Crummy situation - Murder from 30 miles away?

[moot]

It's a bad analogy because the mime's contract includes nothing about falling babes, but it does illustrate what's odd about holding someone responsible for another's free willed (pardon my pig english) actions.

[Halo]

Suppose 10 troopers responding all had accidents and died responding to a problem 30 miles away.  Did the problem CAUSE their deaths?  No.  The troopers all would be responsible for their own progress to the scene.  

If several firemen died  in an emergency vehicle accident 30 miles away from responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, did the problem CAUSE their deaths?  No.  

If a bomber aircraft  crashes en route to a target far from any enemy action, did the hostile situation CAUSE the crash?  No.  

In all these examples, the problems are the reason for the travel, but the problems did not directly CAUSE the deaths.   Unless directly engaged with and caused by the targets, they are accidents no matter what the motive for the vehicles being put in motion.

[E25280]

It does seem to be a "stretch" interpretation of the law, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it gets overturned on appeal.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Halo
If several firemen died  in an emergency vehicle accident 30 miles away from responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, did the problem CAUSE their deaths?  No.  

If I set fire to my home to collect the insurance money and a fire truck speeding to put out the fire I caused drove off a cliff and killed all aboard, I would be at fault for the loss of lives and equipment responding to the emergency I caused.  Otherwise, the firemen could have been safe back at the firehouse.

If I called in a false alarm and caused fire trucks to respond to a non existant emergency and meanwhile a house burned killing the family, I would be at fault.

[sntslilhlpr6601]

it was the criminals fault that the officer was hurrying to assist in the search, but it was not his fault the officer crashed. because of the state law he was convicted, but it's a stupid law. regardless of the emergency, the people responding still need to drive safe and responsibly. i feel bad for the officer and his family but he was obviously driving too fast to avoid stopped cars. no matter what kind of emergency you are responding to you should not endanger yourself or others. being convicted of murder for this is ridiculous.

[lazs2]

halo... again... if it is firemen or police responding to an accident then no one is to blame if they are killed.

If it is arson... well.. that is different isn't it?

Lets use a real life example... who is responsible for the deaths of the firemen and rescue people who died in 9/11?

Would it be their own fault?

lazs

[VOR]

I don't see it as being the same thing. A building collapsing on top of someone's head because someone else flew a plane into it is a direct cause-effect relationship. There's little difference between that and setting a bomb that later kills rescue workers.

If those firefighters had crashed into a parked vehicle or some static object on the way to the fire it would be a different story. There aren't many cases in which the vehicle operator is not at fault for doing those things.

Some states just have silly little laws.

[lazs2]

vor... I would agree that the crashing your car on the way to the crime is not as glamorous as the building falling on you but.. you would not count the firemen killed rushing to the emergency as victims of the 9/11 event?

lazs

[Shuffler]

Originally posted by Chairboy
If a 13 year old has been caught shoplifting, and the police car coming to take him to jail is T-boned in an intersection, should the 13 year old waiting in the manager's room at the store be convicted of murder?

You missed the point..... the 13 year old is not an emergency placing peoples lives in danger. The cop will not be redlighting. Any idiot shooting at police or bystanders should be charged for anything he causes, like the Officer's death.

[Halo]

(QUOTE)If I set fire to my home to collect the insurance money and a fire truck speeding to put out the fire I caused drove off a cliff and killed all aboard, I would be at fault for the loss of lives and equipment responding to the emergency I caused. Otherwise, the firemen could have been safe back at the firehouse. (UNQUOTE)


(QUOTE)If it is arson... well.. that is different isn't it?

Lets use a real life example... who is responsible for the deaths of the rescue people who died in 9/11?

Would it be their own fault? (UNQUOTE)


In most criminal situations I would be a hanging judge, not believing in rewarding criminals with lifelong room and board if they did something terrible.  But in these examples, I think it is important to differentiate between, in effect, combat deaths and en route deaths.    

In the broadest sense, any event can be interpreted as "causing" consequences miles away and even years away.  But DIRECT consequences are necessarily AT the scene or DIRECTLY caused by the instigator with the victims.  
 
In fact, a crafty defense attorney could make a case in both examples for the defendants NOT wanting police and fire/rescue people at the scene so damage would be maximized.  While the perpetrators probaby wouldn't mind response casualties, they presumably would prefer their attacks be as unimpeded as possible by effect mitigators.  


(QUOTE) If I called in a false alarm and caused fire trucks to respond to a non existant emergency and meanwhile a house burned killing the family, I would be at fault. (UNQUOTE)
 
In this example the caller indeed would be guilty of directly causing the fire trucks to not only respond but inaccurately, thus directly denying the victims the help they should have received.

[wooley]

Originally posted by eskimo2
...if a skier skies out of bounds past warning signs and buries himself in a small avalanche, searchers will respond.  If the searchers die in another avalanche should the out of bounds skier be charged with murder?

In France and - I believe - Switzerland, criminal charges would be brought. It happens every year. Not sure how severe the charges are though.

[wooley]

OK - here's a scenario.

A concerned neighbor spots suspicious movement in a shop late at night. Suspecting a burglary, she dials 911. Unfortunately, a trooper responding makes an error of judgment and a traffic fatality occurs. When troopers arrive at the shop, they find the movement is the shop-owner carrying out a stock check. Is he now guilty of second-degree murder?

[VOR]

Originally posted by lazs2
vor... I would agree that the crashing your car on the way to the crime is not as glamorous as the building falling on you but.. you would not count the firemen killed rushing to the emergency as victims of the 9/11 event?

lazs

Were there any firemen killed in accidents while rushing to the scene on 9/11?

Anyway, they would obviously have lost their lives in the line of duty so I would expect a full and fair compensation package for their survivors.

As for being victims of an attack...no. They were victims of an auto accident. Auto accidents are usually the fault of the people at the scene of the accident.

I'm all for personal responsibility. Aren't you also?

[VOR]

Originally posted by wooley
OK - here's a scenario.

A concerned neighbor spots suspicious movement in a shop late at night. Suspecting a burglary, she dials 911. Unfortunately, a trooper responding makes an error of judgment and a traffic fatality occurs. When troopers arrive at the shop, they find the movement is the shop-owner carrying out a stock check. Is he now guilty of second-degree murder?

According to that law, no. The shop owner was not in the commission of a felony.

Someone yells "FIRE" in a crowded theater and the sheeple panic and trample each other to death while the rescue services are crashing into vehicles and pedestrians trying to respond...probably so.

[TalonX]

Originally posted by Bronk
Hmm what's a "slight blood-alcohol level". Heck .08 is slight and can get ya a DUI in quite a few states.

Bronk

While everyone is different, .08 has been shown to impair most drivers.