Crummy situation - Murder from 30 miles away?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by VOR
I'm all for personal responsibility. Aren't you also?

I am.  That's why I don't commit felonies and put cops or firemen in danger responding to the things for which I am personally responsible.

[TalonX]

I had to think about this one a long time...but I go with guilty.   The cop was responding to apprehend a felon.....that is, to reduce public danger (in some sense).   I like to think that criminals give up all rights, and take on accountability when they commit a crime.

Take the guy breaking into your house....why should he EVER be allowed to sue you, even if you set a trap for him and it paralyzes him?   I think he checked his rights when he broke in.....

[Holden McGroin]

Just wondering...  where is the line drawn if 30 miles is too far?

1 mile?  500 yds?

Why is distance a factor in whether it is unfair to hold a felon responsible for the response to his actions?

[john9001]

emergency vehicles when responding to a emergency shall proceed in a rapid but safe manner.

[VOR]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am.  That's why I don't commit felonies and put cops or firemen in danger responding to the things for which I am personally responsible.

You can't seem to get your mind around the idea of blaming someone or something else, can you?

 

A rescue vehicle should not be the first one to the scene of an accident. John has it right with "rapid but safe". If the whole idea is public safety, after all....

[Fury]

Some information from Michgan State University
http://www.healthed.msu.edu/snc/bac.htm

.04 - most people begin to feel relaxed
.05 - chances of motor vehicle accident are twice as likely as when sober
.06 - judgement is somewhat impaired; rational decision-making is affected
.07 - Michigan legal limit for driving while impaired
.08 - muscle coordination and driving skills are impaired
.10 - Michigan legal limit for driving while intoxicated (DWI); judgement, motor control and reaction time continue to deteriorate; chances of a vehicle accident are 8 times more likely
.15 - chances of motor vehicle accident are 25 times as likely as when sober
.30 - loss of consciousness may occur
.40 - breathing stops and death results
==========================

Something doesn't seem right there....in Michigan, the legal limit is .08.

Anyway......
Quote: Taaffe said Tatoian had a slight blood-alcohol level, was late for his callout to duty and drove fast in a construction zone. A prosecution witness said that the low level of alcohol wouldn’t impair the trooper.

Well.....I didn't see any mention of the actual level other than 'slight', but every PSA I see says even one drink can impair your judgement....on top of fast driving, lights and siren, the adrenaline rush of responding to that call....maybe the guy should not have been driving like that.

The law is the law, so you might as well blame the perp for the responder's bad judgement.  

I can tell you that I wouldn't want to be on an airplane where the pilot has a 'slight blood-alcohol level'.

[lazs2]

I am merely playing devils advocate.  How can a guy be guilty of murder if his partner is shot in a crime they are both in?

My solution is to add penalty onto the crime for deaths not directly related to the crime and let the jury decide on anything else.  

I think people forget what juries are supposed to be about... they think that juries are just supposed to listen to what the judge tells em to decide on which is not the case at all.   they are not so much bound by the law as they are the law.

lazs

[Trell]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
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.

If i crash into a car in front of me while driving,  Then it is the cars fault in front of me for the accident because if he was not there i would have not hit him?


Makes about as much sense

[Neubob]

You get stopped for speeding. 78 in a 65. Stone cold sober.

A 2nd cop decides to join in on the fun because he's bored, but when he arrives on the scene, he ends up pulling behind you in a slightly sloppy manner. The front left corner of his car is jutting out into the far right lane.

A tanker truck comes by, swerves to avoid the edge of the cruiser, jack-knifes across the freeway, explodes. Dozens are killed or maimed

I suppose this  exposes you to prosecution for multiple counts of manslaughter? Not to mention about a billion in potential damages in civil court?

The way some people here are talking, it's as if there's a severe shortage of inmates doing time, or lawsuits pending in this country.

A weatherman says it's going to rain, but it doesn't. You take the time to put on a raincoat. You step from your door a moment later than you would have, had you been expecting a clear day. Shaken by a gust of wind, a branch falls from a dead tree in your yard, striking you on your head. You are severely handicapped, unable to work.

Weatherman is hauled into court.

A doctor performs surgery. Does everything right, by the book, with no risks or unplanned procedures. Patient's immune system, weakened by years of alcoholism, drug abuse and STDs, gets an infection, stays in the hospital for a week longer than expected. Another doctor prescribes the patient pain medication that the patient subsequently sells on the street.

First doctor is sued for $4m. Second Doctor is sent to jail for drug trafficking (laugh all you want, but this is a growing trend in VA criminal law).

With this type of thinking starting to prevail, there will be an ever-increasing volume of money for lawyers to make off the peripheral offenses and claims made possible through this never-ending chain of "but-for" causation.

Land of Timid, home of the Incarcerated.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Trell
If i crash into a car in front of me while driving,  Then it is the cars fault in front of me for the accident because if he was not there i would have not hit him?


Makes about as much sense

Was there malice, forethought, and a felony comitted in your example?


If not, it does not apply.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was there malice, forethought, and a felony comitted in your example?


If not, it does not apply.

So if the above-mentioned elements are present, the defendant becomes liable for any and everything that results, however indirectly, from his action?

[Holden McGroin]

If I illegally burn down my barn and you as a volunteer firefighter come over to extinguish the flames and get hurt, I would be liable for your injury.  My illegal actions caused your reponse.

If you as a volunteer firefighter, get hurt jumping the fence on your way to my barn, my illegal actions caused your response.

If you as a volunteer firefighter, run out of your home and slip on the ice in your driveway on your way to extinguish the flames, my illegal actions caused your response.

I have no qualms whatsoever in accepting that my illegal actions were the impetus for your injury and accepting my responsibility.

That is one of the many reasons that I refrain from comitting felonies.

[Neubob]

You light a barn on fire, intentionally. It burns to the ground.

On the way to the scene, a cop comes across a crime in progress. He stops a kidnapping, nabs the kidnapper, and sets into motion a course of events that closes the case on a series of other kidnappings.

By your theory of cause and effect, does the fire-starter get to claim his crime as a but-for cause for the ending of a much more significant pattern of crime, thus mitigating your sentence?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Neubob
You light a barn on fire, intentionally. It burns to the ground.

On the way to the scene, a cop comes across a crime in progress. He stops a kidnapping, nabs the kidnapper, and sets into motion a course of events that closes the case on a series of other kidnappings.

By your theory of cause and effect, does the fire-starter get to claim his crime as a but-for cause for the ending of a much more significant pattern of crime, thus mitigating your sentence?

If I go out and run a series of errands, one of them is to stop at the post office and another is to pick up my dry cleaning, does the stop at the post office cause the Korean laundry to lose my pants?

I would think that the two are only related to my errand trip.

So in your analogy, the only relationship of my arson and the solution to kidnappings is the same cop.  Cops can multitask.  I fail to see how me commiting arson could be directly related to the solving of a kidnap.

Anything that is directly related to his response to my arson would be in the mix however.  That is why we have jury trials.

[Neubob]

The cop is on the way to the scene. He never makes it to the arson because he's sidetracked by the kidnapper.

But for your crime, he would not have been there. He would have been somewhere else. But for your burning of the barn, the kidnapper would have not been apprehended that night...Just like in the first case, except instead of dying in an accident, he finds himself in the right time and place to do something positive.

If that still doesn't suit you, I can change the fact pattern.

The Barn burns, the fire causes its owners to wake up in the middle of the night. They rush out of their home to see the flames and, unbeknownst to them, avoid being poisoned by carbon monoxide, which is seeping into their home from a faulty furnace. Their lives are saved.

The point is simple. The crime is a 'but-for' cause of something good, verses something bad. Does  that fact redeem the arsonist? If he's punished for the negative indirect effects of his crime, would it not stand to reason that he should be credited for the good effects as well?