helicopter collision phoenix

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-07-27 13:14:02 -0700, "Gattman" said:

This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+

Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
deaths of the people killed in the crash. I am not sure how they would
get a conviction, though.

Most states have laws that essentially say any death due or related to
the commision of a crime is chargable as murder.

Making the connection between the helicopters being there because of
the crime is a no-brainer and the perp probably can't afford a lawyer
clever enough to avoid the conviction.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

C J Campbell writes:

Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
deaths of the people killed in the crash.

Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at fault.

I am not sure how they would get a conviction, though.

By using the same irrational emotional basis for a verdict in the trial that
was used to file the charges in the first place.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell writes:

Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
deaths of the people killed in the crash.

Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at fault.


The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

--------------------------------------------
DW

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell writes:

Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
deaths of the people killed in the crash.

Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at
fault.


The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

I see his legal knowledge equals his aviation knowledge.

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:

The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because they are
criminal acts.

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:

The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because they are
criminal acts.

Irrelevant and a **** poor arguement.

Criminal acts in progress are newsworthy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:

The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't
been running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because
they are criminal acts.


You're an idiot

Nobody cares what you think.

And you'l never fly a helicopter, either



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:

C J Campbell writes:

Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
deaths of the people killed in the crash.

Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at
fault.

I am not sure how they would get a conviction, though.

By using the same irrational emotional basis for a verdict in the
trial that was used to file the charges in the first place.

Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death of
any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the person
intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in it.

As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled in a
car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit a tree,
resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the rest of the
group were charged with murder even though only one was driving, and even
though the person who died was one of their accomplices.

In another case, two people drove to a house with the intention of
robbing it. One stayed in the car, while the other entered the house. A
struggle ensued with the occupant of the house, who died in the struggle.
The person who remained in the car was charged with murder, even though
he did not have a hand in it, did not have a weapon, and was not
expecting that there would be violence.

Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and likely
be convicted.

James Robinson writes:

Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death of
any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the person
intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in it.

How far does the "result of a crime" extend? It's a slippery slope.

As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled in a
car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit a tree,
resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the rest of the
group were charged with murder even though only one was driving, and even
though the person who died was one of their accomplices.

But in this case the bad guys were not in a helicopter. The accident occurred
because of pilot error, and could have occurred under any circumstances.

Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and likely
be convicted.

If the helicopters had collided while following a rescue operation, which way
would the emotional knee-jerk reaction turn in search of scapegoats then?

Be careful what you wish for.

Mxsmanic wrote:
James Robinson writes:

Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death of
any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the person
intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in it.

How far does the "result of a crime" extend? It's a slippery slope.

It certainly is.

The lesson there is don't commit even a minor crime or the consequences
for you may be much higher than you expected.

As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled in a
car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit a tree,
resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the rest of the
group were charged with murder even though only one was driving, and even
though the person who died was one of their accomplices.

But in this case the bad guys were not in a helicopter. The accident occurred
because of pilot error, and could have occurred under any circumstances.

Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and likely
be convicted.

If the helicopters had collided while following a rescue operation, which way
would the emotional knee-jerk reaction turn in search of scapegoats then?

Which part of the laws say while committing a crime are you struggling
to understand?

Be careful what you wish for.

What in holy hell are you talking about? Such laws have been in existence
for a long time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.