Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on July 21, 2007, 05:42:11 PM
-
First, this guy is a scum bag. He did some bad stuff, got into a gunfight with cops, and should be in a hole.
....but should he really be convicted of murder because an officer who was speeding through a construction zone got into an accident and died 30 miles away?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D159F9B9C70CFBDC8625731E0012B1E8?OpenDocument
This guy should be convicted for the bad decisions that he had control of, not this.
-
absolutely. the guy chose to commit a crime. the officer's death was the direct result of attempting to capture this maggot. we are far too soft on crime here. in any event a grand jury was conveined, found probable cause the subject had his day in court and a jury of his peers found him guilty.
-
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?
-
absolutely but in that instant I doubt there would be a conviction unless I and my eleven clones were on the jury
-
That's a tough call. I read the article and what it said about Missouri law but I have a little trouble with it. Why was the officer "racing" to help in the search?
Like Storch said though, why not prosecute the criminal to the fullest extent of the law?
Mark
-
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?
Bad example since the kid has already been detained.
The reason why the felon was convicted in the troopers death is that the trooper was responding to the call in assist in the apprehension of the felon, who at this time was hiding in the woods, trying to avoid being arrested. Hence, the criminal act was still ongoing at the time of the troopers death.
ack-ack
-
ya what ack ack said
-
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.
What was the trooper doing responding to the call while slightly drunk?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
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.
What was the trooper doing responding to the call while slightly drunk?
i want that lawyer when i get a dui.:D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
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.
What was the trooper doing responding to the call while slightly drunk?
Hmm what's a "slight blood-alcohol level". Heck .08 is slight and can get ya a DUI in quite a few states.
Bronk
-
He should get the chair for shooting at a police officer; it doesn’t matter that he grazed him or if he would have missed the cop or killed him. He shot at a cop and should be put down for it.
It’s a tragedy that a cop died in the line of duty but I think it’s a stretch to hold the criminal responsible for murder in regards to the police officer’s crash.
Suppose a US Marshal was driving to a prison to transport a criminal from one facility to another and died in a crash. Should the criminal be charged with murder?
I see the point, however: criminals create emergencies and emergencies have an element of danger to them. What’s reasonable though? If some drunk campers start a fire, the fire department responds, an engine crashes and firefighters die, did the drunk campers commit murder? 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?
-
The frustrating reality is too many cops drive like fools when they are on a call, even when not in pursuit. They have killed an incredible number of innocent civilians with their poor judgement. It is a tragedy of course that the officer died in this situation, but it was his own fault not the criminals.
I feel more cops should be held responsible for their reckless driving, and this should include prosecution when they kill someone.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Suppose a US Marshal was driving to a prison to transport a criminal from one facility to another and died in a crash. Should the criminal be charged with murder?
Again the person can only be charged with the murder of an officer while in the commission of a crime. Transporting a prisoner from one prison to another is not a crime, so the prisoner could not be charged with the officer's death. However, if the crash that led to the officers death was direclty caused by the prisoner in the commision of a crime (i.e. attacking the officer while he was driving or attempting to escape) then the prisoner would be charged for the murder of the officer.
ack-ack
-
He should get the chair for shooting at a police officer; it doesn’t matter that he grazed him or if he would have missed the cop or killed him.
It was another officer that fired the bullet that grazed one officer.
Gasconade County sheriff’s deputies arrived. Stallmann fired once. Deputies fired 60 shots in return. One reserve deputy was grazed in the cheek by a bullet fired from another deputy.
Should this criminal have been charged with another murder if that bullet had killed the officer it struck?
When firing a weapon one must always be sure of one's target and make sure you have a clear shot. Hitting another officer shows a lack of judgement or a lack of skill with what ever firearm he was using.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
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.
What was the trooper doing responding to the call while slightly drunk?
Looks like maybe he was drinking the night before. Still, if he had been drinking why didn't he just say so and just stay at home?
Tatoian was paged at his home near Florissant. About 4:45 a.m., near I-44’s Pacific exit, he crested a hill with his squad car’s lights and siren running. He swerved around the disabled car but struck a truck.
-
I have to agree with Chairboy. If a cop dies as a result of an accident in which the criminal had a direct part, like a car chase, then hold the criminal responsible, though I wouldn't necessarily call it murder. Otherwise, it's just an accident and possibly even poor training is to blame.
-
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?
Vicarious liability applies because the officer was responding to assist make a felony arrest. Having back-up 30 miles away, or more, is not at all uncommon in rural areas.
Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, and the officer wouldn't be responding to aid in the arrest of someone already "caught"... being detained by a manager is analogous to being under citizens arrest.
-
quote:He should get the chair for shooting at a police officer; it doesn’t matter that he grazed him or if he would have missed the cop or killed him.
It was another officer that fired the bullet that grazed one officer.
quote:Gasconade County sheriff’s deputies arrived. Stallmann fired once. Deputies fired 60 shots in return. One reserve deputy was grazed in the cheek by a bullet fired from another deputy.
Should this criminal have been charged with another murder if that bullet had killed the officer it struck?
When firing a weapon one must always be sure of one's target and make sure you have a clear shot. Hitting another officer shows a lack of judgement or a lack of skill with what ever firearm he was using.
Attempted murder of one cop on another cop?
-
I think a little common sense is in order. If the kid was in the manager's office with a gun threatening people than yes he should be held responsible. But if he was just detained then no.
People get so confused over stuff, but if you break it down, and use a little common sense, or uncommon sense today, it isnt so hard.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
....but should he really be convicted of murder because an officer who was speeding through a construction zone got into an accident and died 30 miles away?
Yes, let him rot.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Looks like maybe he was drinking the night before. Still, if he had been drinking why didn't he just say so and just stay at home?
If every cop stayed home after a night of drinking the money needed for police cars would be very low. How long can you keep a car that is never driven?
-
odd thing I saw last weekend-
officer flying down the road -engine redlined
but stops for the traffic lights?
it was funny because I kept ending up at the same traffic light as her but she would hammer the gas as soon as the light turned green. there were almost no other cars on the road and cross traffic was virtually non existent.
my assumption is she was heading to a call because eventually another unit turned down a side street from another direction and she followed
i just thought it was odd to be in hot pursuit but only from light to light
-
don't you have to be commiting a felony for the rule to take effect? I don't think a minor crime or an accident counts.
lazs
-
The felony-murder rule says that if a killing occurs during the course of a commission of a felony, all accomplices in the felony are chargeable with murder. In Missori, according tho the article , it extends to law enforcement responding to the crime, and that is what happened here.
"Stallmann was the impetus for all the events," said Gasconade County Prosecutor Ada Brehe-Krueger. "But for his actions, Trooper Tatoian would not have been killed."
It is relatively easy to stay out of jail. My sympathy is reserved for the fallen officer and his family.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
First, this guy is a scum bag. He did some bad stuff, got into a gunfight with cops, and should be in a hole.
....but should he really be convicted of murder because an officer who was speeding through a construction zone got into an accident and died 30 miles away?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D159F9B9C70CFBDC8625731E0012B1E8?OpenDocument
This guy should be convicted for the bad decisions that he had control of, not this.
Yes, he should as that is what Missouri law allows:
"Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest."
I disagree with it as I think it is bad law to define it as murder.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Yes, he should as that is what Missouri law allows:
"Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest."
I disagree with it as I think it is bad law to define it as murder.
Reluctantly agree. It's the law in that state, but it's a stupid law. Guilty of murdering someone you've never seen before in your life? Stupid.
It should stand, however because it's the law. He was convicted and that's that.
"Stallmann was the impetus for all the events," said Gasconade County Prosecutor Ada Brehe-Krueger. "But for his actions, Trooper Tatoian would not have been killed."
Bull****! The trooper would be alive but for striking a truck at a high rate of speed.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Bull****! The trooper would be alive but for striking a truck at a high rate of speed.
and the reason for his high rate of speed... response to a situation caused by Stallmann.
-
Should a mime catch a bombshell in mid-air after she slips on a banana peel, it's the girl who would be responsible for the mime breaking his pose and his contractual obligation to hold still.
She made him do it :noid
-
Only if it were a felony to slip on a banana peel.
I believe this applies only in East Tennessee.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
and the reason for his high rate of speed... response to a situation caused by Stallmann.
Actually, it sounded like this guy was out drinking the night before, was late for work, and prob. was going too fast and was being dumb.
Not sure it's the felon's fault the officer was being irresponsible.
Being born/raised in St. Loo i'll ask my friends / family if there is anything to this story we missed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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?
-
emergency vehicles when responding to a emergency shall proceed in a rapid but safe manner.
-
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?
:D
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....
-
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'.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
So you think that if not for the post office, I'd never pick up my dry cleaning at the Korean laundry. Thank goodness for snail mail.
If a cop is on his way to the arson scene and decides instead to respond to the kidnapping, he is responding to a kidnapping, not the arson.
Mitigating circumstance is why we have jury trials.
I defer to the jury in the thread starter case, as they have seen more evidence than I.
-
you guys got to leave out the accident and things not a felony.. those don't count in any case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you think that if not for the post office, I'd never pick up my dry cleaning at the Korean laundry. Thank goodness for snail mail.
If a cop is on his way to the arson scene and decides instead to respond to the kidnapping, he is responding to a kidnapping, not the arson.
Mitigating circumstance is why we have jury trials.
There's a mis-communication somewhere.
The point is that, without the arsonist, in your example, the volunteer fighter does not get hurt. In my example, without the arsonist, the kidnapping victims do not get rescued nor does the family make it out of the Carbon Monoxide-filled home.
But for the arsonist, in your example, the firefighter remains intact, therefore the arsonist is liable for whatever does happen to the firefighter. The arsonist is not a direct cause of the injury, but indirect, and yet he is credited for the harm.
But for the arsonist, in my example, people are harmed or killed. Again, the arsonist is not a direct cause of the good deeds, but an indirect.
The question is: According to YOUR thinking, would the indirect positive effects of the arsonist even qualify as mitigating circumstances, or would the, according to your thinking, this information not even be worthy of submission to the jury? The guys
I just want to know if your theory works the same in both instances.
-
There is no miscommunication, I understand what you are trying to say, I just think your circumstance is a bit far fetched.
If a cop responding to some felony gets misdirected and solves some other crime thus doing a good deed, I say the misdirection (the thing that makes him drop the emergency call to the original felony) is the impetus for the solution of the second.
I answered your question by saying mitigating circumstance is one of the reasons we have trial by jury. Should 12 people believe that some good has been done by doing bad, they can take that into account.
-
So can we agree that in either situation, whether the resulting circumstances are good or bad, that it is the jury that should decide whether they mitigate or aggravate the defendant's offenses, rather than having the aggravation or mitigation be imposed statutorily?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
So can we agree that in either situation, whether the resulting circumstances are good or bad, that it is the jury that should decide whether they mitigate or aggravate the defendant's offenses, rather than having the aggravation or mitigation be imposed statutorily?
Armed Robbery is a statutory felony. It is decided by jury.
Felony Murder is a stautory felony. It is decided by jury.
-
nevermind
-
Originally posted by Neubob
nevermind
I could have told you that 2 pages ago. :D
-
I humbly apologize for believing that the felony murder law should be available to prosecutors and that juries should be able to decide whether the prosecutor has made the case.
I see now how that is patently unfair.
-
rewind to the start, the badguy shoots once, hits no one, the cops shoot 60 times, hit one of their own, but not the badguy.
is there something wrong with the training of cops?
-
Originally posted by 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.
"Vicarious liability" has been used for dozens of years and stands on fairly solid legal ground, but I agree... not in this case.
After reading that the trooper had measurable alcohol in his system, I disagree with a "murder" charge. Normally any police officer "on duty" with even a "slight blood-alcohol level", would be in dereliction of duty, in violation of Dept policy and maybe even suspended / fired for conduct unbecoming.
I'm not sure how a trooper violating the mofo out of his dept policy to the point of borderline dereliction gets covered the same.
Back in the day when I got to take a city vehicle home, I was strictly forbidden from drinking while subject to call out, period. Even on my days off, if I brought a city police car home and was subject to call-out, I was getting bonus call out pay and was expected to be ready to roll at a moments notice. If I wanted to drink & party, I could "beg off" the call-out list as long as I had someone else to cover for me... or take myself off call and let someone else earn bonus pay.
There was NEVER any excuse, ever, to respond to a call-out in a police car with any measurable alcohol.. a dept that allows that is in need of some policy change IMO. It sucks that he's dead, but IMO the trooper should have known better.
-
If I were making the law it'd probably be something like this: if a cop or anyone else is killed related to but not by direct action of the criminal then the crime commited would be punished with the most severe penalty allowed for the crime actually committed without tacking on the result of an accident which the criminal did not influence with his action directly.
-
Originally posted by john9001
rewind to the start, the badguy shoots once, hits no one, the cops shoot 60 times, hit one of their own, but not the badguy.
is there something wrong with the training of cops?
:D
5-o's here officially shoot an average of 20 bullets/y. Some train during their private time at the gun range, but they are a minority. Of course, I am not in a gun-totting country et all... but...
-
After reading that the trooper had measurable alcohol in his system, I disagree with a "murder" charge. Normally any police officer "on duty" with even a "slight blood-alcohol level", would be in dereliction of duty, in violation of Dept policy and maybe even suspended / fired for conduct unbecoming.
I'm not sure how a trooper violating the mofo out of his dept policy to the point of borderline dereliction gets covered the same.
Back in the day when I got to take a city vehicle home, I was strictly forbidden from drinking while subject to call out, period. Even on my days off, if I brought a city police car home and was subject to call-out, I was getting bonus call out pay and was expected to be ready to roll at a moments notice. If I wanted to drink & party, I could "beg off" the call-out list as long as I had someone else to cover for me... or take myself off call and let someone else earn bonus pay.
There was NEVER any excuse, ever, to respond to a call-out in a police car with any measurable alcohol.. a dept that allows that is in need of some policy change IMO. It sucks that he's dead, but IMO the trooper should have known better.
I've been wondering about this myself from the minute I saw that he had alcohol in his system.
In light of what you posted, I don't think the criminal should have been charged with the murder of this officer.
-
neubob... I would agree that a jury that was as it should be should decide all cases.
The problem comes from activist judges who "instruct" the jury with false law.
The jury is not bound to decide only guilt soley based on the law.
For instance.. the law says a that it is murder to kill someone not in self defense yet.. juries let husbands who catch in the act, and shoot, wives and their lovers go all the time. People who kill or seriously injure those who harmed their children... lots of things where the circumstance should be up to a jury.
The mandatory sentencing comes about because of activist judges who feel they need to get an outcome based on their law. not what was intended of the jury system.
The jury system was meant to be a "reasonable man" one not a strict judges interpretation... the judges would like nothing better than to have no jury at all.. for them to tell us what the law is and decide "guilt" and penalty.
lazs