Police Pursuits Questioned in Philly

[dazzleman]

Instead it was someone who deliberately dispatched emergency personally with an illegal prank phone call.  In both cases, a deliberate illegal act resulted in the death of an officer.

The prank call is a lesser degree of responsibility, IMO.  This is a murky area, but the position that I've taken is that if an officer has signalled you to pull over, and you lead him on a reckless chase and death or injury to ANYBODY results from that, you are responsible for it legally.

Cases such as the prank call are much murkier.  I don't have the answer for everything.  Man, you guys like to argue.....

[Eye of the Tiger]

Seriously guys, how many degrees of separation are you willing to let the blame travel? I get it, since there was nobody else but the officer to blame, it had to be the motorcyclist's fault.
No.
The officer had a choice whether or not to pursue the motorcycle. He made the wrong decision, because he was driving a Tahoe. He then made another bad decision when he decided to exceed the limits of the Tahoe around that curve, rather than maintain a safe pursuit speed and wait for backup.

There is no logical course of thought that could possibly result in trying to chase down a motorcycle in a Tahoe. A two-ton out of control speeding SUV is way more dangerous to the public than a motorcycle. That officer made a stupid decision that put not only himself (obviously), but anyone else on that road at risk.
I just find it incomprehensible that the motorcyclist was charged with homicide. Fleeing, speeding, reckless driving, of course. But homicide? Fucking communists.

[dazzleman]

Seriously guys, how many degrees of separation are you willing to let the blame travel? I get it, since there was nobody else but the officer to blame, it had to be the motorcyclist's fault.
No.
The officer had a choice whether or not to pursue the motorcycle. He made the wrong decision, because he was driving a Tahoe. He then made another bad decision when he decided to exceed the limits of the Tahoe around that curve, rather than maintain a safe pursuit speed and wait for backup.

There is no logical course of thought that could possibly result in trying to chase down a motorcycle in a Tahoe. A two-ton out of control speeding SUV is way more dangerous to the public than a motorcycle. That officer made a stupid decision that put not only himself (obviously), but anyone else on that road at risk.
I just find it incomprehensible that the motorcyclist was charged with homicide. Fleeing, speeding, reckless driving, of course. But homicide? Fucking communists.

He was charged with some form of manslaughter, not murder.  Manslaughter means that while you didn't deliberately kill somebody, you committed acts that resulted in a person's death, and a reasonable person would have known that that was a possible result.

Deliberately fleeing a police officer is such a situation.  By deliberately fleeing, you place the lives of anybody who crosses your path, or the officer's path, in a danger that would not have existed if you'd simply pulled over as directed.

Whether the officer had good judgment logistically isn't the issue here, since he'd never have had to make those judgments if the person on the bike had simply pulled over as he should have.

[Eye of the Tiger]

He was charged with some form of manslaughter, not murder.  Manslaughter means that while you didn't deliberately kill somebody, you committed acts that resulted in a person's death, and a reasonable person would have known that that was a possible result.

Deliberately fleeing a police officer is such a situation.  By deliberately fleeing, you place the lives of anybody who crosses your path, or the officer's path, in a danger that would not have existed if you'd simply pulled over as directed.

Whether the officer had good judgment logistically isn't the issue here, since he'd never have had to make those judgments if the person on the bike had simply pulled over as he should have.

If the motorcyclist was somehow involved in the officer's crash, sure. If he had swerved in front of the officer's vehicle and forced the officer to crash, sure. But when this motorcyclist is out sight and not even
aware of the officer's pursuit, then he had nothing to do with it. It is the officer's responsibility to keep control of his vehicle, for everybody's sake.

[dazzleman]

If the motorcyclist was somehow involved in the officer's crash, sure. If he had swerved in front of the officer's vehicle and forced the officer to crash, sure. But when this motorcyclist is out sight and not even
aware of the officer's pursuit, then he had nothing to do with it. It is the officer's responsibility to keep control of his vehicle, for everybody's sake.

If he really wasn't aware of the officer's pursuit, then I'd have a different opinion.

I have assumed that he was aware of the pursuit, and was deliberately fleeing from that pursuit.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The cyclist said he gunned it when he saw the Trooper ... He claimed he wasn't aware that the Trooper had attempted to actually pursue him

What if, instead of "gunning it", the motorcyclist turned off on a side street, and the officer didn't see him so he blew by on the main road, then crashed attempting to pursue nothing?

[dazzleman]

What if, instead of "gunning it", the motorcyclist turned off on a side street, and the officer didn't see him so he blew by on the main road, then crashed attempting to pursue nothing?

Well, that's something I've done myself......

You guys really like to argue.  As I said before, I don't have the answer for everything.  That's another grey area.

[MX793]

He was charged with both manslaughter AND criminally negligent homicide.  He was acquitted on the manslaughter charge but found guilty on the charge of aggrivated criminally negligent homicide.

I've been looking around a bit to see exactly what the definition of criminally negligent homicide is, and it appears to be much more akin to manslaughter than murder.  Not being a legal expert, the definition seems close enough that I'd be tempted to use them interchangeably.

[J86]

Manslaughter is killing someone without premeditation...say, for example, a crime of passion.  Criminally negligent homicide is you did not mean for anyone to get hurt/killed, but as a result of your negligent actions, somebody died.  Say, in the first case, you shot your wife's lover after you found them in bed: manslaughter.  You run a red light and kill somebody: criminally negligent homicide.

'Course, we've got a law student on the board who can probably clarify that...but I'm pretty certain that's the case...

[MX793]

Manslaughter is killing someone without premeditation...say, for example, a crime of passion.  Criminally negligent homicide is you did not mean for anyone to get hurt/killed, but as a result of your negligent actions, somebody died.  Say, in the first case, you shot your wife's lover after you found them in bed: manslaughter.  You run a red light and kill somebody: criminally negligent homicide.

'Course, we've got a law student on the board who can probably clarify that...but I'm pretty certain that's the case...

Based on what I found at nycourts.gov, the difference is more subtle.  Basically, the only difference I saw was that in criminally negligent homicide, the accused failed to perceive that their actions were reckless while in the case of manslaughter (2nd degree), they are aware that their actions are reckless and disregard the danger.

[J86]

Makes sense to me!  Carelessness v. disregard.  So if you're gonna kill someone, do it carelesslsy, you'll serve less time

[Tave]

People rarely run from the police over traffic violations.  If a cop tries to pull you over for a traffic violation, and you flee in a risky manner, it usually means that there's a warrant for your arrest on more serious charges, or something of that nature.  That's why I'd be very reluctant to say that police shouldn't pursue people who flee for traffic violations.  Chances are, if a person is willing to go to such lengths to get away from the police, that person is dangerous in some way.  The issue is to balance the danger from that person with the danger of the pursuit.  It's not an easy decision.

This statistic was stated in the original story, and John was kind enough to quote the information in the post directly above you:

In a 1997 study he did for the U.S. Department of Justice, Alpert determined that only 16 percent of suspects who fled police had been involved in serious criminal activity.

You're basing your opinion off of nothing but conjecture and assumptions, when the facts point to another direction entirely.

[Tave]

Say, in the first case, you shot your wife's lover after you found them in bed: manslaughter. 

No, that is second degree murder. First degree is premeditated.

[J86]

No, that is second degree murder. First degree is premeditated.

crimes of passion aren't manslaughter?

[MX793]

crimes of passion aren't manslaughter?

No.  With manslaughter, your actions are not intended to kill or harm anyone.  With a crime of passion, even though it wasn't premeditated, the intent was to harm/kill.

[Tave]

crimes of passion aren't manslaughter?

When you intend to kill someone, it's murder. It doesn't matter if you do it on the spot or you think about it beforehand.

Now, I'm sure people might plea down to manslaughter if given the opportunity, but shooting your wife's lover when you catch the two fucking is a textbook example of second degree murder.

[dazzleman]

This statistic was stated in the original story, and John was kind enough to quote the information in the post directly above you:

In a 1997 study he did for the U.S. Department of Justice, Alpert determined that only 16 percent of suspects who fled police had been involved in serious criminal activity.

You're basing your opinion off of nothing but conjecture and assumptions, when the facts point to another direction entirely.

Well, if that's really true, then I stand corrected.  I don't always trust these surveys that could have a political motivation behind them, but maybe that's correct.  I'm surprised by that.  I don't understand why somebody would flee the police if there was nothing more at stake than a traffic violation.

[bing_oh]

Seriously guys, how many degrees of separation are you willing to let the blame travel? I get it, since there was nobody else but the officer to blame, it had to be the motorcyclist's fault.
No.
The officer had a choice whether or not to pursue the motorcycle. He made the wrong decision, because he was driving a Tahoe. He then made another bad decision when he decided to exceed the limits of the Tahoe around that curve, rather than maintain a safe pursuit speed and wait for backup.

There is no logical course of thought that could possibly result in trying to chase down a motorcycle in a Tahoe. A two-ton out of control speeding SUV is way more dangerous to the public than a motorcycle. That officer made a stupid decision that put not only himself (obviously), but anyone else on that road at risk.
I just find it incomprehensible that the motorcyclist was charged with homicide. Fleeing, speeding, reckless driving, of course. But homicide? Fucking communists.

Just FYI, there are pursuit-rated SUV's available for LE.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Just FYI, there are pursuit-rated SUV's available for LE.

What does the pursuit package include?
Either way, it's not going to keep up with the vast majority of motorcycles

[Byteme]

People rarely run from the police over traffic violations.  If a cop tries to pull you over for a traffic violation, and you flee in a risky manner, it usually means that there's a warrant for your arrest on more serious charges, or something of that nature.   That's why I'd be very reluctant to say that police shouldn't pursue people who flee for traffic violations.  Chances are, if a person is willing to go to such lengths to get away from the police, that person is dangerous in some way.  The issue is to balance the danger from that person with the danger of the pursuit.  It's not an easy decision.

Serious Criminal activity 16% of the time according to the article.

[bing_oh]

What does the pursuit package include?
Either way, it's not going to keep up with the vast majority of motorcycles

Pursuit package vehicles incorporate design features that increase speed and manueverability. Things like improved suspension, larger sway bars, increased performance engines, and greater braking capabilities. Pursuit-rated vehicles are tested to make sure that they can handle the rigors of high speed vehicle pursuit safely. Not until recently were SUV's pursuit-rated because they tended to be top-heavy and incapable of safely doing the high speed maneuvers necesary for vehicle pursuits.

Nothing will keep up with the average crotch rocket except another crotch rocket. Not even "average" pursuit vehicles like the Crown Vic Police Interceptor can keep up with high performance motorcycles in speed or manuverability. That doesn't mean that police don't try to stop motorcycles because they have greater performace and could, potentially, outrun us.

[bing_oh]

Serious Criminal activity 16% of the time according to the article.

I suppose that depends on what you consider "serious criminal activity." Admittedly, most people who run from LE aren't murderers with their victims' bodies in the trunk. On the other hand, I have never been involved in a pursuit where the sole reason that the person ran was the original violation for which the stop was initiated (though I can honestly say that I can count the number of pursuits I've been in on both hands). There seems to always be something else, whether it be warrants, drugs, no drivers license, etc. Relatively minor violations, perhaps, but criminal violations none the less.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

This discussion reminds me of this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2PBMGmUjTE

This guy received a 2 year suspended jail sentance,240 hours of community service and had his license was suspended. Here's the catch-the LEO,on an unmarked bike, never used his lights/siren (he did activate the lights when he lost the speeding biker in traffic about 8 mins into the chase) and he also exceeded 100 mph in a 30 mph zone. Also during the "chase" the biker was actually riding with one hand at times (the officer mentions this during the chase). This makes me wonder if he was running or just riding like an ass.  The rider is very lucky that cop didn't wreck or kill himself during this event. 

[dazzleman]

I suppose that depends on what you consider "serious criminal activity." Admittedly, most people who run from LE aren't murderers with their victims' bodies in the trunk. On the other hand, I have never been involved in a pursuit where the sole reason that the person ran was the original violation for which the stop was initiated (though I can honestly say that I can count the number of pursuits I've been in on both hands). There seems to always be something else, whether it be warrants, drugs, no drivers license, etc. Relatively minor violations, perhaps, but criminal violations none the less.

Thanks for providing that backup for my statement.  I don't believe that people run from the police in most cases just to avoid a traffic ticket.  There has to be another issue.

[bing_oh]

This discussion reminds me of this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2PBMGmUjTE

This guy received a 2 year suspended jail sentance,240 hours of community service and had his license was suspended. Here's the catch-the LEO,on an unmarked bike, never used his lights/siren (he did activate the lights when he lost the speeding biker in traffic about 8 mins into the chase) and he also exceeded 100 mph in a 30 mph zone. Also during the "chase" the biker was actually riding with one hand at times (the officer mentions this during the chase). This makes me wonder if he was running or just riding like an ass.  The rider is very lucky that cop didn't wreck or kill himself during this event.

The Brits have always been a little...different...in their enforcement techniques. I can't imagine that flying over here. Reckless disregard of safety on both sides if the officer never activated lights and sirens...he'd almost certainly be looking for a new job.

[rohan]

It sucks, but you simply can't let people run from the police.

As to the story original story - the fault rests 100% with the subhuman piece of garbage biker, not the pursuing LEO.

And the United States Supreme Court has said so in recent years over and over again.  In fact one case took away our liability providing that the officers do nothing to cause or be part of the crash-  let me repeat that- there is no liability if we do not cause or become part of the crash.

[rohan]

People rarely run from the police over traffic violations.  If a cop tries to pull you over for a traffic violation, and you flee in a risky manner, it usually means that there's a warrant for your arrest on more serious charges, or something of that nature.  That's why I'd be very reluctant to say that police shouldn't pursue people who flee for traffic violations.  Chances are, if a person is willing to go to such lengths to get away from the police, that person is dangerous in some way.  The issue is to balance the danger from that person with the danger of the pursuit.  It's not an easy decision.

very true- I wonder how many people actually understand our mission of detecting and apprehending criminals?  We're charged with going out there and finding criminals to arrest- sometimes we actually find them in cars.  Imagine that.

[rohan]

I disagree. A LEO accepts a certain amount of risk when he takes the job, or more specifically, engages in a pursuit. The cyclist should be found guilty of attempting to flee, or any similar type of violation that he actually did commit, that's all.

Part of his attempting to flee- a felony by theway- is that someone died because he fled.  It's the same thing if he robs a store- he only intended to get money- but if a cashier has a heart attack because of the stress and dies then the robber is also guilty of murder.  He's just as guilty as the robber of the other persons death according to the USSC. 

[rohan]

Just because an officer accepts risk doesn't mean that those who cause them harm shouldn't be punished for it.  Fleeing a police officer is a dangerous act that could cause harm to any number of people who just happen to cross your path, including the officer.  I say he fully deserved the conviction.

He did not directly cause any harm to the officer. He did not make the officer chase him. He did not make the officer crash.

Many officers die every year by being struck by vehicles while stopped on the side of the road for ordinary trafic citations.

If the person they had pulled over had not had a burned out brake bulb and thus required the officer to stop them, that officer that was struck at htat stop would not have died. Should a person be held criminally responsible for the death of a police officer because they had a broken brake light?

Totality of circumstances- in other words any reasonable person would agree that fleeing is an overt and intentional act which could knowingly result in someones death or injury. 

[rohan]

A broken brake light isn't necessarily willful.  Fleeing from the police is.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You are right Soup is wrong here.  Willful and wanton= intent.

When you flee it is willful and wanton when you have a taillight out or simply speed it doesn't reach the level required to satisfy the "W&W" requirement.