News helicopters collide in Phoenix/Pilot dies in Oshkosh

[LouisEly]

I hope that the people in charge of news departments take a look at how they cover these types of events. I doubt this will change anything, but it's stupid to risk lives for something so trivial as a police change for ratings.

 

My thoughts exactly. Long ago the news deteriorated from being about reporting the news to being about whatever draws ratings, and thus, advertising dollars. Like And That said, I can't say much more without getting political, however I find it hypocritical whenever the media criticizes anyone or anything for being profit motivated.

 

sensationalism and reality based TV have much more to do with the pilots being there than the chase. If there weren't ratings involved, every local new copter wouldn't have been in the air.

 

Spot-on.

 

Let me pay sympathies to the families of all that died in this needless, vouyerstic debacle. Just... absolutely needless.

 

Amen. And because of that, I refuse to watch the footage. I will not contribute to this desire to show stuff as despicable as this just to get ratings.

[AZBrewCrew]

I was working on the rescue yesterday and had just cleared one of the downtown hospitals when this call came out over the radio so we added on to the call and were one of the first units on the scene. I will just say it was a sad tragedy that did not need to happen. Working in public safety we interact with the news media on almost a daily basis and I must say that they are always very courteous and professional with us when on scene. I dont think it is fair to start pointing fingers at anyone until the Feds can do their investigation and conclude what went wrong.

[PeaveyFury]

Ry, I can't imagine those rules would apply in a situation where the "innocent bystander" willingly make themselves involved (for lack of a better word) in the crime.

 

As he said in his first post though, if an accomplice to a crime is killed during the committing of the crime, the criminal that survived can be charged with his death, and an accomplice is obviously willingly involved in the crime.

[whizkid]

I don't think an accomplice is by any stretch an innocent bystander though.

[PeaveyFury]

I don't think an accomplice is by any stretch an innocent bystander though.

 

Clearly not. But the point is that if someone who is CLEARLY involved dies and the culprit can be charged for his death, why wouldn't it be the same for someone who wasn't involved in the crime but became a part of the pursuit?

[whizkid]

The news people sought out the action and an accident happened. They didn't inadvertently become involved in it like a driver or pedestrian could have been. That's the differentiating point that was being made.

[PeaveyFury]

They didn't inadvertently become involved in it like a driver or pedestrian could have been.

 

Neither did the accomplice. That's my point.

[TheCrew07]

How do you figure that Peavey, as a party to commit the crime, he/she has been intimately involved. If you're riding in a car and someone goes psyco at the wheel are you an accomplice? There's much grey area, and in my opinion, frivilous lawsuits are too often looking to assign blame for no other reason than people like to get "easy" money.

 

I could go into great lengths about a couple of cases I know about it, but I signed a NDA. Unfortunately, when business is involved, they'd rather settle than deal with the publicity, which only perpetuates the cycle of idiocy. My sister also spent 5 years chasing down various types of insurance fraud before going back and getting her teaching license. Let's just say that based on personal and family experience I'm skeptical by default and believe that personal responsibility is a lost value.

 

Assigning fault for a helicopter crash that in no way was involved in the pursuit other than to get ratings is like prosecuting a home owner for shooting an intruder because it's "excessive force". I'm sure there is a legal argument to be made, but in my opinion good taste and common sense should prevail.

 

Actually, I will comment on one case I know about that's in no way related to my job or friends. There is a dude I know who recently retired from his job at 35 because he sued the state into putting him on permenant disability. Supposedly his wrist, one of his eyes, and emotional distress make him to disabled to work as a prison guard, or sell mortgages, or do any of the other jobs he's held recently. However by some miracle he's healthy enough to body build every day and ride around jet-skis on the lakes and rivers in NE WI all summer. When confronted about this, because in effect he's sticking it to every tax payer in the state as we pay for him to sit on rear at home, body build, and enjoy recreation activies on the tax payers, his response left quite a bit to be desired and if I ever cross paths with him I'll probably punch him even though he's twice my size. To paraphrase as the quote was told to me second hand, "If it wasn't me it would be someone else, I'm going to take care of me." His kids are already screwed up, he cheats on his wife, cheats on his girlfriends with other girlfriends, the dude is a first class puke. I used to think guys like him were in the vast minority, but I don't think that's the case anymore.

 

Hancock's dad doesn't have any business suing anyone for his son's probable alcoholism, and the families of the people killed in the copter crash and the authorities don't have any business piling on charges in this case, no matter how tragic. Let's face it, they were in the air making money off of a police chase and things went terribly wrong. The criminals don't get a cut of the profits when things go well for the news crews, why should they get the blame when they don't?

[whizkid]

Neither did the accomplice. That's my point.

 

I guess the distinction we're drawing is who can the perpetrator reasonably expect he's putting at risk by his actions. By plotting with an accomplice, he knows the accomplice is being put at risk. Likewise, by racing down streets at high speed while being chased by the police he knows the police and innocent drivers and pedestrians are being put at risk. The question is do you hold someone responsible for an accident involving third parties who unnecessarily and deliberately do something risky on their own.

[PeaveyFury]

How do you figure that Peavey, as a party to commit the crime, he/she has been intimately involved.

 

I think that's exactly what I said.... not sure where the confusion is coming from, honestly.

[TheCrew07]

I'm sorry, I just don't get what your trying to say, there are no similarities between an accomplice and bystanders? I reread your posts this morning, I'm just not getting your point.

[PeaveyFury]

I'm saying that if charges can be brought against someone committing a crime for the death of someone who is helping them commit said crime (when that person is clearly involved in the crime, and is there by choice), why wouldn't it be possible for said person to be charged with the deaths of bystanders, whether killed by accident (wrong place wrong time), or there by choice?

 

If you can be charged for the death of someone who is also committing a felony, why would the reach of the law lessen for someone who was there innocently regardless of choice? It doesn't make sense.

 

Hope that helps.

[whizkid]

I'm not a lawyer but it seems laws often come down to what can reasonably be expected to happen as a result of a person's actions. Expecting that news people will cover your crime and may have a fatal accident seems a stretch. Expecting that police or innocent drivers/pedestrians could be hurt/killed in a high speed chase doesn't seem like a stretch to me. While the primary assumption of risk resides with an accomplice, the other perpetrator also can be expected to know that by carrying out a crime with the accomplice, the accomplice could get hurt/killed.

 

I can't explain it any better than that and I don't know what an actual legal ruling would be.

[Loopee]

Just for kicks, I did a little looking what the AZ statute is. Here's a link an attorney has up describing 1st degree murder in AZ. www.dmcantor.com/arizona-law/First%20Degree%20Murder/?ID=51

 

Looks to me like the guy in the car is out of luck. Death occured in the context of an unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle. There's no intent element to a felony murder charge (as usually the death isn't the intended crime anyways) and each death is going to qualify as a separate 1st degree homicide. The lack of intent to kill is going to be treated as a statutory mitigating factor in AZ, which will likely get the death penalty out of the picture. AZ Felony Murder Case Law

 

Whether this guy is morally culpable or not is a good question; I don't think there's a whole lot of argument that he's not exposed under AZ law.

 

I agree with the sentiment that the news coverage of these things is ridiculous, but I'm not sure what really can be done about that. I think the government could probably restrict the helicopters to a more reasonable distance, but trying to prevent non-police helicopters from following these things completely would probably fail on 1st Am. grounds.