Author Topic: Arizona Copter Crash to be Blamed on Felon (Read 1602 times)

TM7 · « **on:** July 29, 2007, 03:11:10 AM »

Ummm,,,,,,can they do this? Is this but-for argument a stretch of legal logic? Imagine the spectre of this logic.

When asked if the suspect could be held criminally liable for the deaths of the men on the two aircraft, Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris said forcefully, "Yes."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0727crashmain0727.html

...TM7

magooch · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2007, 03:21:14 AM »

The police chief is way out there on this one. But into today's world--who knows.

GRIMJIM · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2007, 03:49:34 AM »

Not normally one to stand up for a criminal but logic tells me it's not his fault the pilots were careless. Then again logic and the legal system don't always go hand in hand.

Dee · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2007, 06:50:55 AM »

I suppose we could call the white house on this one. They would know what to do. Perhaps the criminal INTENDED to cause the two choppers to get together, and intentionally ran from the police. This could have been prevented if the police, had merely stopped by his house and shot him BEFORE he was able to carry out his plan.

Cement Man · « **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2007, 07:57:47 AM »

When I first heard of the intent to charge the fugitive(s) with some criminal liability for the air crash, it raised the same question to me. I don't quite understand the legal connection there and suspect that it won't hold up.
I also think the case stands or falls on its own and there is no logical reason or benefit to relate it to the White House or any other societal/political/legal generalizations.
It will be interesting to see what the actual charges are, and what the courts decide if these charges are applied.

Almtnman · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2007, 09:10:19 AM »

Generally if a person is killed while another person is committing a crime, they can be charged as if they killed them their self. But from what I saw on the news, it looked like pilot error was what caused the crash and charging the felon for their deaths might not go too far in court. Just have to see what the outcome is on this one.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2007, 09:19:01 AM »

This accident had to happen.

Aircraft need to be managed around an incident. The press has a hard time managing itself at times. Taking a lead from the military at times they will place a coordinator or Air Boss in the sky to manage aircraft over a target. And in the Wildland Fire fighting world an air boss is in the sky to manage the mix of air tankers, fire fighting helicopters, media aircraft, and other aircraft that might venture by. Even when this organization is in place there are those media aircraft that fly by their own rules.

When aircraft start mixing there is danger. One reason is the pilot becomes focused on the chase and not the sky around him. In some areas responsible media pilots talk to the law enforcement aircraft, and among themselves create an air boss aircraft. But this is voluntary and there are those that the story is more important then their or the publics safety.

A chase funnels aircraft into a small space, and media pilots in many cases are reporter-pilots. This over loads their mind because they are working the story first, flying the aircraft becomes secondary, and they are sorting out traffic on numerous radio channels. They are working in an overloaded environment. Media aircraft are an asset, but they need to operate in a responsible manner. We have a new generation of former military pilots coming aboard. In a very short time they have accumulated a lot of flying time, classroom training, and organizational skills. I believe we will benefit from this expertise.

Flying the aircraft has to come first!

superjay01 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2007, 09:42:51 AM »

that criminal is about as responsible for that mid air collision as a gun company is a shooting. They simply are not.

SuperstitionCoues · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2007, 10:18:00 AM »

What the Phoenix P.D. Chief of Police says is one thing... what the County Attorney does is a completely different thing. Let's watch and wait. Legal precedent for the indictment to stick may not be there.

unspellable · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2007, 02:40:06 AM »

We had a case with similarities here in Iowa. Highway patrol plane was involved in a chase it rural Iowa. The pilot stalled the plane and ended up dead in a cornfield. Clear case of pilot error. They charged the chasee with murder and made it stick. I thought at the time it was a stretch. A news chopper is one more step removed from the highway patrol plane.

gypsyman · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2007, 03:14:11 AM »

I'm set up on commercial row at Camp Perry right now, for the National match's. Right next to me is a gunsmith from Phoenix, Phil Arrington. Who also fly's plane's. We just talked about this yesterday. Phoenix has 5 major TV station's, all with copter's. He told me, from his house, he can at time's, see the TV copter's over different major intersections, flying around in circle's, all trying to get the best angle shots. He had one, cut in front of him, when he was on final approach landing his plane. He made out an FAA report, but the pilot never even got a reprimand. So much for flying rules. Charge the criminal with the crime he committed, but not pilot error. Another incident, where out political and legal system is screwed up. gypsyman

Savage .250 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2007, 03:20:46 AM »

Human error all the way. IMO.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2007, 04:16:04 AM »

I had a "former" airtanker pilot tell me that he was making a run on a Southern California fire when suddenly a news helicopter appeared out of the smoke into his path. It was a very near miss. It made him decided that it was no longer the risk. The departure of a highly skilled pilot from the program is a true loss. By the time you become qualified to be an airtanker pilot you have done a lot of flying as a co-pilot and built up a lot of hours in the log book.

Heavy C · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2007, 12:45:54 PM »

It is ridiculous that they are doing this. Clearly it was pilot error - you could here it on the recordings of they radio chatter prior to the crash. It was far easier to make the criminal the scapegoat rather than media losing that right to fly willy nilly to cover these news stories.

Almtnman · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2007, 01:43:56 PM »

What I don't understand about this is; the police chief wants to hold the felon responsible, but yet we have not heard a word from the NTSB as to what caused this accident to happen. I think the police chief is too far ahead of all legal precedent. Without a ruling from the NTSB, it could be anything from pilot error to parts failure, most anything.

Dee · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2007, 02:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Cement Man on July 29, 2007, 07:57:47 AM

When I first heard of the intent to charge the fugitive(s) with some criminal liability for the air crash, it raised the same question to me. I don't quite understand the legal connection there and suspect that it won't hold up.
I also think the case stands or falls on its own and there is no logical reason or benefit to relate it to the White House or any other societal/political/legal generalizations.
It will be interesting to see what the actual charges are, and what the courts decide if these charges are applied.

Well cement Man, it was SARCASM pure and simple. I did not intend it to be profound, or have any depth, other than the government (federal) having the same habit as the Arizona authorities (state and local). Blame the one that WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the attack, or in this case in Arizona, the copter crash. Sarcastic humor has to be sought out occasionally, it is not always so obvious to the layman.

Cement Man · « **Reply #16 on:** July 30, 2007, 03:22:45 PM »

Dee,
The sarcasm was quite obvious. I just didn't find it particularly witty or humorous, so I politely stated my opinion. Hope that's OK with you.

Brett · « **Reply #17 on:** July 30, 2007, 03:25:39 PM »

Well, let's just blame the police. After all if they had not been chasing the felon then the news choppers would not have had any reason to be there. It is the next most ill-logical step.

While we are at it, what make vehicle was he driving, might as well sue them too.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 30, 2007, 03:55:45 PM »

In many jurisdictions, if someone dies while you are committing a felony you can be charges with the death. Now linking the news copters to the crime may be a reach. But who knows. I have heard of people being charged with murder when someone died of a heart attack while they were committing a robbery. It all depends on how the law is written. I hope no matter what, this guy gets a long time in prison. When you run in a vehicle you endanger a lot of people both police and bystanders. My brother is the Sheriff of a small county in southern MN and has been involved in many chases when he was a deputy. He was even hit in one chase and luckily not hurt. The guy he was chasing also went off the road and flipped. He calmly walked up and arrested the guy. I told him that was why I'm not a cop I'da shot the guy for trying to kill me.

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** July 30, 2007, 03:56:27 PM »

Quote from: Cement Man on July 30, 2007, 03:22:45 PM

Dee,
The sarcasm was quite obvious. I just didn't find it particularly witty or humorous, so I politely stated my opinion. Hope that's OK with you.

What is humorous or witty to one is not "grasped"

by others as such. Politeness is also in the eyes of the beholder. Some would just not comment at all, or do as you did and call it politeness. It all appears to be, what it actually is to others anyway.

Particularly.

Cement Man · « **Reply #20 on:** July 30, 2007, 05:27:13 PM »

Dee,
If "politeness is also in the eyes of the beholder" as you say, then I am sure you would agree that witticism and humor would also be in the eye of the beholder and allow me as the beholder to state my opinion.
Now, this discussion is getting to be like two kids sticking their tongues out at each other on the playground - and this kid is tired and going to bed. In all sincerity I bid you "good night".

Hairtrigger · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2007, 12:45:10 AM »

About 3 weeks ago we had a local kid driving drunk and caused an accident with an older couple.
As the older couple was headed to the hospital in the ambulance, the ambulance driver ran a stop sign and was hit by a truck. This accident resulted in a bad fire and killed 5 of the people in the ambulance.
Local law enforcement is considering charging the drunk kid with the 5 deaths.
http://www.emsvillage.com/articles/article.cfm?id=2154

Brett · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2007, 01:18:22 AM »

Quote from: Hairtrigger on July 31, 2007, 12:45:10 AM

About 3 weeks ago we had a local kid driving drunk and caused an accident with an older couple.
As the older couple was headed to the hospital in the ambulance, the ambulance driver ran a stop sign and was hit by a truck. This accident resulted in a bad fire and killed 5 of the people in the ambulance.
Local law enforcement is considering charging the drunk kid with the 5 deaths.
http://www.emsvillage.com/articles/article.cfm?id=2154

Again, I think this is reaching. Why did the truck driver fail to yield to the ambulance? Did the ambulance have it's lights and serenes on? Did he slow and blast his horn before entering the intersection?

Don't get me wrong I don't have a soft spot for felons or drunk drivers, but I also don't believe in blaming someone else for other peoples errors. Suppose the ambulance driver has a kid who becomes a junkie in a few years because he grew up with no father figure in the home. And this kid kills someone while robbing them for drug money. Should the kid who started this chain of events by driving drunk be charged with that murder also? We could play the six degrees of separation game and find out that we ourselves may have played a part in those deaths, who knows? We have to draw a reasonable line some where.

Hairtrigger · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2007, 01:25:22 AM »

Quote from: Brett on July 31, 2007, 01:18:22 AM

Quote from: Hairtrigger on July 31, 2007, 12:45:10 AM
About 3 weeks ago we had a local kid driving drunk and caused an accident with an older couple.
As the older couple was headed to the hospital in the ambulance, the ambulance driver ran a stop sign and was hit by a truck. This accident resulted in a bad fire and killed 5 of the people in the ambulance.
Local law enforcement is considering charging the drunk kid with the 5 deaths.
http://www.emsvillage.com/articles/article.cfm?id=2154

Again, I think this is reaching. Why did the truck driver fail to yield to the ambulance? Did the ambulance have it's lights and serenes on? Did he slow and blast his horn before entering the intersection?

Don't get me wrong I don't love felons or drunk drivers but I also don't believe in blaming someone else for other peoples errors.

This happened on a country road, there was corn along the road and a house on the corner. The truck did not have a stop sign, the ambulance did.

Brett · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2007, 01:37:51 AM »

Well in that case I would say that the ambulance driver was in the wrong and is responsible for those deaths not the kid who caused an entirely separate accident.

Cement Man · « **Reply #25 on:** July 31, 2007, 01:57:17 AM »

I think, that because in the ambulance case, an emergency vehicle was involved that there may be more of a case for legal culpability. I believe some states have laws that are applied when emergency personnel get involved. I'm sure the civil lawyers will get involved. It's very tragic that in both cases, innocent lives are lost due to a chain of events started by illegal and negligent behavior.

Dee · « **Reply #26 on:** July 31, 2007, 02:04:20 AM »

Most states have laws about YIELDING to emergency vehicles, HOWEVER, that emergency vehicle driver is still bound to the same rules of safety, that the state mandates.
When running a stop sign, or red light, one had better have a Really GOOD reason if involved in an accident, REGARDLESS of whether one was running emergency equipment.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #27 on:** July 31, 2007, 10:53:46 AM »

If you read down the posts on this topic it is plain that there is a wide difference of opinion. The bad guy may have more votes on the issue. Charging somebody with a crime is far easier then convincing a criminal jury that a defendant is guilty of a crime.

Television news is a very competitive endeavor. Authorities and defense attorneys should be reviewing audiotapes of communications between the aircraft and the stations. If the station was directing either pilot to be aggressive can that person be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Had the management of one or both stations provide written direction, or verbal direction to the pilots regarding aggressive flying to get a story and beat out the other Stations. Can station management be charged as an Accessory Before the Fact? Where the copters being operated in violation of visual flight safety rules? Television stations have helicopters to increase viewer numbers which relates to increased station income. If a helicopter is not paying it’s way it goes away.

A good prosecutor looks and his case and the case he expects the defense to present. I expect the prosecutor to offer a plea deal where the driver can plea to a lesser charge, and the case will go away.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #28 on:** August 02, 2007, 05:55:39 AM »

Here is a link to a news article out of Oregon and some recent issues with news helicopters. Of course it is the ones who do not fly by the rules that become the issue. http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/08/report_news_chopper_causes_wav.html

MGMorden · « **Reply #29 on:** August 02, 2007, 10:52:19 AM »

Don't see how the criminal could be charged here, but remember those were the words of the police chief, not a judge nor attorney. He probably just doesn't understand the legal specifics, and I doubt the guy will ever be convicted of THIS incident (other crimes are another matter). Remember getting charged with something and getting convicted are two very different things.

As a pilot myself (though not for rotary craft), this just sounds like poor judgement of the part of the pilots here. One of the main things literally DRILLED into your head early on during training is "the scan". Flying is very different from driving. In front and behind is not the only direction things can be coming from. You have to literally be on constant vigil checking every visible direction for other traffic, and there are right-of-way rules to follow if/when you spot approaching traffic. One or the other of these pilots didn't follow procedure and had a collision. It's a sad story, but you start creating scapegoats because of that.

Mike