Felony Murder Rule--Stretching Responsibility

[Flyboy]

So, most of us have probably heard about the Missouri case in which the defendant was convicted of murder from 30 miles away, under that state's felony murder rule. For those just joining the show, here's the facts:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121523.html

The trooper was Ralph C. Tatoian of north St. Louis County, a trained sniper who was rushing along Interstate 44 to join the manhunt in Franklin County on April 20, 2005. He died when he struck a tractor-trailer that had stopped to help another motorist.

Even though Stallmann was hiding in woods some 30 miles away from Tatoian’s crash site, prosecutors won the murder conviction. Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest.

...

Taaffe said Tatoian had a slight blood-alcohol level, was late for his callout to duty and drove fast in a construction zone. A prosecution witness said that the low level of alcohol wouldn’t impair the trooper.

Without touching the issue of whether any of us would be excused for our "slight" blood-alcohol issue, we have here a cop, speeding, in a dangerous situation (construction zone), who lost control of his vehicle through no fault of the defendant. Still, the defendant was held responsible for the death.

Now, here's the latest absurd incarnation of the felony murder rule, this time from Arizona:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291272,00.html

Phoenix Police Say Car Theft Suspect May Face Charges for News Chopper Crash That Killed Four

PHOENIX — Federal investigators on Saturday began gathering debris from two news helicopters that collided while covering a police chase on live television and crashed, killing all four people aboard.

...

The helicopters from TV stations KTVK and KNXV collided as both circled over the chase. Video from other stations showed white smoke trailing the choppers as they dropped into a grassy downtown park and exploded.

...

Meanwhile, the man suspected of starting the chase was booked into jail on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, two counts of theft and one count of resisting arrest.

Christopher Jermaine Jones, 23, also may be held responsible for the helicopter crash, police said.

I have no problem with the counts on which he was booked. I agree that he appears to be a dirtbag. But seriously--the idea that there's even a possibility that he could be charged for the helo pilots' failure to maintain clearance...how does that enter somebody's mind?

Has charge stacking really gone this far?

 

[Noxx]

Yeesh.

Given the nakedly bloodthirsty way in which TV stations pursue this kind of footage, I can't imagine charging the suspect. No one asked the television choppers to be there, they aren't performing any civic function outside of slaking public bloodlust, and certainly no aspect of their job requires them to be wholly negligent in basic air safety.

Just ridiculous. I feel like I'm living in crazyworld.

 

[TallPine]

I dunno - I guess a jury will have to decide.

I don't really see a problem with the felony murder rule if it is a violent felony, and I suppose the DA would have to show that a reasonable man could have foreseen that someone could have gotten killed.

It would really be over the top if an IRS agent tripped over his/her shoelaces and accidently shot him/herself while making an otherwise non-violent tax fraud arrest.


Still ... I would like to know where juries find this reasonable man. I haven't met him yet.

 

[alucard0822]

Under that logic (helicopter crash), If someone falls into the printing press at the local newspaper and is torn to peices, whoever is on the front page is responsible for his death

As far as the car crash goes, how can it be construed as murder when the officer died (although tragic) in normal commision of his duties, without any outside interference from the defendant, that law probably won't be around for long.

 

[XavierBreath]

I see both these instances as outright abuses of an otherwise good legal option for the prosecution.

When options are abused, they are eventually taken away.

 

[thexrayboy]

When options are abused, they are eventually taken away.

Unless the options increase governmental power. In that case they usually get extended and augmented.

The logic behind the felony-murder rule is specious at best. To be able to avoid becoming victimized by it a person would have to be clairvoyant and be able to see the future ramifications of actions. One of these days some poor schmuck is gonna get convicted of felony murder because he runs a stop sign etc. takes an ambulance out of commision thats on its way to a call like a chest pain and the 911 caller dies due to delays in EMT help arriving.

Even after a travesty such as that I don't see our benevolent "'Big Brother" willingly giving up such a useful tool for twisting the populace into fearful compliance.

 

[WayneConrad]

What? It takes all of about no seconds to figure this one out. This application of the felony murder principle makes a man responsible for the risky or negligent behavior of others. It is therefore wrong. Easy. Piece o' cake. Done.

Who are the buttheads who signed this one into law?

 

[Geno]

Some laws make such sense on paper that they are enacted, only to discover later that, in practice, they are stupid.

 

[kermit315]

yeah, this reads like the Missouri case........stupid. Realistically, those news choppers had no business being there, and even if they had, how is it the guy on the grounds fault that one pilot wasnt watching what he was doing and flew into another one.

that being said, i hope the guy goes away for a while if convicted of the offenses already charged him, however I do not believe he should be charged for the deaths of 2 news crews that took each other out by not paying attention.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I dunno - I guess a jury will have to decide.

Actually the jury decides if the defendant broke the law...the jury can't decide if the law is just. A lot of opinions on how this should be, but this is the system today.

 

[Hypnogator]

The felony murder issue isn't a new one. IIRC in the early '50s, London police were chasing a pair of burglars. One, a 21-yr old slightly retarded man, was captured without incident, but a half-hour later his 19-yr old partner pulled a gun that he didn't even know he had, and shot and killed a policeman. He was captured, and both were tried for the policeman's murder. The 21-yr old was sentenced to death, and subsequently hanged for the crime, despite numerous protests. The 19-yr old, being a juvenile, was only sentenced to prison.

Not sure I agree with stretching the felony murder rule to include an impared trooper who kills himself responding to an incident, and I damn sure don't agree that the BG should be held accountable for some newsie chopper pilot's lack of good judgment.

 

[Outlaws]

I say fly at your own risk. The police already had their own whirly bird up there.

This would be like if I had a police scanner and got into an accident while trying to make it to a hostage stand off because I wanted to see what was going to go down. If I hit someone while getting there, I can't blame the criminal, and neither should the news.

 

[Reddbecca]

This is BOGUS! This is like blaming Winchester for the 9mm ammunition used in the 1999 Columbine Massacre.

 

[brashboy]

OK, say I take a hostage. The news channel mis-identifies the hostage. An elderly lady, thinking the hostage is her daughter, dies of a heart attack.

Felony murder?

 

[walking arsenal]

They are trying to do the same thing with those two chopper news crews that died while trying to film a high speed chase.

The pilots where at fault. But they are trying to charge the guy who was being chased.

 

[kermit315]

walking arsenal, that is what the op was pointing out, the similarities of the two cases and how it relates to the Felony Murder Rule.

BTW, i say that impairment= instant nullification of any charges of anybody else if they prove he had alcohol in his system..he was on the job, driving at a high rate of speed while having alcohol in his system and it cost him his life. They wont release his BAC from what i gather in the article, but i would surely think that somebody charged with protecting and serving while carrying firearms and possibly driving at high rates of speed, needing fast reflexes and such, would be stuck with the same bac limits that I am whenever i am on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier... 0.0

could that have been avoided if he was stone cold sober? Who knows. but next thing you know, they will be going after the construction company for having that traffic pattern modified and the maker of whatever alcohol he had imbibed prior to his high speed run.

 

[alucard0822]

They are trying to do the same thing with those two chopper news crews that died while trying to film a high speed chase.

The pilots where at fault. But they are trying to charge the guy who was being chased.

It wasn't the pilots fault, according to our society of displaced responsibility. The pilots were the ones at the controls, trained to fly, and knew full well the dangers involved in flight and pursuit in buisy airspace. But the copter would never have crashed if it weren't for GRAVITY. Not consulting with an attourney to discuss the liability ramification prior to it's discovery, Sir Isaac Newton had ignored the inherent dangers of it's improper or careless use, has not properly labeled it as "hazardous" and is in turn liable for damages resulting, he is a notably famous scientist, and an attractive target for any attourney looking to further his political career with a headline grabbing trial of the century.

 

[walking arsenal]

Well, yeah, that and the fact that choppers don't really fly they just beat the air into submission.

 

[Don Gwinn]

To be able to avoid becoming victimized by it a person would have to be clairvoyant and be able to see the future ramifications of actions.

Actually, in most felony murder cases, that's not true. Felony murder usually applies in violent felony cases where your contribution to a death was indirect. The whole point is that you should absolutely be thinking about the future ramifications of your actions, and the idea that someone might die because you commit a violent crime is not only foreseeable but fairly likely.

 

[Deanimator]

Here in the Cleveland area, a nitwit and his buddy recently tried to rob a guy on his own front lawn. The victim shot and killed one nitwit. The other nitwit ran away and was later apprehended by police. I believe he's being charged with the death of the deceased nitwit, under the Felony Murder rule. I see this as reasonable and perfectly foreseeable by the surviving nitwit. Contrast this with the following example from Chicago in the 1980s.

A nitwit went to a dopehouse to buy his girlfriend some pot for her birthday.

While the nitwit is waiting for the proprietor of the dopehouse to get his product, the Chicago PD break down the front door. Our nitwit hides under a table and takes ABSOLUTELY no part in the proceedings.

The police chase the proprietor through the house toward the back door. While this is going on, the Chicago PD breaks down the back door.

Meeting somewhere in the middle, one cop accidentally shoots and kills another cop. The nitwit and the proprietor are arrested.

The proprietor of the dopehouse makes a deal and gets a prison term.

The nitwit who did NOTHING except hide, gets charged, tried and convicted of felony murder. He is CONVICTED and gets the DEATH PENALTY.

On his way out of office, crooked Illinois Governor Jim Ryan eventually commutes the nitwit's sentence [to life?].

Like most things, felony murder can be reasonable or insanely misused. When the venue is Chicago, expect the latter.

 

[tyme]

There's a continuum of felony-murder situations, and I'm not sure where the line should be drawn.

Thug robs a bank, bystander shoots thug's accomplice or innocent bystander... fine, apply felony-murder to shift responsibility to the thug... but ideally the first bystander won't miss, and the only application of felony-murder would be if a second thug is killed.

Car thief steals a car, leads police on a chase. A cop runs over a jaywalking pedestrian during the chase. Here, I'm not so sure.

Police mount a raid on the wrong house... a resident unfortunately kills one cop, but that resident and everyone else survive. It turns out that another resident had an unregistered NFA firearm. Does felony-murder apply?

And then, of course, we have the two instant cases... a news 'copter crash, and a cop crashing on the way to a scene. I think both are patently ridiculous, but I'm sure some lawyers will make a bundle arguing otherwise.

 

[Coronach]

Without touching the issue of whether any of us would be excused for our "slight" blood-alcohol issue

Assuming the "slight" blood alcohol content was below the legal driving limit (and, if it is being called a slightly elevated BAC level, I'm pretty sure it was), we would be. BAC level is, legally, an on/off type thing. On thou' below and you're fine. One thou' above and you're DUI.

And yes, you can be convicted of DUI with a BAC below the limit, you just need a lot of substantiating evidence (field sobriety tests, interviews, erratic driving, basically all of the stuff you need, as a layman, to say "that dude is drunk"). However, a "slightly elevated" BAC can and will result from having one beer with dinner.

Mike

 

[jeff-10]

It would really be over the top if an IRS agent tripped over his/her shoelaces and accidently shot him/herself while making an otherwise non-violent tax fraud arrest.

I believe the FBI delcined to prosecue for felony murder recenlty when one of the agents there shot and killed his partner while responding to a bank robbery.

 

[TallPine]

FWIW, as volunteer f/f we are not supposed to have any BAC when responding. One would think that the same applied to paid LEOs.

If I get killed/die on a fire, my family gets something like a $250K insurance payout from the state - assuming the BAC of my corpse is ZERO. Otherwise, they get nothing.

 

[jkingrph]

Actually the jury decides if the defendant broke the law...the jury can't decide if the law is just. A lot of opinions on how this should be, but this is the system today

Acutally they jury could vote not guilty, acknowledging the guilt, thus nullifying the law.