Should a criminal be responsible for the crash of two news choppers??

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ZOMG love from Davros to JD. This is a singularity event folks, so grab onto your chairs and prepare for Armageddon.

Howdy there TL - it's been a while. Sad to say I got swallowed like so many in the online gaming craze. No WOW for me though - it's been Guild Wars that dragged me into this evil net.
Oh for the old days of Wizards and Warriors and Baldurs Gate when I had a life .

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: This guys steals a car and the police give chase. Three news helicopters decide to report on the scene and two of them crash into one another while the third records this new turn of events. The police chief is quoted in saying: "I think he will be held responsible for any of the deaths from this tragedy." I understand the law that states if a suspect being persued by police gives chase and causes the deaths of innocent bystanders that are in the vicinity as well as the police who are doing their job...then the suspect is held accountable for the deaths of all those that are hurt or die. However, I am not supportive of the idea that this suspect would be responsible for the crash of the two news stations' air patrol who were voluntarily chasing the suspect to make money for their stations...not in the line of danger on the ground, and were either not following the direction of Air Traffic Control or were misled by that control. If it had been one chopper, there would have been no crash but it sounds like the competing news stations were just throwing safety to the wind...so to say...Either way, it was the fault of somebody other than the man. Can anyone change my viewpoint? http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/hel...ash/index.html

Of course he is responsible! He knew the consequences of his actions before he gave way. From what can be gathered from his tale, he was is search of his 15 minutes of fame, and he knew well enough how to accomplish this! Therefore, with forethought in place, he not not only jeopardized the entire community, but he caused these two news crews to collide when he stole the vehicle and sought the chase! It does not report anything about police birds in the air. If these guys were in contact with the PD, they were then at that point in time under civil patrol, and under use of the PD, thereby making them a part of the chase crew, and not just some news crew attempting to get the first run story.

Charge him with vehicular homicide at the least!

[Aerich]

I disagree, Felix. How can you charge him with vehicular homicide when his vehicle had no direct effect on the vehicles that collided?

He did not "cause" the choppers to collide. The choppers' crews happened to focus on him to such an extent that the pilots appeared to ignore basic safety procedures (e.g. looking out the flippin' window) and collided.

If a similar crash occured because pilots (or drivers) were watching a woman walking down the street in a bikini, would you advocate charging her with four deaths?

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Aerich I disagree, Felix. How can you charge him with vehicular homicide when his vehicle had no direct effect on the vehicles that collided? He did not "cause" the choppers to collide. The choppers' crews happened to focus on him to such an extent that the pilots appeared to ignore basic safety procedures (e.g. looking out the flippin' window) and collided. If a similar crash occured because pilots (or drivers) were watching a woman walking down the street in a bikini, would you advocate charging her with four deaths?

I think that depends on two things here, the woman, and the bikini...

[Lavindathar]

Felix, I think your completely wrong mate.

He in no way caused any of this. The news choppers decided to follow him. They weren't serving any duty like the policy.

[Aerich]

Exactly. Charging someone for causing injury or death in the line of duty for police, fire, and other emergency services is one thing, but it's another thing entirely if the death is of someone who's just sticking their nose in and dies because of their own lack of attention.

If a lawyer chased an ambulance and died in the pursuit thereof by wrapping his (or her) car around a telephone pole, would you charge the injured person in the ambulance for the lawyer's death? After all, it was their emergency that "caused" the death of the lawyer. Of course you wouldn't (although you might cheer). The connection is just too tenuous.

Of course, responsibility on the civil law side (negligence) is a completely different kettle of fish, as Timber previously said. In the above situation, it's very possible that the ambulance driver (or some other driver) might have a certain percentage of liability. Don't forget, the law of negligence is very much about "righting a wrong", and insurance companies are seen to have deep pockets.

[robertthebard]

Would you, then, sue the telephone company for putting thier pole there?

In some instances, the only liability can be the liability of the person that crashed the car into the pole. In your example, for instance, if the lawyer had been driving with his eyes, instead of his wallet, he might have avoided that accident.

The same holds true for the pilots. In the air, they are responsible for the safety of both the aircraft, and all on board. If they aren't watching where they are flying, but are gawking at something on the ground, then it can't be the fault of the something on the ground. What control can you attribute to the crash of the helicopters to the driver of the car?

If said driver runs over somebody, or, by the act of fleeing, causes an accident in an intersection, then he is at fault, because it's a direct result of his actions. Now, if he had caused the car to wind up at the cruise altitude of the helicopters, then maybe. However, I would like to think that the cause of an accident where the vehichle directly intersects the path of another, causing an accident, is where the liability would be assigned to the fleeing driver. In the case of the news helicopter, just as with the ambulance chasing lawyer, the search for fame/fortune of the operator of the crashing vehichle is not the responsibility of the person they are trying to capitalize off of.

[Sever]

Could not have said it better.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Davros Hey there JD - saw your post and just had to chime in here to say you are dead wrong and that .................. hmm - hold on - I think I agree with you on this one. What has happened to the world that once I knew [img]smile.gif[/img] . No way should the criminal get extra charges as a result of the coptor collision. PS - love it that you still keep it there in your sig. We may not agree on many things, but you are an honorable crusty gentleman and that's the truth.

Good to see you Davros... Don't wory the world flips every couple 1,000 years.