• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame

radcen said:
NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame

NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame - Yahoo News
Click to expand...

If I shoot at you (have an intent to kill) and miss, but you have a heart attack and die, is it murder?

If I commit an act likely to result in death, but which causes a death in a manner other than what was foreseeable, is it manslaughter?

I don't agree with the appellate court's reasoning (the officer's death wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the man's actions), but the conclusion is right, it's not required that he have been able to foresee the officer's death specifically, it's sufficient that the fact of a death occurring was foreseeable.
 
radcen said:
NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame

NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame - Yahoo News
Click to expand...

Prosecutorial overreach, in an attempt to blame someone for what was an awful accident.

This reminds me of Islamic law in the Middle East that we had to deal with when deployed. For instance, if you are in the back of a taxi when the taxi is involved in an accident you can be held liable, because as they see it the accident would not have occurred if you had not gotten in the taxi and asked the driver to take you somewhere that included the route where the accident took place.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Prosecutorial overreach, in an attempt to blame someone for what was an awful accident.

This reminds me of Islamic law in the Middle East that we had to deal with when deployed. For instance, if you are in the back of a taxi when the taxi is involved in an accident you can be held liable, because as they see it the accident would not have occurred if you had not gotten in the taxi and asked the driver to take you somewhere that included the route where the accident took place.
Click to expand...
I went back-and-forth a bit, but came down on the same side you state here.
 
radcen said:
I went back-and-forth a bit, but came down on the same side you state here.
Click to expand...

The only reason I was able to have such a definitive opinion was because of what I saw in the Middle East and me forming an opinion at that time. I don't want the drunk driver to not have to pay a price for his actions, but the death of the officer was not one of his actions.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Prosecutorial overreach, in an attempt to blame someone for what was an awful accident.

This reminds me of Islamic law in the Middle East that we had to deal with when deployed. For instance, if you are in the back of a taxi when the taxi is involved in an accident you can be held liable, because as they see it the accident would not have occurred if you had not gotten in the taxi and asked the driver to take you somewhere that included the route where the accident took place.
Click to expand...

If you ask a visibly drunk taxi driver to drive you somewhere, and he ends up killing someone, are you at fault?

There is a difference between a negligent act and an excusable act.
 
Paleocon said:
If you ask a visibly drunk taxi driver to drive you somewhere, and he ends up killing someone, are you at fault?

There is a difference between a negligent act and an excusable act.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what your point here is, but if we're going to do this, let's do it right - let's make the taxi driver a blind quadriplegic.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Not really sure what your point here is, but if we're going to do this, let's do it right - let's make the taxi driver a blind quadriplegic.
Click to expand...

Don't be coy, the point is exactly what I stated in the very last sentence of my last post.
 
I’ve always had a general view that punishment should be for actions (or inaction) rather than coincidental consequence. The level of the outcome can vary massively based on factors completely out of everyone’s control. For example, if you hit someone in your car there could be an off-duty doctor nearby who saves their lives, the local ambulance service could be having a quiet day, the traffic to the hospital could be, the very best surgeon could be on shift and the victim could be otherwise young, fit and healthy. The combination of those factors could lead to the victim surviving with no after-effects but reverse even one or two and it could result in the victim dying. The driver did exactly the same thing so it seems odd to me for them to face much greater punishment in the second case.

I actually think the punishment for negligent actions that don’t cause any bad consequences should still take greater account of those potential consequences, kind of this foreseeable concept without them actually having to have come about. If you do something stupid that could have killed me, I would want that to be a major consideration even if, though luck or the actions of others, I was uninjured.

In the world where consequences are punished, I still think this case is a little too far. There are plenty of things the driver can and should face trial for but I think the number of steps between his actions and the death mean that it shouldn’t be any more of a factor than the obvious risk of death he put so many other people in by his actions.

Of course, none of this is about common sense or even emotion but entirely technical legal wording, which in itself seems to be a bit of an issue.
 
HonestJoe said:
I’ve always had a general view that punishment should be for actions (or inaction) rather than coincidental consequence. The level of the outcome can vary massively based on factors completely out of everyone’s control. For example, if you hit someone in your car there could be an off-duty doctor nearby who saves their lives, the local ambulance service could be having a quiet day, the traffic to the hospital could be, the very best surgeon could be on shift and the victim could be otherwise young, fit and healthy. The combination of those factors could lead to the victim surviving with no after-effects but reverse even one or two and it could result in the victim dying. The driver did exactly the same thing so it seems odd to me for them to face much greater punishment in the second case.

I actually think the punishment for negligent actions that don’t cause any bad consequences should still take greater account of those potential consequences, kind of this foreseeable concept without them actually having to have come about. If you do something stupid that could have killed me, I would want that to be a major consideration even if, though luck or the actions of others, I was uninjured.

In the world where consequences are punished, I still think this case is a little too far. There are plenty of things the driver can and should face trial for but I think the number of steps between his actions and the death mean that it shouldn’t be any more of a factor than the obvious risk of death he put so many other people in by his actions.

Of course, none of this is about common sense or even emotion but entirely technical legal wording, which in itself seems to be a bit of an issue.
Click to expand...
In a sense, it is "charge stacking". Get the guy for *something*, and I'm getting less and less tolerant of that as I learn more and more how our so-called justice system works.

To your point, I tend to agree, but I also factor in intent. Take the case in the OP where there was no intent, yet he is charged the same anyway, and compare it with murder/attempted murder, and there's an inconsistency. You're in serious trouble if you murder someone, but in many places the potential punishment is less if you try to murder them and fail. Yet the intent to murder them was still there. (Kind of going off on a tangent, sorry.)
 
Beaudreaux said:
Not really sure what your point here is, but if we're going to do this, let's do it right - let's make the taxi driver a blind quadriplegic.
Click to expand...

Oh ****, I laughed so hard. Made my morning.

It's gonna be a good day...
 
radcen said:
NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame

NY man faces case that tests limits of criminal blame - Yahoo News
Click to expand...

This is overreach. Let's take the drunk driving out of it. A man is speeding, a cop pulls him over. Someone else doesn't "see" the vehicles and plows into the cop car, killing him. Is the man who was speeding at fault for the cop's death? No, the guy driving the car that plowed into the cop car is responsible.

This is getting blown up because it's drunk driving, and the driver is not some rich kid. They're looking for anything they can find, and I hope this doesn't stick because if it does, the path this goes down will not be good. Police may die in the line of duty, their jobs aren't safe. But one isn't at fault for the death of someone if they did not cause the death of someone. This is ridiculous, reckless, and dangerous use of judicial powers here.
 
Ikari said:
This is overreach. Let's take the drunk driving out of it. A man is speeding, a cop pulls him over. Someone else doesn't "see" the vehicles and plows into the cop car, killing him. Is the man who was speeding at fault for the cop's death? No, the guy driving the car that plowed into the cop car is responsible.

This is getting blown up because it's drunk driving, and the driver is not some rich kid. They're looking for anything they can find, and I hope this doesn't stick because if it does, the path this goes down will not be good. Police may die in the line of duty, their jobs aren't safe. But one isn't at fault for the death of someone if they did not cause the death of someone. This is ridiculous, reckless, and dangerous use of judicial powers here.
Click to expand...
Agreed, especially your first paragraph. Basically, they want somebody to pay, and drunk driving is the emotional weapon that helps them in this regard.

I wonder if that state has laws mandating that other drivers switch lanes (if existing) or otherwise avoid collisions when they come upon stopped vehicles and stuff like this. I know my state does. If so, that puts the burden even more on the other driver, IMO.
 
Ikari said:
This is overreach. Let's take the drunk driving out of it. A man is speeding, a cop pulls him over. Someone else doesn't "see" the vehicles and plows into the cop car, killing him. Is the man who was speeding at fault for the cop's death? No, the guy driving the car that plowed into the cop car is responsible.
Click to expand...
To be fair that’s not exactly the same. When a cop pulls you over, you should both be stopping somewhere safe at the side of the road (and I suspect the police officer has a legal responsibility to ensure that the stop is made somewhere safe). In this case, the driver’s negligence left his car stranded in the middle of the road and it is that which led directly to the crash.
 
HonestJoe said:
To be fair that’s not exactly the same. When a cop pulls you over, you should both be stopping somewhere safe at the side of the road (and I suspect the police officer has a legal responsibility to ensure that the stop is made somewhere safe). In this case, the driver’s negligence left his car stranded in the middle of the road and it is that which led directly to the crash.
Click to expand...

I think what this really stems from is our desire to overprosecute drunk driving. We use it as an emotional maul to beat people over the head with and excuse all sorts of things from the state. But I don't believe it's as different as you would claim. If pulled over on the interstate, for instance, cops don't wait for you to get to an exit. They pull you over. Cops have been struck and killed by other vehicles while performing these stops, but it's not the fault of the individual originally stopped.

In this case there was an accident. So "pulling over somewhere safe" isn't typically what happens in such an event. So again, let's say he was sober. There's an accident, cops come to secure the scene. Then someone else plows into the accident scene, who's at fault? The original accident?

For sure the dude is guilty of driving under the influence and causing an accident. But the person who plowed into the scene that killed the officer is the one who is at fault for killing the officer. They were not paying attention to road or the conditions on the road. This sort of thing has had to have happened before, and the original accident isn't at fault for the secondary one. All drivers are responsible for their vehicles and for maintaining situational awareness on the road.

Now we add in that this guy was drunk, and that's when things change. We feel the need to further punish beyond reasonable scope because of the DUI. Remove that, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Which is why it isn't a proper charge.
 
I agree that this is about drunk driving and the irrational need to excessively punish DUIs, thanks to MADD and other hysterical organizations.

If the charges stick and the guy gets convicted, then anyone can be indictable for what is tantamount to the butterfly effect. If a boss calls an employee into work early and that employee gets on the early train that derails, should we charge the boss with negligent homicide?

This excessive law and order crap has become tyrannical.
 
Ikari said:
Now we add in that this guy was drunk, and that's when things change. We feel the need to further punish beyond reasonable scope because of the DUI. Remove that, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Which is why it isn't a proper charge.
Click to expand...
I’m not defending the charge in this case (as I said, my opinion is that the wider area of law is flawed).

I was just pointing out that there is a difference between a police officer pulling a driver over, where the officer is in control and responsible for the safety of the situation, and a collision caused by a driver’s negligence, where regardless of the legal situation, the moral responsibility remains with the negligent driver(s).
 
Paleocon said:
If I shoot at you (have an intent to kill) and miss, but you have a heart attack and die, is it murder?

If I commit an act likely to result in death, but which causes a death in a manner other than what was foreseeable, is it manslaughter?

I don't agree with the appellate court's reasoning (the officer's death wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the man's actions), but the conclusion is right, it's not required that he have been able to foresee the officer's death specifically, it's sufficient that the fact of a death occurring was foreseeable.
Click to expand...

If a police officer accidentally runs down someone while running code to the scene of your accident (caused by you running a stop sign), should you go to jail for that death?? There needs to be an actual realistic connection between the criminal act and the crime. Doing one illegal act does not mean that you become automatically responsible for everything that's even remotely connected to that act.
 
HonestJoe said:
I’m not defending the charge in this case (as I said, my opinion is that the wider area of law is flawed).

I was just pointing out that there is a difference between a police officer pulling a driver over, where the officer is in control and responsible for the safety of the situation, and a collision caused by a driver’s negligence, where regardless of the legal situation, the moral responsibility remains with the negligent driver(s).
Click to expand...

Which, in the case of the death, was the driver that plowed into the scene. Not the people involved with the initial accident. They are at fault for that accident, not the negligence of other drivers.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That seems like a stretch to make the dui driver responsible for someone else's driving. We had a local case today where a woman got a $140 fine for eating a banana at the wheel (while stationary, she claims!)

Fined £100 for eating a banana while I was sat in a traffic jam (From Bournemouth Echo)
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the Canadian issues a distracted driving ticket in the Tim Horton's drive through.
'Kind of heavy handed': Alberta man ticketed for texting in Timmies drive-thru | CTV News
I actually think the distracted driving laws are a good idea, but any law can be abused.
 
faithful_servant said:
If a police officer accidentally runs down someone while running code to the scene of your accident (caused by you running a stop sign), should you go to jail for that death?? There needs to be an actual realistic connection between the criminal act and the crime. Doing one illegal act does not mean that you become automatically responsible for everything that's even remotely connected to that act.
Click to expand...

That's different under the sufficiency test. In that case the actions of the police officer and the person they ran over are fully physically sufficient to cause the death. In this case, the actions of the late officer and the driver that hit him weren't, as the traffic obstruction's existence was an essential part of the physical causality leading to the officer's death.
 
Ikari said:
Which, in the case of the death, was the driver that plowed into the scene. Not the people involved with the initial accident. They are at fault for that accident, not the negligence of other drivers.
Click to expand...
That depends on the circumstances of the secondary collisions, how avoidable they were and whether those drivers were also negligent (and given there is no reference to the other driver, it suggests that wasn’t deemed the case here ).

At best though, they’d share overall responsibility since it was the full sequence of events that ultimately led to the death of the officer. No number of negligent acts by others can overwrite the negligent acts of the initial driver. The remain at least partially responsible (again, that doesn’t necessarily mean they should be held criminally responsible).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom