xflow7 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I'm sure many have heard about the mid-air collision between those two news-choppers covering a police chase. If not see here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/helicopter.crash/index.html What makes me uncomfortable is the last line of that article: [Police Chief] Harris said Friday that Jones [the suspect] could face charges related to the four deaths. Does anyone else agree that is a dangerous precedent to set? I'm anything but an apologist for those who put the public in danger by evading police, but to hold him accountable for the collision of the news helicopters trying to cover him makes me very uneasy. To put it in a Seven context, if I am blatting along and someone in the opposing lane runs into the car in front while turning to look at me, am I then liable for the accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 It is not only dangerous, it is also stupid and unreasonable. As I understand, the guy was in a LOW SPEED chase. Why the media feels this type of story requires arial coverage to begin with is beyond me. I know the exact reason why the choppers crashed... they didn't follow protocol. THEY are responsible for making sure they don't crash into each other. Now, if the guy was shooting into the air, then it'd be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 One other thing... those charges shouldn't stick because the choppers were not responding to an emergency. If they were police choppers responding to the call and something happened, then maybe. Even then, if they didn't follow established protocols, it should be a toss-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDrye Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Visualize this. I’m driving a F50 and I stop at a light. A driver in the opposite lane can’t take his eyes off of me and runs into the car in front of him. I’m included in the law suit because of excessive exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHKflyer52 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 It is not only dangerous, it is also stupid and unreasonable. As I understand, the guy was in a LOW SPEED chase. Why the media feels this type of story requires arial coverage to begin with is beyond me. I know the exact reason why the choppers crashed... they didn't follow protocol. THEY are responsible for making sure they don't crash into each other. Now, if the guy was shooting into the air, then it'd be a different story. As a Private Pilot who has been flying for over 40yrs now I would have to agree with slngsht I would also think the NEWS MEDIA would be smart enought to know that their coverage just adds fuel to the fire in that situation as it seems to promote that 15min's of fame that some people seek but that is the NEWS MEDIA and I do not belive that they think when it comes to sensationalism and ratings. If I were the Poilce Chief I would be looking at charging the NEWS STATIONS that were involved in the chase reporting (not just the two that collided with each other) with involentary man slaughter and public endangerment on the bases of being reckless (stupid). This is just my oppion and I feel bad for the families of those that lost their lives in this event but it should have never happened in the first place. By the way in Oregon the news media is not allowed to overfly any area that is involved with anything like that as it gives the should I say criminal the ability to watch a TV and see what is happening or causes a tragity like the downing of two helo's and their crews. Just poor news media actions and very poor piloting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitcat Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 It's called "The felony murder rule" and is widely used. Example: Your son runs with a bad crowd and is persuaded to serve as the lookout while they stick up a liquor store. The clerk resists and is shot and killed. Yous son is as guilty of murder as the guy who pulled the trigger. The guy who shot the clerk might even get away, or get off at trial. Remember, now, I am just the messenger. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Not the same at all... in this case, the people killed had nothing to do with the crime. A more appropriate example would be: Your son runs with a bad crowd and is persuaded to serve as the lookout while they stick up a liquor store. While the robbery is taking place, someone in the sidewalk across the street is looking at the action instead of watching where they are going. He trips and hits his head on the curb and dies. The store clerk does not resist and the perps walk away with $200 without hurting anyone. They are charged with murder b/c the idiot across the street didn't watch what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitcat Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 That is a better example. The felony murder rule is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions so who knows? Since the death would not have occurred "but for" the felony, it still mite be covered, tho its remoteness from the crime probably means it is not covered. That may not stop prosecutors from arguing that it is a "colorable" violation of the law and using it as a bargaining chip during plea discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now