helicopter collision phoenix

Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:35 pm, Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:53 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:





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

Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)

Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while
covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and
were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.

When I was with a TV station that had a helicopter (I only worked in the
helicopter on one story) there was an agreement that one station would do
this sort of stuff at x altitude, the other would be at x-200 and x+200. I
think the police were even in on this little agreement and they stayed at
their altitude.

When they had to leave the set altitude radio calls were made and eyes were
looking even more than normal.

I was reading one of the stories and it said the reporter was the
pilot? I would think that would make it even MORE difficult to "see
and avoid..."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The pilot/reporter gig is pretty typical. In the 80's it was mostly
reporters with pilots (and camera crew/s) but the trend started to be
to have someone who could fly, talk and do PR...I dont know what the
mix is now, but by the time I left grad school in ATL...all the tv
chopper people were "Action reporter/pilot" nonesense. And that
seemed to be the industry trend.

Of course.

I would wager the salary of a pilot/reporter is greater than either
a pilot or a reporter, but less that of a pilot plus a reporter, and
cerainly if you throw in labor taxes and benefits if they are employees.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"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.

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:
"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:
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.

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.

These laws have existed for decades, and the jursiprudence is well
established.

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.

I simply gave an example of where people who didn't have the intention of
killing people and who didn't even directly cause the death were still
charged with murder.

The helicopter accident wouldn't have occurred if the chase hadn't been
on, since the helicopters wouldn't have been flying the way they were.

A number of states have laws that say a person is automatically at fault
for any accidents in a car if they are driving without a license, even if
they would not have been at fault if they did have a valid license. The
argument is that had then not been driving, then the accident would not
have happened. By extension, if the person hadn't been fleeing the law,
then the helicopter collision wouldn't have happened.

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.

If they collided while following a rescue, it would have simply been
pilot error.

The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional deterrent to
doing things like fleeing the police.

On Jul 28, 1:33 pm, 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.

One way to further make the law a laughing stock !

I'm expecting that one day the pursued are going to down the
helicopter.

writes:

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.

I wasn't talking about consequences for criminals. I was talking about the
effect on litigation in general. Perverting justice just to achieve emotional
satisfaction is a dangerous path to follow.

James Robinson writes:

The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional deterrent to
doing things like fleeing the police.

So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't mean
it's a good idea.

Mxsmanic wrote:

James Robinson writes:

The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional
deterrent to doing things like fleeing the police.

So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't
mean it's a good idea.

It's not throwing people in jail with charge, it's a perfectly valid
charge, and it is commonly made.

The two approaches to defending against the charge in court are typically
self-defense, or what is called supervening cause. That would be something
like the person wouldn't have died if the ambulance personnel hadn't made a
mistake.

Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.