helicopter collision phoenix

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

James Robinson writes:

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.

Nobody would have died if the pilot had not screwed up.

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.

The notion of pilot as sole in command would also be eroded by this.


Wrong again, idiot boi


bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
James Robinson wrote:

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.

So you're saying that if I molest some young boy, he goes home and tells
his father who then comes and kills me, I'm guilty of my own murder? Or
would that be classified as suicide?

No, that would be classified as news.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
James Robinson wrote:

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.

So you're saying that if I molest some young boy, he goes home and tells
his father who then comes and kills me, I'm guilty of my own murder? Or
would that be classified as suicide?

No, that would be classified as news.

How about "public service?"

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..."

I read that as well this weekend and I was shocked. I was in a smaller
market than Phoenix and that would have been completely unacceptable
practice.

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.

It called Felony Murder. It can and has been used Badguy A when a cop shoots
and kills Badguy B.

I very good friend of mine's father was killed when an fleeing robbery
suspect crashed into the Taxi both my friend and his father were in. THey
charged and easily covicted the robber of felony murder.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
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.

It called Felony Murder. It can and has been used Badguy A when a cop shoots
and kills Badguy B.

I very good friend of mine's father was killed when an fleeing robbery
suspect crashed into the Taxi both my friend and his father were in. THey
charged and easily covicted the robber of felony murder.


But in that case the robber actually had a direct interaction with the
victim. In this case the 2 helo pilots did not have a direct
interaction with the perp. Using the same logic you could charge the
perp because someone heard the report on the radio and had a accident
because they were not watching where they were going.

John Theune wrote:

But in that case the robber actually had a direct interaction with the
victim. In this case the 2 helo pilots did not have a direct
interaction with the perp. Using the same logic you could charge the
perp because someone heard the report on the radio and had a accident
because they were not watching where they were going.

Oh, I didn't say that the case was a slam-dunk but there is enough there to
make the charge.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


I very good friend of mine's father was killed when an fleeing robbery
suspect crashed into the Taxi both my friend and his father were in. THey
charged and easily covicted the robber of felony murder.

I went to school with a kid with a bad temper. About twenty years ago, he
got into a fight with someone over a drug deal. He ended up killing the
other guy. Because it happened in conjunction with a felony, he was charged
with, and convicted of, first degree murder.

He got life with no parole.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Ok, so a drunk celebrity is driving home(again). Two photographers get into
a scuffle
going for the best shot, and one of them steps off a curb and breaks a foot.
The "Drunk"
is responsible, right?

How about a kid who steps off the curb 2 miles away to watch the smoke from
the crashed helicopter, and gets hit by an Ice cream truck. Involuntary
homicide right?

Where does this line get drawn?

Al G


Al

Al G wrote:

"James Robinson" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Ok, so a drunk celebrity is driving home(again). Two photographers get into
a scuffle
going for the best shot, and one of them steps off a curb and breaks a foot.
The "Drunk"
is responsible, right?

How about a kid who steps off the curb 2 miles away to watch the smoke from
the crashed helicopter, and gets hit by an Ice cream truck. Involuntary
homicide right?

Where does this line get drawn?

By the jury.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.