Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Man Convicted of Murder From 30 Miles Away
A Missouri man has been convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a police officer, even though he was hiding in a woods 30 miles away at the time.
Jurors deliberated more than three hours before returning the guilty verdict against Massigh J. Stallmann, 28, of High Ridge.
The trooper was Ralph C. Tatoian of north St. Louis County, a trained sniper who was rushing along Interstate 44 to join the manhunt in Franklin County on April 20, 2005. He died when he struck a tractor-trailer that had stopped to help another motorist.
Even though Stallmann was hiding in woods some 30 miles away from Tatoian’s crash site, prosecutors won the murder conviction. Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest.
The defendant isn't the most sympathetic figure. He had exchanged gunfire with other officers before the manhunt. But it's the precedent that's troubling. And this makes the conviction even more suspect:
Taaffe said Tatoian had a slight blood-alcohol level, was late for his callout to duty and drove fast in a construction zone. A prosecution witness said that the low level of alcohol wouldn’t impair the trooper.
I'm not a fan of the felony murder doctrine to begin with. This case seems to be a good example of the absurd results you can get when you start charging people for crimes they didn't intend to commit.
|7.20.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Wow,
I'm surprised nobody realizes how stupid this is. And Radley, I
think the law sets the precedent rather than the conviction. The
prosecution should have to prove you directly caused the death of
the officer, not assume any death that occurs is the fault of the
defendant.
Then again, today's society says we are guilty until proven
innocent.
|7.20.07 @ 2:13PM|#
In Ohio if you have an accident with ANY amount of alcohol in your blood YOU will be charged.Ther are also stiff penalties for speeding in a construction zone.Unless you a cop.
From the \"Jaded THoughts Of A|7.20.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Well, I have to start this with what I'm doing tomorrow.
Anyone not from Missouri doesn't know this, but those of you who
do, well, here it is.
Missouri State Trooper Ralph C. Tatoian, 32 was killed Wednesday
morning in a car crash near Pacific as he rushed to help search for
a burglary suspect who had wounded a sheriff's deputy in a shootout
in Gasconade County.
First, I have to say my heart goes out to the family of Trooper
Tatoian. I have to relay a story about the guy, because although I
only met him once, it is kind of a funny story.
This was a trooper dedicated to doing right. I was working
midnights last year, and I get a call to assist another department
in my sector. Turns out Trooper Tatoian, just returning from
vacation, was attempting to drive home after picking up his car
from headquarters. So, Tatoian is dressed in civilian clothing, but
driving a marked state trooper vehicle. Talk about an ackward
traffic stop! Anyway, turns out that the car was full of drunk
Mexicans, and they were driving all over the road, even flipped
Trooper Tatoian the bird! So, this guy, dedicated to the job, pulls
them over, 100% on his own time.
Eventually, I got a Mexican interpreter out there, (I know,
Spanish, it's a joke) and arrested the driver for DWI, but the
point of the story is that this was a good and dedicated man,
wanting to do right no matter what time it was. The Missouri State
Highway Patrol is now short one very good trooper.
http://rookiecop.blogspot.com/atom.xml
|7.20.07 @ 2:28PM|#
So, since I'm never on duty, would I be an even more dedicated cop if I pulled some drunk Mexicans over, since it will always be 100% on my own time?
|7.20.07 @ 2:31PM|#
A dedicated amateur LEO, I like the sound of that. I wouldn't even need a uniform, just an ex-cop car.
Tingy Wah|7.20.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is
killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest."
Who knows if the news account is summarizing the law correctly, but
the way it reads here you could be convicted for murder if a cop is
killed while responding to a mistaken or false arrest.
|7.20.07 @ 2:33PM|#
So, some dumbass cop speeds through a construction zone and hits
a stationary tractor-trailer rig and the guy he was rushing to
arrest, some 30 miles away gets charged with his murder and the
jury convicts him???
WTF!
ed|7.20.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Good case for the concept of jury nullification.
"Hate" crimes aside, the only thing left is prosecution for your
very thoughts. I'm sure someone, somewhere is working on it. They
need only find a way to measure it. And present it to a Neanderthal
jury.
Miggs|7.20.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Taaffe said Tatoian had a slight blood-alcohol level, was
late for his callout to duty and drove fast in a construction zone.
A prosecution witness said that the low level of alcohol wouldn't
impair the trooper.
But I thought "buzz driving is drunk driving?"
Dave W.|7.20.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Who knows if the news account is summarizing the law
correctly, but the way it reads here you could be convicted for
murder if a cop is killed while responding to a mistaken or false
arrest.
Well, there are other prerequisites to invoking the "felony-murder"
rule besides what the article mentioned. One is that you must be
actually involved in a bona fide felony. Presumably another is that
your felony must have some nexus to the felony that the Missouri
cop is trying to make a felony arrest on. I think that stuff is
fairly implied by the language of the article.
Geotpf|7.20.07 @ 2:56PM|#
One could make an argument here that this was a reaonable
conviction. There clearly is a causal/effect relationship here.
That is, if this guy hadn't committed armed robbery and shot at the
police, this officer would still be alive.
Of course, you could also make the other argument that the officer
was driving recklessly and that was the cause of the
accident.
It's an interesting legal case.
|7.20.07 @ 2:59PM|#
I think the law sets the precedent rather than the
conviction.
No, I'm pretty sure it's the conviction.
Good case for the concept of jury nullification.
It might have been, had the jury not voted him guilty of
murder.
FWIW I live literally a stones-throw from I-44. I find this
completely outrageous. Charging people for crimes they didn't
intend to commit may be shaky ground, but actually convicting them
for crimes you know they didn't commit is tyranny.
Just as bad, is the whole "the law doesn't apply to cops" paradigm.
Unless you believe this was the fist time "Tatoian had a slight
blood-alcohol level, was late for his callout to duty and drove
fast in a construction zone." Even given the maximum benefit of all
doubts, if you hit a parked vehicle, you are always at fault.
Dave W.|7.20.07 @ 3:02PM|#
sounds like a bunch of furnierz.
gR8 THD AT THE OL' cOP tALK:
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=b48fdd79bf791b712b4bec0b90032c47&threadid=730817&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
|7.20.07 @ 3:10PM|#
According to a Columbus Dispatch investigation,almost half[45%] of crashes invloving the police in Ohio are the officer's fault.Yet they are rarely charged and you must pay for the damage to your car due to goverment immunity.You can sue,but,good luck.
|7.20.07 @ 3:11PM|#
So if a crime is committed and a cop decides to cut through a mall Blues Brothers style and kills swarthes of people, how many life/death sentences would the man committing the OTHER crime get?
Tingy Wah|7.20.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Similarly, news reports of the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta always cite two deaths- one of a woman who actually died as a result of the blast, and one of a Turkish photojournalist who died of a heart attack while rushing to the scene. I always thought that was BS.
Well, DUH!|7.20.07 @ 3:14PM|#
"how many life/death sentences would the man committing the
OTHER crime get?"
76.
|7.20.07 @ 3:18PM|#
My problem with felony murder laws is that they have the
potential to turn any felony into murder, even when the
felony being committed isn't a violent one.
I mean, if you're in possession of enough marijuana to qualify as
intending to distribute, if the cops on their way to arrest you
drive recklessly, you can be charged with murder. If you bring a
video phone to a movie theater and record the movie on it, and the
theater calls the police, you can be charged with murder if
something happens to them on the way.
|7.20.07 @ 3:21PM|#
"Tatoian had a slight blood-alcohol level, was late for his
callout to duty and drove fast in a construction zone. A
prosecution witness said that the low level of alcohol wouldn't
impair the trooper."
And if that had been you, and One Great Cop pulled you over, he
would have said, "Take it easy, and go home and get some
sleep."
|7.20.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Wait a second. It's in Missouri. You can't expect those people to make an intelligent decision.
brian|7.20.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Michael Pack
According to a Columbus Dispatch investigation,almost half[45%] of
crashes invloving the police in Ohio are the officer's fault.Yet
they are rarely charged and you must pay for the damage to your car
due to goverment immunity.You can sue,but,good luck.
I got a traffic ticket once that was the cop's fault. I was at a
stop sign, looked both ways, could see about 100 feet down each
way, and no one was coming. I pull into the street and a cop comes
flying down the road and almost hits me. He obviously pulls me over
and blames me for not stopping at the stop sign, instead of
recognizing that he almost hit me because he was going at double
the speed limit.
I contested the ticket and won when the cop didn't show up to the
courthouse. Yay.
|7.20.07 @ 3:39PM|#
California law and the Model Penal Code don't make deaths
resulting from just any felony "felony-murder," though I think many
states' laws do. Don't get me started on
Misdemeanor-Manslaughter.
I can't find a copy of the relevant Model Penal Code sections
online, but here's some commentary on how the MPC deals with felony
murder, versus how states do:
Some of the Model Penal Code provisions have not been widely accepted. For
example, while the Model Penal Code generally rejects the common law's "felony
murder" rule, which in its broadest form holds all killings in the course of a felony to be
murder, most states have retained the rule.
In the particular case of felony murder, a serious strict liability offense under the common law whose definition required no mental state with respect to the act ofhomicide, the Model Code transformed the definitional question into an evidentiary one. Instead of eliminating the requirement of a mental state with respect to the homicidal act, as the common law had done, the Code instead established a rebuttable presumption that the perpetrator of an underlying felony in fact had the required mental state with respect to the killing
source
Under California law (Penal Code sec. 189), felony murder is any
murder
which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289
source
Sec. 206 is torture, sec. 286 is sodomy, sec. 288 and 288(a) are
lewd and lascicious acts on a child, and 289 is rape.
lunchstealer|7.20.07 @ 3:45PM|#
R. Tatoian? This isn't a publicity stunt for Pixar gone horribly
awry, is it?
Seriously, it's tragic that this officer died responding to this
manhunt. But shouldn't there be SOMETHING specific that the person
does that causes the death? I might have some sympathy if the
manhuntee does something extraordinary to evade arrest, like
leading officers into a dangerous swamp or desert where the officer
dies in an accident in an environment he's not trained for. Or if
he's in active high-speed pursuit on a highway and spins out when
the suspect makes some wild maneuver. But if the guy's just driving
fast to get from point a to point b and does so unsafely, that's
not something that the suspect caused. Hiding in some woods isn't
an action that one could reasonably expect to threaten the life of
an officer.
|7.20.07 @ 3:52PM|#
It wasn't the hiding in the woods that threatened the officer's
life. It was committing a crime, which most (all?) courts hold to
include making the getaway. If you commit a crime you should
anticipate that police will attempt to catch you, and that they may
endanger themselves in doing so.
I do NOT mean to endorse the result in this case, but it was
entirely foreseeable that a policeman racing to the scene of the
manhunt would get in a car accident and die, or cause the death of
some third party. Had the suspect "gotten away" (reached a place of
temporary safety and respite), that would have severed the chain of
events (and the suspect's potential liability for accidents), but
it sounds like he was still actively on the run.
Dave W.|7.20.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Seriously, it's tragic that this officer died responding to
this manhunt. But shouldn't there be SOMETHING specific that the
person does that causes the death? I might have some sympathy if
the manhuntee does something extraordinary to evade arrest, like
leading officers into a dangerous swamp or desert where the officer
dies in an accident in an environment he's not trained for. Or if
he's in active high-speed pursuit on a highway and spins out when
the suspect makes some wild maneuver. But if the guy's just driving
fast to get from point a to point b and does so unsafely, that's
not something that the suspect caused. Hiding in some woods isn't
an action that one could reasonably expect to threaten the life of
an officer.
These kind of causality issues are explored in lots of classic tort
cases like Palsgraf and Wagon Mound. Doctrines like intervening act
and last clear chance come up, too. Interesting stuff, but it sort
of goes out the window when you go to a "strict liability" regime
as Missouri has here.
The judge probably should have thrown the case out, or directed a
verdict or whatever, when a BAC of the deceased was not provided to
the court. To me, no BAC means automatic reasonable doubt about
what really caused the death. If he hadn't been racing to the
manhunt, then he just would have been drunk driving somewhere else
and probably taken out a family or two of pedestrians. The felon
actually saved a bunch of lives.
|7.20.07 @ 4:20PM|#
"One is that you must be actually involved in a bona fide
felony. Presumably another is that your felony must have some nexus
to the felony that the Missouri cop is trying to make a felony
arrest on."
Pardon me, but that is one BIG NEXUS.
ktc2|7.20.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Haven't the concepts of intent and mens rhea been pretty much
eliminated from US law at this point?
Not "on paper" of course but de facto.
|7.20.07 @ 4:37PM|#
There's another problem.The guy's a trained sniper yet he's going to work after drinking?This from the same people that say that one drink and you can't drive.
|7.20.07 @ 5:07PM|#
What's wrong with charging someone with crimes that are the foreseeable outcomes of crimes they did intend to commit? If someone tries to kill the guy next to you, but injures you instead, would you request the charges to be dropped because he didn't intend to injure you? While I'm with you most of the time, sometimes the "I'm against cops" routine can take a turn for the absurd. Sometimes it's OK to put people in prison.
|7.20.07 @ 5:11PM|#
I would imagine the conviction will be overturned, but it is scary that these same jurors vote for President. No wonder we get the guys we do in the White House.
|7.20.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Greg,that's flawed reasoning.The man would be directly linked to shooting you. Officers when rushing to a scene are still obliged to proceed in a safe and resonable manner.It is apparent he caused the crash.His estate should be liable for any damage he caused.
|7.20.07 @ 6:12PM|#
"One could make an argument here that this was a reasonable
conviction. There clearly is a causal/effect relationship here.
That is, if this guy hadn't committed armed robbery and shot at the
police, this officer would still be alive."
That's just idiotic. For someone to be held FULLY culpable for a
specific outcome, they should at least do something that has a
forseeable outcome of a specific sort of harm. It should just
blanket cover ANY random thing that happens, especially when its
quite clear that it is NOT a common or normal occurrence for a
drunk officer to drive off the road as a result of you hiding in
the WOODS.
|7.20.07 @ 6:14PM|#
"There's another problem.The guy's a trained sniper yet he's
going to work after drinking?This from the same people that say
that one drink and you can't drive."
Yeah, I wonder what MADD's response to this is.
Serve alcohol to minors to keep them from driving somewhere else to
drink and then driving home? Life in prison. Drink and drive at
unsafe speeds, get sainted? Explain that logic.
|7.20.07 @ 6:31PM|#
intent and mens rhea
The womens rhea is definitely less attractive. And those emus!
Don't get me started.
|7.20.07 @ 6:46PM|#
Michael,
It isn't "flawed reasoning" to say that someone ought to be tried
for crimes that are the foreseeable outcomes of the intended crime.
Now, you might argue that the cop broke the chain of causation, but
I think it's foreseeable that a person who commits a felony will be
chased by police (in the same way that malpractice is foreseeable
and does not relieve an original tortfeasor of liability).
None of that is to say that the police officer doesn't have his own
duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would under the
circumstances, and perhaps his estate is separately liable for a
different tort. But just because he might have breached some duty
shouldn't relieve the original criminal of liability.
THAT, Mike, is flawed reasoning.
|7.20.07 @ 8:51PM|#
This is my favorite, altought the court (barely) got it
right:
Appeal No. 82,647: State v. Sanexay Sophophone
The court, in a 4-3 decision, holds that Sophophone may not be
convicted of felony murder for the killing of his co-felon if the
co-felon was killed by a law enforcement officer acting in
self-defense while making an arrest. (In this case, Sophophone was
handcuffed and sitting in a patrol car when co-felon Somphone
Sysoumphone was killed after he fired at an officer and the officer
returned fire following an Emporia residential burglary.) Writing
for the majority is Justice Edward Larson. A dissent by Justice Bob
Abbott is joined by Chief Justice Kay McFarland and Justice Robert
E. Davis, reversing Lyon County District Court.
If this was allowed to stand, police could up your sentence by
shooting a few random people while arresting you.
|7.20.07 @ 9:26PM|#
It isn't "flawed reasoning" to say that someone ought to be tried for crimes that are the foreseeable outcomes of the intended crime.
What's flawed here is the idea that this is even remotely
foreseeable. The officer wasn't in pursuit of a felon, he was 30
miles away driving to a crime scene. And he was impaired, using the
standards that police and courts would use to judge a
"civilian".
Sorry, but even the most devoted cop sucker should be able to see
this as raw bullshit.
|7.20.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Greg,To think a suspect caused a cop to get in a car after drinking,speed down the road and crash is a leap of faith,not logic.It is also very likely against departmaet policy to report to work after drinking.I doubt his boss likes his snipers to down a few before sighting in he's .30 .06.So we have reckless operation and disragarding police policy.You can't break the rules to enforce the law.I also find it interesting,from what I know,his bac wasn't entered into the record.If your in a accident and have a low bac you will still face a much harsher sentance than a person that doesn't drink.Goverment statistics count an accident acohol related if anyone,not just the driver,has a bac of .01.Why was his hidden?
Ombibulous|7.20.07 @ 11:22PM|#
Isn't the point of this law to shift blame away from our militarized police and their reckless use of force. Of course then in turn authorizing the police to use such reckless force in any case where a felony is suspected without fear of disciplinary action. One wonders what would have happened if the officer in question had killed someone while driving impaired but had survived the accident himself.
|7.21.07 @ 12:26AM|#
At best, Mike, your argument just means that in this case, the
accident was not a foreseeable effect of the defendant's crime.
That's a fact question, and a jury decided you were wrong. Maybe
you're not. But my point is, it isn't anti-liberty to prosecute
felony murders the way Radley makes it sound. I think Radley has
done an absolutely amazing job chronicling police abuse and excess,
and he ought to be much more famous than he is for that work.
But at times he can go overboard, and this is one of those
times.
For the record, the standard isn't whether the defendant caused the
particular act that led to the death. It's whether the death is a
foreseeable outcome of the defendant's underlying felony. And it's
perfectly reasonable to assume that a fleeing felon will be chased
by law enforcement, and it's foreseeable that cop will act
negligently. As such, the criminal ought to be held liable. Again,
an original tortfeasor will still be held liable for his tort, even
if an intervening act (e.g., a negligent rescue; medical
malpractice) exacerbates the injury, provided the intervening act
was foreseeable. I see this case as analogous, and I would've voted
happily to convict.
That said, I'd likely also vote to impose liability on the cop for
whatever damage he did while driving negligently. The conviction
and the cop's liability are not mutually exclusive.
|7.21.07 @ 3:10AM|#
Greg-As a 1L I think you are correct that the analysis is one of
foreseeability. It seems obvious to me you have some knowledge with
the law. Then perhaps you are familiar with the judicial saying "on
a clear day everything is foreseeable." Is it foreseeable when you
commit a crime that police are going to come? Yes. Is it
foreseeable that they will drive impaired, be in a wreck and kill
someone ON THE WAY to the crime (not at the scene of in giving
chase) while you are dozens of miles away? That's only foreseeable
in the sense of "could remotely happen" and it strikes me for the
concept of foreseeability to have any bounded meaning it must mean
something more like "likely." To use a legal term I find it highly
extraordinary that one event led to the other, and in respect for a
meaningful concept of personal responsibility, I would argue the
suspect is not personally responsible for this event.
As I argued a while back in a post on the insanity defense a view
that takes personal responsibility seriously must be one that has a
boundary where we say "here we will not hold a person
responsibility." The person who holds another person culpable for
events for which they had no control over does not in my opinion
have a real respect for personal responsibility, they just like
punishment. I think the insanity defense recognizes something
deeply held in our society; that we will always hold culpable those
who were in control of the bad events they caused, but not those
who were not. In the same fashion I think that in this case
(perhaps not all felony murder cases) this person was not in
control of nor caused this event. The cop did.
|7.21.07 @ 9:03AM|#
Greg,if this guy,a police sniper,had made the scene and shot the wrong person due to drinking was that foreseeable too?The bac was never reveiled and I'm sure the prosecution didn't want to argue it was a non-factor when they use the opposite tatic agaist defendants every day.They can't have it both ways.Pushing zero tolerance on the public,yes you can be charged with DUI with a low bac,then disregarding it when conveinent is highly suspect.If this officer would have been hit by someone who had been drinking instead would they have charged the driver and the suspect they were looking for.
|7.21.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy:
Hang in there, 1L, you'll learn some law one day. Again (and this
is getting exhausting): neither medical malpractice nor negligent
rescue is an unforeseeable intervening act that relieves an
original tortfeasor of liability. Similarly, the fact that the cop
acted negligently should not relieve this defendant of his own
criminal liability.
You're just wrong that "foreseeable" means "likely." You might
think it should mean that, but it just simply doesn't. Again, 1L,
hang in there.
Mike:
Police negligence is foreseeable in the same way that medical
malpractice is. If you commit a tort that, say, requires foot
surgery, and the doctor negligently amputates the foot, you'll be
liable for the amputation, because malpractice is foreseeable (not
necessarily "likely," 1L).
All the rest of these collateral issues (e.g., "zero tolerance,"
hypocrisy, cops held to a different standard) are all worthless in
the analysis of a) is the law a good one? and b) does this case fit
the facts necessary to convict under the law? They might be good
policy debates, but they're utterly irrelevant to the legal
analysis. I'd bet even Nice Guy up there could get that right.
|7.21.07 @ 10:11AM|#
Greg,we'er not talking if he was negligent,the officer commited a crime.If a doctor kills someone while drunk he would be criminally liable,much like a pilot fo an aircraft.I totally agree with you on negligent part.
|7.21.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Eric Robert Rudolph was in the mountains (of North Carolina?)
for well over a year. Police/FBI/BATF agents were in "active
pursuit" of him for the entire time.
So Eric Robert Rudolph would be responsible for the results of ANY
accident that ANY of the 1000+ agents who were actively involved in
the search for him for over a year, as long as they were driving to
the initial search point for "that" day?
Absolutely amazing logic.
CB
|7.21.07 @ 12:02PM|#
cracker's boy,The scope of law has expanded to include almost everyone in the country.I would say 100 or even 50 years ago one could go through life without breaking any law.Now that's almost immpossible,weather it's tax law,driving[seatbelts and child seats],drugs and alcohol,or playing poker at a club with friends[In my state,ohio,it is illegal to play poker at my golf club and is a violation of the liquor laws].I wonder how we managed when I was growing up 30 years ago.
Randy England|7.21.07 @ 1:21PM|#
It gets even more ridiculous when the underlying felony is more of an administration felony. There's a guy who had an accident while driving with a suspended license. No alcohol, no drugs. Just an accident. His passenger died and he is charged with felony-murder. Go here for details: http://blog.jeffcitylaw.com
|7.21.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Randy,A late hunting friend of mine would like to smoke a joint on the way home after we finised sai it helped the pais in his damaged knee.I drove,I had the dogs and truck,and I always had a cigar,sometimes cuban.The way I understand the laws today,if caught I would have been guilty of a felony since guns were present although the amount of pot he had was a $50 fine in Ohio.
|7.21.07 @ 10:20PM|#
Newburn-I think I explicitly said that the concept of
foreseeability should be something more like "likely" or
"probability" in order for it to make sense. I think the fact that
so many on this thread find it, well, strange for this man to be
held liable here demonstrates that common sense notions of what is
included inside and outside the "chain of causation" would find
this event to be on the outside. I'm quite aware that many courts
would come to this conclusion, I'm just saying it's quite
silly.
In addition, I'm confused by your vehemence in saying that
foreseeable is so different from "likely." In fact the Restatement
2nd uses the concept "extraordinary" in this area, as in not highly
extraordinary in retrospect. Something that is extraordinary is
unlikely, right?
|7.21.07 @ 11:30PM|#
Great. So when I drive from Idaho into Washington and forget to
buckle my seatbelt and the Washington cop kills someone while
chasing after me, I'm responsible?
Just because they CAN convict the guy for felony murder doesn't
mean it's just.
|7.22.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Greg-
The "foreseeability" standard in a criminal case such as this can't
be compared to the standard in a tort case. You're right -- if I
injure you, and then you're further injured due to medical
malpractice, or the ambulance crashing on the way to the hospital,
or whatever else, I can be held liable for the further injury. But
in a criminal case the standard is (and really does have to be) far
higher. For felony murder, it's foreseeable that if you're holding
up a liquor store clerk and she has a heart attack and dies on the
spot. It's not foreseeable that a cop who's been drinking is going
to drive negligently from 30 miles away.
I think you're overestimating the foreseeability of the result
here. I'm not sure this would even satisfy the old Pfalsgraff test
if it was a tort case, let alone a criminal case.
|7.22.07 @ 9:04PM|#
More for Greg--
The problem is (and you obviously understand this) that the law
violates most people's idea of common sense. That's why it's being
held up here for ridicule.
If I borrow my brother's car and get into a car accident, he can be
held liable for my accident. Even sillier, if he sells a stranger
his car, but forgets to register the sale, he can be held liable
for the stranger's car accidents. To somebody outside the legal
profession, this appears unfair, even unjust. And truly, it
is.
Lawyer logic and common sense often don't mix very well. And that's
why so many people hold the legal profession in low esteem. The law
is an ass.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245