Hmmm…almost a sentence there.
I strongly disagree.
You’re basically saying that a person who commits a felony is responsible for anything passes the “but for” test, which is absurd. We have copious examples of absurd results that could stem from this line of reasoning. What if a bystander saw the chase, started yelling “Yee-haw! It’s anarchy”, and shot 7 people? You’re gonna argue that the truck driver is guilty of 7 murders? Sorry, “bro”, but you need more than just the “but for” test.
Nobody disputes the suspect is the actual cause of the harm. “But for” the suspect’s fleeing the police, the helicopters would not have collided, and the pilots would not have died. Therefore, the suspect’s actions are an actual cause of the harm.
The real question is whether the suspect’s actions are the proximate cause or “legal cause” of the harm. Here, the test is whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable.
Personally, I think the helipcopter crash is not reasonably foreseeable and that the negligence of the pilot(s) is a superseding intervening cause, absolving the suspect from liability.
However, I can see where someone would say that, in this day and age, most people know multiple news helicopters will follow a police chase. In fact, many people run from the cops just to get on TV (at least, that’s what I’ve heard). If multiple helicopters are in one small area, it is reasonably foreseeable that two of those helicopters may crash into each other.
I see the argument, but I don’t buy it. I think causation is too remote here. Maybe this one will make the law books.
To add another note to this, after the accident happened, the local NBC affiliate interviewed one of their pilots. They said that they were wary of the personnel setup that was used, that the chopper pilot also served as a reporter, with a photographer on board as well. Apparently the local NBC affiliate (and presumably other stations in the Chicago area) uses a dedicated pilot, with a separate reporter and a photographer. This way the pilot can concentrate on flying. I’ve seen this in morning traffic reports; occasionally they do an “inside the chopper” shot and there’s a pilot, a reporter sitting next to him, and the cameraman in back.
I suspect, or hope, that the practice in Phoenix and elsewhere will change after this horrible accident.
When I was in the Civil Air Patrol it was stressed that the pilot’s job was to fly the aircraft – not to look for the search target. Scanners would do the actual looking, and the Observer would handle much of the communications (i.e., related to the search as opposed to related to the operation of the aircraft) and also assist the Scanners.
One thing drilled into my head during training was ‘Fly the airplane!’ No matter what else is happening, operating the aircraft is Priority Number One. On my helicopter check ride I (politely) told the FAA Examiner I couldn’t talk to him at one point while I negotiated a pass. (He seemed pleased.)
Should there be a rule that news helicopter pilots cannot also be the reporter? I don’t think so. Most of the time there is no need for such a rule. However I do think that the better practice is to have a dedicated reporter to do the reporting and a dedicated pilot to do the flying. This ‘rule’ should be at the corporate level,not at a governmental level.
Here are some hypotheticals:
The test for proximate cause is reasonable forseeability. Assume there is no statute on point that creates different or special liability for cops vs. civilians.
Which of the following is felony murder?
Pursuing cop runs car into civilian motorist, kills motorist only
Pursuing cop runs car into civilian motorist, kills cop only
Police car strikes news van, killing cop only
Police car strikes news van, killing reporter only
News van strikes police car, killing cop only
News van strikes police car, killing reporter only
Two news vans collide, killing reporters only
Two police cars collide, killing cops only
Two police helicopters collide, killing cops only
Two news helicopters collide, killing reporters only
Police helicopter strikes news helicopter, killing reporter only
Police helicopter strikes news helicopter, killing cop only
Cop shoots and kills bystander while aiming for suspect
Robbery victim shoots in self defense and accidentially kills bystander
We’re not talking about officer being able to do things the public aren’t. 
I was under the impression your original post was in regards to actual laws or precedents that have been set. If you’re just talking about how you feel, that’s a different story.
Okay, you’re not just talking about how you feel. Setting up a barricade for a suspect is not an arbitrary enforcement attempt. The suspect plows (purposefully or not) through the barricade put up for him and he kills an officer, he’s going to get charged.
So, you’re saying the suspect has no blame because he was being chased by police? I think enough precedents have been set to prove you wrong. When someone kills another driving at 140 mph, they are charged for the killing whether or not they wouldn’t be driving that fast if the police weren’t chasing them. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that being chased is some sort of an excuse.
Yeah, I was referring to how I feel, you asked me
and I explained how I think that.
No. A suspect kills another driving at 140 mph, they get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Rarely if ever does this apply to the pursuing officers (unless they do not qualify as someone anymore). Just because people get charged doesn’t mean it’s right or even remotely logical. Officers can get into a trouble for initiating and continuing a firefight in a school when children are present, no? Why are they allowed to pursue down public highways?
Because allowing criminals to escape whenever they put bystanders in enough danger is a really, really bad precedent to set.
There’s a difference between allowing criminals to escape and not enganging in pursuit on streets where uninvolved citizens are driving. I’m saying “find another way or convince people like me that this is the most prudent and reasonable approach” – however I don’t really see anybody doing either. I don’t know what a better approach would be, but as it stands right now I’d rather see that precedent set than continue with the current policy.
They were discussing this on the radio, and I learned that every news and traffic helicopter in the NYC area (and we have a slew of them) has a certain altitude assigned only to them , creating an airfield similar to vertical highway lanes. This is to avoid collisions.
I don’t think committing any old felony can get you slapped with a felony murder charge if someone just happens to croak. In Indiana there is a list of offenses which you must be committing before felony murder can apply. That list can be found here. Counterfeiting and discharging a firearm do not appear on the list, to use examples already brought up in this thread.
YM outside of Indiana MV.
Bearflag:
If you assume that all of the police vehicles mentioned in the hypotheticals were in pursuit of the criminal or otherwise treating the situation as exigent, I’d say all of those are felony murder except #8 and #11.
[QUOTE=J_Ramone]
So, you’re saying the suspect has no blame because he was being chased by police? I think enough precedents have been set to prove you wrong. When someone kills another driving at 140 mph, they are charged for the killing whether or not they wouldn’t be driving that fast if the police weren’t chasing them. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that being chased is some sort of an excuse.
How is that different from me saying “charged for the killing”? Being charged with manslaughter isn’t being charged with killing? You said, “Grey area but in my opinion no extra charges should be filed.” Manslaughter sure sounds like extra charges to me.
As for your belief murder charges aren’t given when high speed chases end in death:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863071/posts
http://www.ktvu.com/news/9458392/detail.html
Because everyone and his brother would be committing crimes if they knew they could speed from the cops and not be chased?
[QUOTE=J_Ramone]
So, you’re saying the suspect has no blame because he was being chased by police? I think enough precedents have been set to prove you wrong. When someone kills another driving at 140 mph, they are charged for the killing whether or not they wouldn’t be driving that fast if the police weren’t chasing them. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that being chased is some sort of an excuse.
How is that different from me saying “charged for the killing”? Being charged with manslaughter isn’t being charged with killing? You said, “Grey area but in my opinion no extra charges should be filed.” Manslaughter sure sounds like extra charges to me.
How is that different from me saying “charged for the killing”? Being charged with manslaughter isn’t being charged with killing? You said, “Grey area but in my opinion no extra charges should be filed.” Manslaughter sure sounds like extra charges to me.
As for your belief murder charges aren’t given when high speed chases end in death:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863071/posts
http://www.ktvu.com/news/9458392/detail.html
Because everyone and his brother would be committing crimes if they knew they could speed from the cops and not be chased?
Yes it is. I never argued that point. I even highlighted the part I was contending. I have a problem with your use of “someone kills another” because it certainly does not apply to most people involved in high speed chases. “When a suspect kills another” is much more accurate. Police officers do not typically get charged for performing their duties.