Police Pursuits Questioned in Philly

[rohan]

OK, try another one.

An 18 year old kid makes a prank call to 911, claiming a home invasion is underway at a friend's house. Rushing to the scene, an officer is killed when his cruiser strikes a deer.

Is the prank caller culpable for manslaughter?

Absolutely.  Yes.  100% culpable.  This one's been proven over and over again in similar cases.  Again the reason is willful and wanton equals intent.

[rohan]

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.

He admitted he willfully and wantonly ( remember that equals intent) accelerated away and tried to elude the police officer by his own admissions.  He's completely guilty of manslaughter because of his own actions.  But I think that because he came forward on his own with little or no (known) incentive he should have gotten a little more light sentence.  Still you have to make an example of those who do so others don't.

[rohan]

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?

It depends on what his intentions were- if he made that turn intentionally to get away he's guilty if he just simply made a right at the next exit to go where he was already intending to go probably not.   In court your intentions are everything.

[rohan]

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...

depends on the states definition.  Here manslaughter applies to incidences like traffic crashes where you did something to make you "at fault" and someone dies.  You still can go to prison but it requires no intent.  The murder without premeditation here is Murder in the Second Degree- and murder with premeditation is Murder in the First Degree.  Again- and lastly - it all comes down to your intentions while committing an over act.

[Eye of the Tiger]

He admitted he willfully and wantonly ( remember that equals intent) accelerated away and tried to elude the police officer by his own admissions.  He's completely guilty of manslaughter because of his own actions.  But I think that because he came forward on his own with little or no (known) incentive he should have gotten a little more light sentence.  Still you have to make an example of those who do so others don't.

I'm just not making the connection between the motorcyclist and the officer's crash. The officer did not have to pursue, he did not have to drive faster than his vehicle could handle, and he did not have to kill himself. It was his own misjudgment that caused the crash. No direct action of the cyclist had any affect on the officer's actions. The officer had 100% of the decision making power. The officer's reckless driving proved to be more dangerous than anything the cyclist did. There is not way, except in some kind of backwards communist courtroom, that it makes any sense to charge the cyclist with the death of the officer.

[dazzleman]

I'm just not making the connection between the motorcyclist and the officer's crash. The officer did not have to pursue, he did not have to drive faster than his vehicle could handle, and he did not have to kill himself. It was his own misjudgment that caused the crash. No direct action of the cyclist had any affect on the officer's actions. The officer had 100% of the decision making power. The officer's reckless driving proved to be more dangerous than anything the cyclist did. There is not way, except in some kind of backwards communist courtroom, that it makes any sense to charge the cyclist with the death of the officer.

An officer's job is to enforce the law.  He doesn't have the same decision-making capability as a civilian.  If the cyclist knew the officer was pursuing him and he continuted to lead the officer on a reckless chase, then I think your reasoning is very, very wrong.

[Eye of the Tiger]

An officer's job is to enforce the law.  He doesn't have the same decision-making capability as a civilian.  If the cyclist knew the officer was pursuing him and he continued to lead the officer on a reckless chase, then I think your reasoning is very, very wrong.

The officer also knew the the motorcyclist wasn't stopping. The officer had the choice not to try to keep up with a motorcycle, but instead chose to drive recklessly and crash. He made the decision. Why would he do that?
The cyclist chose to flee, speed and drive recklessly, and he should be charged as such, but nothing he did caused the death of the officer.

[dazzleman]

The officer also knew the the motorcyclist wasn't stopping. The officer had the choice not to try to keep up with a motorcycle, but instead chose to drive recklessly and crash. He made the decision. Why would he do that?
The cyclist chose to flee, speed and drive recklessly, and he should be charged as such, but nothing he did caused the death of the officer.

Sorry, I can't agree with you.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think in this case, an officer deserves a different level of consideration than a civilian, since it's his job to enforce the law.

[rohan]

I'm just not making the connection between the motorcyclist and the officer's crash. The officer did not have to pursue, he did not have to drive faster than his vehicle could handle, and he did not have to kill himself. It was his own misjudgment that caused the crash. No direct action of the cyclist had any affect on the officer's actions. The officer had 100% of the decision making power. The officer's reckless driving proved to be more dangerous than anything the cyclist did. There is not way, except in some kind of backwards communist courtroom, that it makes any sense to charge the cyclist with the death of the officer.

Just remember that the guy admitted he guned the engine on his bike to outrun the officer.  He proved intent to commit a felony.

Officers who witness a person who is about to commit- has committed - or is committing a felony may make an arrest.  Even if that means he has to chase him down.

The officer engaged in official actions and reported them.  He acted within the scope of his authority and attempted to aprehend a violator.  The motor cycle driver admitted he fled from the officer- which is a felony in almost every state now.  The United States Supreme Court has found over and over that anyone who commits a crime willfully and wantonly ( remember that equals intent) and someone else is hurt or dies as a result of those willful and wanton actions- the person who committed a crime is responsible for all the events that take place as a result of his actions.  It doesn't matter if you understand or agree with it- it's just the way it is. 

Run from the cops + someone dies as a result of you running = you're responsible

It's just that simple.

And I think your overstating the officers driving quite a bit- I think it's a bit much to say his driving was reckless. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Just remember that the guy admitted he guned the engine on his bike to outrun the officer.  He proved intent to commit a felony.

Officers who witness a person who is about to commit- has committed - or is committing a felony may make an arrest.  Even if that means he has to chase him down.

The officer engaged in official actions and reported them.  He acted within the scope of his authority and attempted to aprehend a violator.  The motor cycle driver admitted he fled from the officer- which is a felony in almost every state now.  The United States Supreme Court has found over and over that anyone who commits a crime willfully and wantonly ( remember that equals intent) and someone else is hurt or dies as a result of those willful and wanton actions- the person who committed a crime is responsible for all the events that take place as a result of his actions.  It doesn't matter if you understand or agree with it- it's just the way it is. 

Run from the cops + someone dies as a result of you running = you're responsible

It's just that simple.

And I think your overstating the officers driving quite a bit- I think it's a bit much to say his driving was reckless. 

He crash his own vehicle, so I think it's safe to say he was driving recklessly. If I killed myself flying off the road going too fast around a turn, everybody would say I was driving recklessly.

Let's say an officer is chasing someone on foot, and the bad guy jumps off a cliff... does the officer jump, too? Let's say the bad guy has a parachute, but the officer doesn't... Homicide? Seriously?

[rohan]

So every crash you've ever had - and every other driver has ever had- was the result of reckless driving then- right?

the rest of that post isn't even worth responding to because you're just being obstinate.

[dazzleman]

He crash his own vehicle, so I think it's safe to say he was driving recklessly. If I killed myself flying off the road going too fast around a turn, everybody would say I was driving recklessly.

Let's say an officer is chasing someone on foot, and the bad guy jumps off a cliff... does the officer jump, too? Let's say the bad guy has a parachute, but the officer doesn't... Homicide? Seriously?

A civilian has no legitimate reason to drive recklessly.  An officer in pursuit of a lawbreaker is required to.  That's the part you're missing.

[Eye of the Tiger]

So every crash you've ever had - and every other driver has ever had- was the result of reckless driving then- right?

the rest of that post isn't even worth responding to because you're just being obstinate.

I've never had a "crash", but I've been crashed into by reckless driver. Like I said, if I flew off the road going too fast around a turn, the police would be say it was because I was driving recklessly. I don't care for this double standard.

Jumping off a cliff is a perfectly good analogy. The officer should have had the foresight to see that he was not going to be able to keep up with that motorcycle without putting himself in more danger than it was worth. I'm not saying he deserved to die and I'm not saying it's not sad that he did, just that it was his fault.

[rohan]

It's pointless in trying to talk to you- your being intentionally obtuse and not even listening to what I'm telling you the laws state and how the USSC has interpreted them.  Your' just not willing to listen so I'm done.  Oh- your'e wrong to.

[Eye of the Tiger]

A civilian has no legitimate reason to drive recklessly.  An officer in pursuit of a lawbreaker is required to.  That's the part you're missing.

An officer should not be required to risk his life for a speeding ticket (isn't that why he started the pursuit in the first place?)

[Eye of the Tiger]

It's pointless in trying to talk to you- your being intentionally obtuse and not even listening to what I'm telling you the laws state and how the USSC has interpreted them.  Your' just not willing to listen so I'm done.  Oh- your'e wrong to.

Do you know why I'm obtuse? Because you cannont comprehend anything that you didn't read in a police manual.
Do you know why I'm wrong? Because you don't think anybody is right unless they admit that the police can do no wrong.

[dazzleman]

An officer should not be required to risk his life for a speeding ticket (isn't that why he started the pursuit in the first place?)

What if the guy had just robbed a bank?  People don't usually flee to avoid a simple speeding ticket.  In any case, that's something the officer couldn't know in the time he had to make his decision.  Fleeing law enforcement is illegal, and when you do something illegal, you bear the consequences for that which flows directly from your illegal act.

[Eye of the Tiger]

What if the guy had just robbed a bank?  People don't usually flee to avoid a simple speeding ticket.  In any case, that's something the officer couldn't know in the time he had to make his decision.  Fleeing law enforcement is illegal, and when you do something illegal, you bear the consequences for that which flows directly from your illegal act.

I think the only circumstances where an officer should choose to risk his life are if the guy was threatening to kill people or bomb a building. I don't know what the law requires, or if there is a requirement.

Are there laws that specifically state that the pursued suspect is automatically liable for any damage that occurs in a pursuit? Or is this type of thing decided on a case-by-case basis?

[rohan]

Do you know why I'm obtuse? Because you cannont comprehend anything that you didn't read in a police manual.
Do you know why I'm wrong? Because you don't think anybody is right unless they admit that the police can do no wrong.

Right- the USSC case law comes from a police manual.    Insults just tell me your out of arguments.

You're wrong because you disagree with statutory and case law.  And until those are changed you're wrong- I've admitted many times police are wrong here or there in threads. 

[rohan]

I think the only circumstances where an officer should choose to risk his life are if the guy was threatening to kill people or bomb a building. I don't know what the law requires, or if there is a requirement.

Are there laws that specifically state that the pursued suspect is automatically liable for any damage that occurs in a pursuit? Or is this type of thing decided on a case-by-case basis?

Malfesance of duty
Derlaliction of duty
Misconduct
Failure to Act

These are all things we can be charged with for not doing our jobs- granted speeders are pretty hard to prove under the best situation (but could potentially be proven)  but still we can be charged criminally for these things for not doing our job. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Malfesance of duty
Derlaliction of duty
Misconduct
Failure to Act

These are all things we can be charged with for not doing our jobs- granted speeders are pretty hard to prove under the best situation (but could potentially be proven)  but still we can be charged criminally for these things for not doing our job. 

Oh bullshit. Nobody is going to criminally charge an officer because he decided not to pursue a suspect out of regard for the greater safety of himself and the public.

[dazzleman]

I think the only circumstances where an officer should choose to risk his life are if the guy was threatening to kill people or bomb a building. I don't know what the law requires, or if there is a requirement.

Are there laws that specifically state that the pursued suspect is automatically liable for any damage that occurs in a pursuit? Or is this type of thing decided on a case-by-case basis?

I'm sure the laws vary state to state, and are subject to interpretation by prosecutors and even juries.

[Soup DeVille]

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.

So, if I flee and the cop doesn't die during the pursuit, why should I get off just because the officer who chased me didn't get harmed? I did the same exact thing, didn't I?

[Soup DeVille]

For the record, I know all about the concept of felony murder. I think its commonly abused, and I think that prosecutors often grasp at straws to find any serious conviction whenever there's injury to a police officer out of a sense that "somebody must pay."

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

 

[hotrodalex]

Oh bullshit. Nobody is going to criminally charge an officer because he decided not to pursue a suspect out of regard for the greater safety of himself and the public.

Oh really? What if a suspect just robbed a bank, but the officer didn't act because he was "just speeding and driving recklessly" and not worth a chase? What if that suspect continued on to a neighborhood and broke into a house so that he could hide? What if he continued on to kill the father in the house, rape the mother, and kidnap the kids?

If something like that happened, I know I would be pressing charges against the cop who failed to act.

[Soup DeVille]

Oh really? What if a suspect just robbed a bank, but the officer didn't act because he was "just speeding and driving recklessly" and not worth a chase? What if that suspect continued on to a neighborhood and broke into a house so that he could hide? What if he continued on to kill the father in the house, rape the mother, and kidnap the kids?

If something like that happened, I know I would be pressing charges against the cop who failed to act.

Your charges would go nowhere, and you know it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Oh really? What if a suspect just robbed a bank, but the officer didn't act because he was "just speeding and driving recklessly" and not worth a chase? What if that suspect continued on to a neighborhood and broke into a house so that he could hide? What if he continued on to kill the father in the house, rape the mother, and kidnap the kids?

If something like that happened, I know I would be pressing charges against the cop who failed to act.

If the officer has to drive so beyond the limits of his cruiser that he puts himself and the public at risk, I think it might be time to back off and wait for back up. You can't out run the radio... or the helicopters.

[rohan]

So, if I flee and the cop doesn't die during the pursuit, why should I get off just because the officer who chased me didn't get harmed? I did the same exact thing, didn't I?

You dont' get away with it if caught or someone knows who you were- it's a felony to run from the cops so you get hit with that.  Is that the answer you're lookinfg for or did I miss your point because I'm not entirely sure if that's what you meant?

[rohan]

Your charges would go nowhere, and you know it.

Depends on if you could prove any of the things I wrote and even a few other things like Gross Incompetence.  A lot of things in LE are grey and not at all cut and dried.