Police officers and other agents of the state are IIRC immune to criminal charges (and sometimes civil liability) for things like accidents during high speed chases. The police officers did not cause a high speed chase, the crooks did. If a high speed chase is seen as an extension of the robbery or a form of resisting arrest for the robbery I could see the murder 1 being appropriate. They initiated a chase situation, they know what they are doing is dangerous, they are probably depending on that danger to discourage pursuit.
IANAL but as I understand the situation the crooks choose to engage in a high speed police chase witch I believe is felony evasion in the US (I am Canadian). A foreseeable side effect of a high speed chase is a fatal car crash. As they choose to commit a felony that had death as a foreseeable result they are responsible for those deaths if they do in fact happen and are charge with felony or first degree murder depending on the state.
They decide to put their lives, the cops lives, and the public lives in danger over 10 boxes of chocolate bars and some one died because of it. Yes they should have been charged.
If you argue that the cops should have ended the case then I have to ask, do you want to live in a world where all some one has to do to get away with a crime is put more lives at risk? I believe letting crooks believe that driving 90 MPH through a resident neighborhood is a get out of jail free card will result in more deaths, not less.
Weather the cops lack of a seatbelt is a mitigating factor is something for a jury to decide at trial.
I guess there are no laws about engaging in high speed persuits in tenesee?
Well this should prove to them that they do. You do not go on a high speed chase that could end up killing innocent citizens over some stolen candy for pity’s sake!
To address the OP, unfortunately it seems the law does allow the DA’s office to seek murder 1 charges.
I don’t agree with the law, but it appears like their following it just fine.
Ignorant loudmouths, too many to quote individually.
-
The felony murder rule is part of English common law, and is part of the statutory definition of murder in every jurisdiction in America, England, and other former English colonies.
-
In almost every jurisdiction that distinguishes first-degree from second-degree murder, felony murder is first-degree murder.
-
Felony murder is defined under common law as “unlawful killing of another that occurs during commission of a felony.” While normally restricted to dangerous felonies, which doesn’t usually include theft, the Tennessee statute specifically includes theft.
-
To be guilty of murder, one need not intend to kill; indeed, of the four common law types of murder, only one requires that intent. Specifically, felony murder only requires intent to perform the felony that resulted in the the death.
-
Felony murder requires that the felony, or one’s conduct in committng the felony, be the cause of the death; for instance, in a robbery where a gun was used, it’s a “natural and probable” consequence of carrying a gun that someone will be killed – thus, dropping the gun during a robbery, and accidentally killing someone, is felony murder. When one flees from a crime scene in a car at high speed, it’s a “natural and probable” consequence that there will be a fatal accident.
IMHO the police officers’ gross negligence – in not wearing seatbelts during a high speed chase – should break the chain of proximate causation. The perps should not be held criminally responsible for the police officer’s death.
As sailor’s string of hypotheticals demonstrates, at some point you have to draw a line.
I have no idea what Tennessee law is on the point of course.
Nametag, your comments are inappropriate for GQ. You have been warned before. You may not be warned again.
If you’d like to retain your posting privileges, please stay within forum guidelines.
Thank you.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
This is ridiculous. I suppose some people would want to charge the thieves with murder if the cop had dropped dead of a heart attack from the excitement of the chase - after all, he died while they were committing a crime. :rolleyes:
Yes, there have been cases where a customer in a bank died from a heart attack during a robbery, and the robbers were charged with felony murder.
And there have even been cases where the police have shot & killed one robber, and then the other robber was charged with felony murder, since a person was killed during the commission of a felony.
But before you all get so upset that this isn’t fair, remember that all these examples are saying charged with. They still have to be convicted of this by a jury. The District Attorney is supposed to charge them with all possible crimes; it’s up to the jury to decide which ones they are guilty of.
And their defense lawyer can try to persuade the jury with statements like “the policeman wouldn’t have been killed had he been wearing a seatbelt, so it’s his own negligence (and violation of the seat belt law)” or “the customer wouldn’t have had a heart attack if he had not been so grossly overweight” or “the high speed chase by the police caused the pedestrian to be run down”.
Juries are generally made up of sensible people, and use reasonable common sense in deciding cases like this. I doubt that a jury would convict in most of sailors extended hypothetical cases. As lucwarm says, you have to draw the line somewhere. And here in America, it’s the jury who decides where to draw that line. I think the system generally works well, IMHO.
Laws vary from state to state, obviously. But in San Diego, CA, the answer to your questions are all “YES”.
http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/weekend/2390506/detail.html
Gosh, I wanna sue Osama Bin Laden for malicious damage to my car.
See, after 9/11, they closed a couple streets running near the WTC site. Last June, I was driving around downtown when some joker turned onto the closed street; saw it was closed; and proceeded to back out – straight into my car.
Topeka officer that was charged (and subsequently convicted) with vehicular manslaughter (among other things) when responding to a burglary alarm. There is now a big hullaballoo about resinstating this guy as a police officer even though this isn’t the only accident he’s caused in the line of duty.
Not so fast here – no one has analyzed this according to the
the applicable statute. -
Nametag, You are close, but you are not supporting your theory with facts in this case…
Everyone else seems to be looking to justify their opinion (as well as the DA and police are probably doing)to find that the defendants are toast. Apply the facts to the law by looking at the statute, word by word, then the facts to see what fits.
Does the Tenn. 39-13-202 statute applie? To apply, the killing has to be a killing, by any one of the three options given, #One - premeditated,… OR Two, in the perpetration of or attempt… OR Three, throwing, placing or discharging…
One doesn’t apply, # Three doesn’t apply, leaving # Two to look at.
“(1)arson, (2)rape, (3)robbery, (4)burglary, (5)theft, (6)kidnapping, (7)aggravated child abuse, (8)aggravated child neglect or aircraft piracy; or_”
//the numbering is mine, for reference//
We can rule out (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) immediately. We are left with (3) or (4) as the only possibilities. Most likely (3) will fail, leaving (4).
Now, go check the Tenn statutes and find out whether the act of stealing the candy is a robbery, or a burglary. Typically, Robbery statutes follow something like - taking from another by force of threat, and Burglary statutes follow - breaking into a house of another, at night, with intent to commit a felony therein… So things may not be so bleak for these idiots (unfortunately) as it first seems. It all depends whether they have committed a robbery, or a burglary?
By the way -if there is legal negligence on the part of the officer, it matters not. But for the illegal acts of the defendants, the nice officer would not have… Officers are expected to pursue, and unless there is a written department policy regarding pursuit that the officer clearly violated, or other specific statute prohibiting the same, finding any negligence on the part of the officer, either direct or contributory, is very, very difficult, and that alone, would most likely not defeat the FMR.
From Sailors post
The first two sentences are correct. The last sentence is specifically rejected by the majority of jurisdictions I know of, to the point that statutes provide criminal and civil immunity for officers.
It may be unfortunite that this is the case, but imagine a society where the officers were culpable for any injury suffered to others when performing dangerous parts of their duty. All a felon would have to do is drive through a shopping mall parking lot at high speed to evade arrest. If that were the case, I’ll bet there would be far fewer banks available to serve us, not to mention convenience stores and gas stations, etc.
I don’t understand why (5) – theft – wouldn’t apply. I’m not saying it definitely does apply, but can you explain why you are so confident it does not?
I found the following definition:
I also found the following definition of burglary:
This would seem to potentially apply too.
Different situation, different rules apply. Pursuits are a whole different ball game. Code 3 operation does not guarantee right of way when responding to a call and this officer was properly cited for his inappropriate actions.
Just about every jurisdiction I have heard of vehicles with lights and sirens operating still approach a intersection, if traffic is stopped proceed through the red/stop sign, if traffic does not yeild you wait. You blow though a red light or stop sign and hit someone its is pretty much always the emergency vehicles fault.
Well, the way I see it, part of the reason that the penalties for these high speed chases are so stiff is because of the risks that come along with them. If those risks become actualities indirectly should the penalty really be any stiffer?
By the same logic they should go free if no one gets hurt.
Yes you do. Maybe you should be telling that to the crooks! If they had just pulled over and played nice the would most likely have done little if any time. Because they ran, and the police are obligated to at least attempt to apprehend them, someone got hurt.
The nature of what was stolen is irrelevant. Belittling a crime because they only stole (trivial item X) does not change the fact that the store owner was deprived of property that had value (approx $650 according to the article). If it was $650 in cash would it somehow be a more serious crime?
The funny thing about law, is that it can redefine what the “definition” of a specific “crime” might be.
The law does not have to be logical. The law does not have to be reasonable. The law does not even have to make a lick of sense. All it has to do is not blatantly contradict itself–and even then it can get around that.
I couldn’t easily find the article, so I haven’t read it. But I’m wondering what the original felony was?
If it was the candy, that must be some damn expensive candy. If it was the fleeing, that’s a little more understandable I guess.
IMO it’s still a bit silly for the cops to escalate an already dangerous situation by giving chase over candy. Had it been a more serious crime, then it would make more sense. In this case, getting the description of the car and perpetrators and possibly calling ahead for a roadblock should have sufficed. If they get away, oh well the store is out some candy. And if you’re going to get into high speed chases over any over any minor offense, wearing your seatbelt would be a good idea.
Also, I’m curious if there would be any possible charge such as assault if the persuing officer were severely injured, but not killed? It only seems logical. Seems to strengthen the “where do you draw the line” argument against such stretches of felony murder laws.