I am from Memphis, and I was reading a tragic story on www.gomemphis.com (Memphis newspaper website), about three idiots stealing a couple of cases of candy bars and taking off from a discount store (from West Memphis Ar.). The W. Memphis cops are called and give chase. The thugs decide to break for Memphis on the highway.
A cop lost control of his vehicle during the chase and was killed. The thugs were arrested across the river in Memphis. Now these idiots are charged with felony theft and first degree murder.
Murder? How? They did not kill the cop, did not ram his vehicle or tried any harm whatsoever, these were dumbasses who were trying to get away after a reletively minor crime. The cop lost control of his vehicle. The cop killed himself accidentally.
The thugs should be tried for theft and felony resisting, or felony chase. These dumbheads should do 2-5 on an Arkansas prison farm. They did not kill the cop.
The factual question is whether they are, in fact, guilty of first degree murder. I do not believe they can be held to be guilty of first degree murder by any stretch of any law.
I’m also unsure of what the GQ here is, but in most states of the US, if someone dies while a felony is being committed, regardless of whether it was intentional or not, the perpetrators of the felony will be held responsible for the death.
Typically, they’d be charged with “felony murder” which is described quite thoroughly in the last post of this thread. First degree murder sounds unusual to me, but hopefully a Doper trained in legal matters can shed some light on that.
Well, if it’s an IMHO question, then in IMHO, the police chief is a complete tosser who’s trying to deflect personal culpability over his “no seat belts” policy.
Looks to me like the offenders were in the commission of a felony and someone died during such commission; therefore, first degree murder (aka “felony murder”).
Sublight’s got it. The wording of the laws with which I am familiar says that if, in the commission of a felony, the actions of the perpetrator directly cause the death of other persons, then the perpetrator(s) shall be held responsible for the death as if they had killed the person(s) themselves, with intent.
I don’t see how this does not apply to this cop. If, for example I was walking across the street against the red light, and was suddenly run down by these candy crooks, I really doubt the DA or the jury would refuse to slap them with a murder charge simply because I was jaywalking, although a good lawyer could make something of that.
Whatever the chief’s malfunction is about seat belts is a completely different issue.
Actually, that’s not quite what I said. If someone dies while a felony is being comitted, the perpetrator (or perpetrators) will be held responsible. From what I’ve read, this can even apply to people who are only very indirectly responsible for the death (the getaway driving sitting in a car outside while a bank teller inside gets shot trying to wrestle a gun out of a robber’s hand, for example).
In this case, even though decisions made by the police were factors in the death of Officer Waters, the chase would not be occurring were it not for the fleeing felons, and so they are responsible even if they did not directly kill him.
For the sake of clarity, read “perpetrator (or perpetrators)” as “perpetrator (or perpetrators) of the felony” and not just as the perpetrator who directly caused the death.
So, yeah, the suspects can be legitimately charged under the statute with first degree murder, the whining of the sister notwithstanding. The moral of the story is don’t go along for the ride if your buddy’s gonna do some crimes.
If the police officer was in a high speed chase he should have put his seatbelt on. he was at more risk not wearing a seatbelt than he was from not being able to get at his gun quickly enough. Also, it looks like the policeman who ran him over was guilty of driving without due care and attention. Just because he’s chasing someone doesnt mean he can put others at risk.
I fail to see how 1st degree murder is in any way appropiate. however, america is well known for having screwed up justice.
But neither one of them committed the killing themselves. Say during the pursuit one of the policmen blew through a red light and rammed an innocent bystander’s car, killing them. Could they be charged with murder one for that too, even though in that case it would be negligence of the officer (in not checking to see that traffic was clear) that resulted in the death? Or say a police helicopter also chasing the suspects, and it crashed during the pursuit. Murder one for that too?
Yaah, typos and an ill-formed sentence. Need to hit the coffee a little more before I post. What I meant for my last sentence to read was:
Or say a police helicopter was also chasing the suspects, and it developed mechanical problems and crashed during the pursuit, killing the pilot. Murder one for that too?
The police have to know where the line is in terms of safety for their own actions in any pursuit. That line was crossed there and resulted in one of them dying. It’s not directly the criminals fault. Therefore it cannot be 1st degree.
Obviously people read into things whatever they want to read becuase I can’t see any language there which would support your notion that they can be considered guilty of murder for what happened.
Where do you draw the line? Suppose the cop’s car hits a utility pole which results in loss of electrical power supply to a few homes and a person with a dialisys machine dies as a consequence. Are the robbers guilty of the murder of the patient?
Suppose the cop’s car hits a utility pole which results in loss of electrical power supply to a few homes and, as a consequence, a doctor’s cell phone is not working and he cannot be reached which results in a patient dying.
Suppose the cop’s car hits a utility pole which results in loss of electrical power supply to a few homes and, as a consequence, a car mechanic’s cell phone is not working and he cannot be reached to repair the car of a doctor which results in a patient dying.
The responsibility for the police driving recklessly rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the police. Chasing felons is not a license to drive recklessly or to defy the aws of physics or common sense. It is the police who should be charged with reckless driving.
As I read the law in your cite, the thieves are not guilty of murder. The police officer did not die as a result of a killing. A traffic accident due to negligent driving is not a killing.