How can the chase suspect be liable for the deaths of the helicopters' crews?

Question

Doesn't that stretch reason? Was he shooting at the helicopters? Did he sabotage them? Were the choppers forced to avoid him? I know you are as guilty of murder if your accomplice actually committed it, and you must knowing place police officers at risk when you flee from them, but how could you be responsible for either mechanical malfunctions or pilot error leading to a crash a few hundred feet away from you?

I'm aware that they were news choppers, but I don't believe that has bearing.

I'm not sure if this would set a good precedent. It seems as if it's a legal maneuver best argued under international rules of conflict, where it could be argued battling armies can't bomb the media.

Answer 1

I was wondering the same thing. I mean the helicopters are some times a hinderance for the cops, they are getting in the way. The reason the suspect can be held accountable I guess is because it is Arizona and there is a lot of government there.

Answer 2

I think it is a hasty statement made without reason.

If anyone should be held liable for the deaths of the news employees it is the new companies themselves who made their employees go and cover it. The news companies are not required to send helicopters after a chase. They do it because for some reason either people want to see it, which is sick, or they think people want to see it.

What if this would have happened if there was a traffic accident and it caused a back up on the freeway and they were being sent to film the back up? Would the person held responsible for the fender bender also be charged with the death? How about, what if it was an accident with t he news van going to cover the sentencing of a murderer??

It was a horrific thing and "we" always want to blame someone. It is always easiest to lay blame on the guiltiest party in the room

Answer 3

It's an interesting question. I have not done any research on the applicable law in that state, but the posters who are making blanket statements are uninformed. (For example, the poster above me speaks in absolutes and is incorrect.) The only difference between them and me is that I am not pretending to know. States vary on what one can be charged with as it relates to events that occur during the commission of a crime or during immediate pursuit of a criminal. In general, though, I believe that this usually concerns law enforcement officers and bystanders. I am unfamiliar with cases involving intentional spectators.

This would make a great addition to a law school exam fact pattern.

I'm very interested to see how this plays out (in real life, not on Yahoo!)

Answer 4

the law has a rule that any death that occurs as the result of a crime is the responsibility of the criminal.

So if you rob someone and they have a heart attack and die , you get charged with murder.

If you are robbing a bank and the police shoot your partner , you get charged with your partners death.

The helicopter incident is a bad example and hopefully a jury will refuse it. The helicopters would not have been there if the crime hadnt occurred , but the pilots were responsible for the safety of the aircraft and passengers .

Answer 5

Although Vistazan is correct in that if death occurs during the course of a crime is it murder. However, in this situation, those choppers should have been more aware of their in-flight location. They were in the area voluntarily with full knowledge AHEAD of time of what was going on. Unlike a victim that Vistazan is speaking of who ends up in harms way involuntarily, these chopper folks went into potential danger voluntarily. Don't be surprised to see this argued from the defendant's counsel. I foresee the family members of those killed filing a civil suit of wrongful death.

Answer 6

I agree with you. They were not performing an "official" law enforcement function, nor were they assisting the police in the process of citizens arrest. The suspect did not materially affect them in any way, at least from what has been reported so far. From what I could see on the last few seconds of the helicopter news film I don't think he was even aware there were helicopters observing him, at least he makes no move to show he is aware of them.

Answer 7

This is a great question!!!
I really think that criminals should be responsible for ANY collateral damage which is a result of their crime or fleeing a crime scene. They know that once that happens they are putting lives in danger and property in Danger.
I didn't catch it though. Was it News or Police?
If it was News screw them- like they screw all of us.
But, when it comes to Law Enforcement assets I just think it's too important to put into jeopardy and people need to know they will be responsible...

Answer 8

Regardless, whenever you commit a crime if you cause the death of a person during the act - directly or indirectly you will be charged with murder. Thats just how it is.
Hes scum. He deserves to be locked away. The sooner we get hard on these bastards the better.
Case in point, a restaurant in my area was robbed at gunpoint. The owner pulled out a gun and shot and killed one of the robbers. The other two were convicted of their partners murder. Just as they should have been.
The owner is considered a HERO in our area today.

Answer 9

They absolutely have a case. He was committing a crime and is responsible for all of the fallout associated with that crime.

However, the news choppers were there of their own accord and assumed both the benefits and risks of their actions. If I were on the jury, I would not convict him for those deaths. The judge will probably dismiss the charges before it ever gets to a jury though.

Answer 10

Car chases have been huge news lately. With choppers following, it's forseeable a foreseeable possibility that they could crash into each other.

Not saying I'm really happy about the charges, but they have a case.