Is He Really The Murderer? A guy is blamed for two deaths..........

[arza1 0]

I was watching some big shot news station and they brought up a good debate that i think will do well here at trap.

The topic or story was.........

There was a guy who stole a car and ran from the cops. while in pursuit two news helicopters collided trying to get this chase on film. the pilots of both helicopters died.

Now they are wanting to pin the deaths on the guy that stole the car.

The main argument they had against the guy was that he started a chain of events that lead to these deaths.

the main argument they had to defend him was that he had no hand in it at all. sure he stole the car but he didn't make the helicopters pursue him. and he wasn't in any control of these helicopters. and couldn't have prevented it at all.

so my question is............

Do you think that this man should get the manslaughter charge they are thinking about pinning on him?
(i already know what i think, i want to know what you think)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/helicopter.crash/index.html

Edited August 1, 2007 by arza1 (see edit history)

[Plenoptic 0]

lol You beat me to the topic. This is a really interesting story I think and at first I thought ya maybe he should be charged, but was it really his fault? What are the jobs of those who drive the helicopters? To watch the crime occur or to help spot the chase car, etc; So they were doing their job, what they were supposed to do in a situation like that. Of course the pilots job is to also watch where they are going, how they didn't notice another helicopter I don't know. Personally I don't think the guy should be charged for that because they weren't doing their job correctly. If they weren't skilled they wouldn't have taken the job in the first place but that's the risk they take.

[elaks 0]

Well the guy shouldn't have stolen the car in the first placed. Frankly if he has decided to break the law; anything that occurs whilst he is comitting the crime should be added to his charges whether he meant it to happen or not. I'd suggest double man slaughter- serves him right. :PI agree with Plenoptic, the pilots really should've been skilled enough to avoid each other- maybe the companies they were hired from should be investigated.

Edited August 1, 2007 by elaks (see edit history)

[TikiPrincess 0]

My husband told me about this the other night. I think it's totally bogus to charge him with the deaths of the people in the helicopters. Like Pleno said, they people in the helicopters were doing their job, trying to catch the best angle for the news. It's the pilot's job to make sure that they are safe while doing this. If it had been a news chopper that crashed into a police chopper, I think that the police would feel differently.

Personally, though, I think it's stupid to watch high speed chases. Then again, I don't watch COPS or things like that. I'd much rather watch something informative rather than some idiot trying to run from the police. I gave up on the evening news long ago because it's become more of an entertainment/tabloidish show than real journalism. I'll stick to the AP wire and the BBC News.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Actually the guy is liable for those deaths since he was the indirect cause of that accident; however, for the lawyer to prove that, he/she has to discredit pilot error which most likely was the cause. It is the same scenario if you were in a car accident and your passenger dies, you are held liable for that cause of death. I can't think of the term but it's meaning has to do with the indirect cause of someone's death, just because you didn't actually do it, but were part of it, your held liable for it.I would say he should be brought up on murder charges since people did die while on a police chase.

[TypoMage 0]

No of course not that is just stupid. I mean it is entirely not his fault unless he made the helicopter colide with telekenetic abilities Whoever came up with the idea of charging this guy with that is really stupid.

[arza1 0]

i am glad that all of you fell the same as i do. it is stupid that they would even try to pin it on him. sure he did commit a crime and an accident indirectly followed. but think if all deaths that happened were blamed on a person that really had nothing to do with it. i wonder if any of us have killed anyone through a chain of events. very likely but hard to tell.

Edited August 2, 2007 by arza1 (see edit history)

[t3jem 0]

Well, this is an interesting story. My view would be that he should be charged with their deaths; however, not for manslaughter, but a lesser crime since he couldn't stop it, but I think since he had a part of it eh should be charged for it. Like if a cop was chasing him and ended up crashing and dieing the theif would be charged for the cops death as well. I think in any crime, if the someone is injured or killed, the criminal is at least partially at fault wether he/she could stop it or not.

[arnz 0]

Probably have to say since he was involved (however indirectly) he should be trialed for the lesser charges if he wasnt already. But yes, he would probably be partially at fault whether if they could stop it or not, since something or someone may have caused the accident to happen in the first place (and therefore the source of what started it gets the 'huge' share of the blame).

[hateheals 0]

HECK no,the news choppers shoulda had a look on thei RADAR.its there fora reason,but NO,they were too damn busy covering the story .they paid the price for their own negligiance.Te man should b carged orwhat he dirctly did,,not the chain of events that he started.Heck if people are charged this way,noone's gonna get a sentenc below a century.Sheesh,whatever happned t justice theese days.

Edited August 2, 2007 by hateheals (see edit history)

[salamangkero 0]

I hope you guys are familiar with the Butterfly effect but, for the benefit of those who don't, I offer the following short statement:

A butterfly flapping its wings in Tahiti can, in theory, produce a tornado in Kansas.

Now, I can't remember where Tahiti is (is it in the Pacific?) but the point is that even the smallest action we do can have catastrophic results. So, if this guy we're talking about were to be punished for indirectly causing the deaths of those people who were too stupid to look at the radar (Heck, even the windshield is there for a reason!) then it would only sanely follow that you'd have to arrest anyone who sneezed before Hurricane Katrina. Or maybe arrest those who jumped before the Taiwan quake.

Really, the guy is clearly at fault, but only for stealing the car. I think those who want to hold him responsible have some other ulterior motives like diverting the attention of the public to the guy instead of onto the incompetence of their chopper pilots, perhaps? After all, if the bad guy gets punished who wouldn't want a "happy", if not unreasonable, ending?

[arza1 0]

Has anyone heard anything about the trial? I know it might be a year or so before he actually gets convicted but they might still figure out what they are going to charge him with. they said it might be murder or somehing of that nature. i don't see how they could though. he did commit a crime though, but he didn't directly kill the pilots.