots]

Originally Posted by DiRF

You're kinda going off the deep-end trying to argue your side, aren't you?

That's like asking, "Should we charge everyone who drives a car over the speed limit with attempted vehicular manslaughter, since vehicular manslaughter is a charge for someone who accidentally hits a pedestrian?"

i think that being charged for a crime that you had no physical hand in is off the deep end (in relation to this discussion, anyway).

Originally Posted by Low-Tech Redneck

Judges, prosecutors and juries have brains you know? I'm always shocked about how nobody seems to trust them to see through the bullshit that we can see through right here on a message board.

judges always make the right decisions, prosecutors never have their own agendas, and juries can't be swayed by emotional testimony.

don't get me wrong, i have faith in the justice system. i do not agree with the law because i feel it can be abused, like in the case geoff mentioned and (however unlikely) in this heli incident. the fact that it is being considered is ridiculous.