NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who haven't heard, two news helicopters covering a people chase crashed, four people died. I saw this in a news article.

The police chief said the suspect will likely face criminal charges for the deaths in the helicopter crash.

So, does he deserve to be held responsible? I was also wondering, do you think that an arsonist deserves to be held responsible for the deaths of fire-fighters fighting one of their fires?

Personally I think no to the former and yes to the latter, but I'm having trouble giving a reason for it. I don't think that the people in those helicopters were closely connected enough for it to be that man's fault. Am I being inconsistent? Also I am aware that there is another thread about this somewhere, but this isn't really about the news story. So, how closely connected should you have to be to someone's death to be held responsible for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/helicopter.crash/

There's already a topic about the crash on p.1, but it's not specifically about responsibility, so I guess this is a bit different. ;)

As to the examples, an arsonist will always be held accountable for the occupants of the building's deaths, whether they're firemen or kids playing in an attic.

My non-professional understanding of things like the felony/murder rule would have me think that the guy the police were chasing would be responsible here, but there may be ways of wiggling out of it. There's no murder here of course, but a similar principle applies, I believe.

Basically, if the other person put themselves into a position of danger by their own accord, it becomes their own responsibility. Neither the news helicopter crews nor the firemen have to be in danger, they choose to be.

So no, neither the driver nor the arsonist should be charged with the deaths of these other people.

Basically, if the other person put themselves into a position of danger by their own accord, it becomes their own responsibility. Neither the news helicopter crews nor the firemen have to be in danger, they choose to be.

So no, neither the driver nor the arsonist should be charged with the deaths of these other people.

I think the idea of forseeability figures into those. :p When you set a fire, firemen generally show up and put it out, etc.

When you set a fire, firemen generally show up and put it out, etc.
Well yeah, but where's the heroism in that?

No, the firemen go in by their own accord, fully aware of the dangers they face. I don't think anyone should be punished for a death that was "agreed to", for want of a better phrase.

But don't ask me, I thought the cannibal who asked for a victim on the web, found one and signed a contract that he was allowed to kill and eat him shouldn't have been charged either.

You can also consider this.

If the Helicopter just went off to do some traffic report, and if this chase never happened, would it be all those people's fault because they were on the road where that heli was watching and crashed for it's own mechanical reasons?

I think not.

Well yeah, but where's the heroism in that?

No, the firemen go in by their own accord, fully aware of the dangers they face. I don't think anyone should be punished for a death that was "agreed to", for want of a better phrase.

But don't ask me, I thought the cannibal who asked for a victim on the web, found one and signed a contract that he was allowed to kill and eat him shouldn't have been charged either.

Agree with the whole post.And the last bit.

Well yeah, but where's the heroism in that?

No, the firemen go in by their own accord, fully aware of the dangers they face. I don't think anyone should be punished for a death that was "agreed to", for want of a better phrase.

But don't ask me, I thought the cannibal who asked for a victim on the web, found one and signed a contract that he was allowed to kill and eat him shouldn't have been charged either.

The firemen freely choose the job, but beyond that, are obligated to show and perform their duty. Heroism is great, but there's usually a set procedure in dealing with a fire, which has risks that are known beforehand. If people go setting fires, they create that risk unnecessarily.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that an arsonist who unknowingly kills kids playing in an attic shouldn't be held accountable on the basis of ignorance. In many cases, you can't really know what the full effect of your firesetting will be - proceeding despite those risks should make an arsonist accountable.

Knotthole Glade;12915426']Agree with the whole post.And the last bit.

I don't recall all the details of the German cannibal case, but if the guy was begging to be killed and the killer wasn't a doctor, it would probably be an unlawful mercy-killing here. :p Which wouldn't mean life in prison, but wouldn't be minor, either.

The firemen freely choose the job, but beyond that, are obligated to show and perform their duty. Heroism is great, but there's usually a set procedure in dealing with a fire, which has risks that are known beforehand. If people go setting fires, they create that risk unnecessarily.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that an arsonist who unknowingly kills kids playing in an attic shouldn't be held accountable on the basis of ignorance. In many cases, you can't really know what the full effect of your firesetting will be - proceeding despite those risks should make an arsonist accountable.

Thats also goes with Police Helicopter Pilots. You know what you are going to be doing. Tracking down criminals. Following running criminals. It isn't the criminals fault who is driving a car, of the crashing of the helicopter.

Note though that the kids didn't freely choose to expose themselves to a dangerous situation. They just sorta get caught up in it.


I suppose it's sorta obvious but I think euthanasia should be legal as well.

Not to sound like a broken record, but it sort of comes down to forseeability for me. :p That's fine though, and I agree for the most part about euthanasia. :)

Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that an arsonist who unknowingly kills kids playing in an attic shouldn't be held accountable on the basis of ignorance.
Note though that the kids didn't freely choose to expose themselves to a dangerous situation. They just sorta get caught up in it.

I don't recall all the details of the German cannibal case, but if the guy was begging to be killed and the killer wasn't a doctor, it would probably be an unlawful mercy-killing here. :p Which wouldn't mean life in prison, but wouldn't be minor, either.
I suppose it's sorta obvious but I think euthanasia should be legal as well.

Not to sound like a broken record, but it sort of comes down to forseeability for me.
Hey, I'm not one to dabble into the dark arts of legal studies. Forseeability to me just sounds like a badly camouflaged attempt to make me responsible for the actions of others, which just leads to safety warnings that shampoo isn't a drink.

Hey, I'm not one to dabble into the dark arts of legal studies. Forseeability to me just sounds like a badly camouflaged attempt to make me responsible for the actions of others, which just leads to safety warnings that shampoo isn't a drink.

That's probably where juries come into the equation. :p The whole 'reasonable person' standard and all that. A reasonable person would expect teams of firemen to arrive when they throw a firebomb through someone's window, whereas a reasonable person probably *wouldn't* drink their shampoo thinking it a beverage. If you draw twelve idiots for the jury at your trial or product liability suit, you might get a bad result, but I think we can have some measure of faith in our peers to make the right decision most of the time.

Obviously the pilots and thereby the news stations should be held accountable for the crash, not the people in the chase.


The pilots flew into an unsafe area, basically each others airspace with total disregarding to anyone else.
I can understand that tough competition in trying to get the 'scoop' before anyone else is one of the major factors in this, but that doesn't excuse the lack of professionalism of the pilots.
The news stations' accountability should come into it as being aware and probably encouraging the dangerous practises of their pilots, while not doing anything to stop it. Therefore they should be prohibited from any arial filming or broadcasting any arial footage for at least 5 years.

i'd tend to agree with you Dryks. it's utterly ridiculous that the man should be held accountable for a crash caused by pilot error. there is no necessity for the helicopters to cover a police chase, they are there on their own accord to get footage for viewing figures and the money that generates. firefighters are different because, while they do fully accept the risks of the job by taking it, if the fire is started deliberately there is clear responsibility for any deaths that occur as a result of it. if a news van parked too close to a burning building and caught fire killing the occupants that is the reporters' faults for being idiots, they didn't have to park there they just did to get the best coverage, same principle here. emergency services personnelle are on the scene of these things out of necessity and casualties among them are directly accountable to the person creating the risk factors, which is usually the criminal but sometimes obviously you get idiot firemen and policemen and whathaveyou. that sort of thing ought to be aassessed on a case by case basis.

There was a third helicopter in the area, a FOX NEWS one.
<Starts conspiracy theory>

firefighters are different because, while they do fully accept the risks of the job by taking it, if the fire is started deliberately there is clear responsibility for any deaths that occur as a result of it.
And if some suicidal person decides to take the opportunity and kills himself by running into the flames?

So the chase is responsible for the crash? Ok, so is the police department for giving chase. Families of the helicopter occupants get your police lawsuits ready.

The pilots are responsible. How could they not be?

I am not really sure how close you need to be (ethically or whatever).

I know someone who is in jail for life for felony murder, he was in the car when a few friends robbed a convenience store and shot the clerk. He wasn't the shooter, or the get away driver or anything, he was just in the car. He claims to this day that he didn't know that they were going to do anything illegal, and didn't know the guy got shot until a few hours later.

I guess what it comes down to is choose your company wisely and in this case don't run from the f'ing cops.

So the chase is responsible for the crash? Ok, so is the police department for giving chase. Families of the helicopter occupants get your police lawsuits ready.


How about we do one better? A car accident occurs. The sole victim claims it's because the driver was distracted by the billboard advertising that's been there for months on end. Lawsuits follow.

I mean, this is ridiculous. What next, people jumping on train tracks and suing the railways?

No, for either those of those in the helicopters, or the firefighters.

The pilots are responsible for what happens when in flight, hence, if anybody is responsible, it might as well be they.

It's in the fireman's job contract to run into a burning building. That's what they do, and they understand the risks involved, but even if the firemen do everything perfect, there is a risk. That situation wouldn't BE dangerous if it wasn't for the arsonist, and so I reckon a fair bit of blame should be directed at him/her.

However, unless stinger missiles were involved and such, the thing that puts a helicopter whirling it's blades in front of the face of death is the incompetence of the pilot.

Let's face it, if it wasn't for the arsonist, there wouldn't be a fire danger to cause the accident. But suing the criminal these bozos were chasing is like suing the petrochemical companies for fueling up the choppers in the first place.

And if some suicidal person decides to take the opportunity and kills himself by running into the flames?

That's a very good question (as are many of the ones following it). I might have to think about that for a bit. But if I had to pull an opinion out of my arse I'd say no, because the person was suicidal and was going to kill himself anyway. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to bring the law into this.

And if some suicidal person decides to take the opportunity and kills himself by running into the flames?

that's why i say it should be assessed on a case by case basis. if someone is stupid enough to put themselves in unnecessary danger then regardless of the causes of the fire they are the ones responsible for their death. they'd come under the same group as the news reporters parking too close to the fire for the best shot.

For those of you who haven't heard, two news helicopters covering a people chase crashed, four people died. I saw this in a news article.



So, does he deserve to be held responsible? I was also wondering, do you think that an arsonist deserves to be held responsible for the deaths of fire-fighters fighting one of their fires?

Personally I think no to the former and yes to the latter, but I'm having trouble giving a reason for it. I don't think that the people in those helicopters were closely connected enough for it to be that man's fault. Am I being inconsistent? Also I am aware that there is another thread about this somewhere, but this isn't really about the news story. So, how closely connected should you have to be to someone's death to be held responsible for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/helicopter.crash/

No. The helicopters crashed because of pilot negligence.

The arsonist, yes. The firefighters died trying to save lives, not to feed a ridiculous thirst for entertainment news.

So the chase is responsible for the crash? Ok, so is the police department for giving chase. Families of the helicopter occupants get your police lawsuits ready.

except the police are not the ones who committed the underlying felony that lead to the crash. Duh?

Read the felony murder rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder). Now this is arguably too remoted to qualify, but I don't know particular state law on this issue.

And if some suicidal person decides to take the opportunity and kills himself by running into the flames?

arguably one could argue that a suicidal person would have killed himself in some mannor or another soon enough, and therefore would not have lived but for the fire, so no proximite cause

But suing the criminal these bozos were chasing is like suing the petrochemical companies for fueling up the choppers in the first place.

who ever said anything about suing them? The original quote was about bring murder charges against them under the felony murder rule.

Holding an arsonist responsable for any deaths as a result of their actions makes sense, because one would expect that setting a fire would result in firemen coming to the scene who may be injured trying to put out the fire.

A guy running from the cops should only be responsable for the car crashes he might cause in his flight. I don't think a helecopter crash is a forseeable consequence of his actions, that's just the stupidity of the pilots.

Holding an arsonist responsable for any deaths as a result of their actions makes sense, because one would expect that setting a fire would result in firemen coming to the scene who may be injured trying to put out the fire.

A guy running from the cops should only be responsable for the car crashes he might cause in his flight. I don't think a helecopter crash is a forseeable consequence of his actions, that's just the stupidity of the pilots.

I dunno, if I were a DA, I'd put up an argument that after the good old white ford bronco chase, it's reasonable to expect news coverage of your attempted getaway.

There was a third helicopter in the area, a FOX NEWS one.
<Starts conspiracy theory>

Like it :D

The Fox News pilot radioing 'Look over there, a white Ford Bronco with O.J. driving', distracting the other 2 pilots at the critical point.