User avatar
WildcatYXU
Topic Author
Posts: 2602
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Is It True Or Hoax?

Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:21 pm

According to this

http://reason.com/blog/show/121523.html

a 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.

Well, if it's true, you have some interesting law down there. Even the worst commie dictators weren't able to come up with something like this.

I really hope that the whole thing is hoax.
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
seb146
Posts: 13756
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:19 am

I don't give much creedence to blogs so, here is an article from a local website:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...CFBDC8625731E0012B1E8?OpenDocument

It irritates me when troopers think they can go as fast as they can even with their lights and sirens on. They pose a danger to other drivers. The article says the trooper had consumed alcohol, but there were trace amounts. Okay. But there is no excuse for speeding in a construction zone and there is no excuse for not paying attention. The accused should have these charges dropped.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:02 am

I think it's a good idea. Just take a look at programs like COPS and similar shows on Court TV, where you see tons of people who decide to run from the law, because the penalties for running away are often trivial, compared to whatever the original charge would have been (robbery, DUI, whatever). I think it is a good message to send to everyone - Don't run from police, or else we will lay EVERYTHING that happens as a result of your flight on your doorstep.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:16 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
I think it is a good message to send to everyone

I disagree and say it's a terrible message to send to lawyers: penalise someone for something he had no direct influence on, and you can sue employers for damages if they fire employees who run amok over the issue. Of course people need to mind the consequences of their actions - but not the actions of others who should very much be able to do just the same.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
I disagree and say it's a terrible message to send to lawyers: penalise someone for something he had no direct influence on, and you can sue employers for damages if they fire employees who run amok over the issue.

No, I'm talking about a very specific issue - running from police.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:38 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Thread starter):
a 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.

The man committed an armed robbery, aggravated assault, and attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.

The trooper was responding to a man hunt as the result of the criminals activity and was killed in a traffic accident in the process of responding to the crime.

Under Virginias Felony Murder statute any death that occurs as a result of the commission of a felony is a murder by the person who perpetrated the felony. The troopers death was just such a death.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 1):
Okay. But there is no excuse for speeding in a construction zone

Including responding to a crime in progress with an armed fugative?

Next time you need the police, I'll make sure to obey the speed limit.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
penalise someone for something he had no direct influence on

He sure as hell had a direct influence on it.

Why else do you think there was a multi-county call up?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):

Good post - I agree with all of it. I do have a question though, you cite Virginia's statue, yet this happened in Missouri. Essentially the same law in both states?
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
He sure as hell had a direct influence on it.

He had no influence on the blood alcohol level of the trooper or his driving skills. Of course running from the police puts him at an even bigger disadvantage, as it should, but how did he actually make the man crash?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:53 am

Ooops, sorry.

Was posting in another window about Virginia law regarding another incident involving state law vs city ordinance..

Should be Missouri.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7):
Of course running from the police puts him at an even bigger disadvantage, as it should, but how did he actually make the man crash?

He doesn't need to make the man crash.

The death only has to be a result of the crime perpetrated, not directly inflicted by the perpatrator of the crime.

A police response is the natural result of a crime of this order. An accident while in the conduct of that response is a direct result of the response occuring. In short, he couldn't have gotten into the fatal accident if he wasn't responding to the crime. Ergo, the accident is a result of the response which is a result of the crime.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
seb146
Posts: 13756
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
Including responding to a crime in progress with an armed fugative?

Next time you need the police, I'll make sure to obey the speed limit.

Good. I know what I am about to say covers a differet state and different circumstances, but my brother is a volunteer EMT in rural Eastern Washington. When he responds, he is allowed to only go 10MPH over the limit in extreme cases, otherwise it is the limit and nothing more even in the ambulance. In a costruction zone, whether it is police responding to an incident or simply on patrol, they should slow down anyway. Anyone, police or civilian, are endagering the lives of road crew workers by going over the posted limit in a construction zone. In the article, the officer could not see over the hill anyway.

There should be an extra penalty for running from the law. But, because the officer involved was not "on scene" but rather "on his way" IMO does not mean there shoud be an added penalty. IMO, the officer made his own mistakes in speeding and exercised poor judgement.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
A police response is the natural result of a crime of this order. An accident while in the conduct of that response is a direct result of the response occuring. In short, he couldn't have gotten into the fatal accident if he wasn't responding to the crime. Ergo, the accident is a result of the response which is a result of the crime.

I have no problem with the charges for felony assaultt and everything else, but Murder for an accident?

I want to see how that case of the Cardinal's pticher's father goes against the tow truck driver and motorist. According to this precedent, they are guilty of 2nd Degree Murder for Car Failure.


Totally Piss Poor ruling.

Cop wouldn't have been in an accident if he had been cautious and alert while driving. He was driving wrecklessly, whether required for his job or not, and payed the price.


What if he had had a prostitute giving him a BJ on the way to the scene?
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):

Still - an indirect influence. Nobody plans on being hunted by an - apparently - less-than-stellar driver policeman.  tombstone  to him BTW.

Anyway, I can't claim sufficient knowledge of the laws in question, but is this issue of indirect influence the reason for the second-degree murder charge as opposed to first-degree? And would these charges matter much in addition to his possible future sentences for these crimes?

Quote:
Stallmann was convicted of 10 felonies, including burglary and assaulting a law enforcement officer.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:09 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 11):
According to this precedent, they are guilty of 2nd Degree Murder for Car Failure.

Were they invloved in the comission of a felony?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 11):
Cop wouldn't have been in an accident if he had been cautious and alert while driving.

The defense failed to prove that.

Do you want to share something with us that apparently the defense didn't know?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:12 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
A police response is the natural result of a crime of this order. An accident while in the conduct of that response is a direct result of the response occuring. In short, he couldn't have gotten into the fatal accident if he wasn't responding to the crime. Ergo, the accident is a result of the response which is a result of the crime.

Interesting logic but doesn't work for American law. In order for a person to be guilty of a crime in the U.S. he has to posses both the criminal mind and criminal intent. I don't see how it is possible to prove that the suspect had the intention of making a trooper 30 miles away wreck his car. This case will probably be overturned.
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):
The defense failed to prove that.

Do you want to share something with us that apparently the defense didn't know?

How can the prosocution prove that someone who
1. Had Alcohol
2. Was Late to Callout
3. Died in a Crash of his own doing

was competent to drive,.

This issue went to a Jury that was too emotionally tied to the issue, and will be revoked on appeal.

Felony or not, this guy shouldn't be charged with Secondary Murder because of a Tardy Wreckless Cop.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:18 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):
Were they invloved in the comission of a felony?

Cops should not be above the law.
They are here to serve and Protect. Not get Preferential treatment for Stupidity.

I mean hell the Cop Died because he ran into a 2 Ton Weapon. Was the driver of that car charged with a Felony? He was more responsible for the death of that cop than the guy 30 miles away.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:20 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 12):
Still - an indirect influence.

It doesn't matter.

Any death as a result of the crime.

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 14):
In order for a person to be guilty of a crime in the U.S. he has to posses both the criminal mind and criminal intent.

No, not stricltly true.

There are generally four levels of Mens Rea.

1. Intent
2. Knowlege
3. Recklessness
4. Negligence


In order to be guilty of a crime that requires the knowing or willing mental states you would be right.

If all crimes required the first two levels, how would manslaughter or ciminal negligence be prosecuted?

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 14):
I don't see how it is possible to prove that the suspect had the intention of making a trooper 30 miles away wreck his car.

Don't need to.

The only proof of intent with this situation was for the original crime, the robbery, aggravated assault and attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.

The Felony Homicide does not require proof of intent because it falls under the third or fourth level of Mens Rea.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 15):
How can the prosocution prove that someone who
1. Had Alcohol
2. Was Late to Callout
3. Died in a Crash of his own doing

was competent to drive,.

BAC

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 16):
Cops should not be above the law.
They are here to serve and Protect. Not get Preferential treatment for Stupidity.

That isn't what I asked.

Were the tow truck driver and motorist involved in a felony?

If they weren't, they can't be charged with Felony Murder.

Now, were they involved in a Felony? Yes or No.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 16):
I mean hell the Cop Died because he ran into a 2 Ton Weapon. Was the driver of that car charged with a Felony?

Was the driver involved in a Felony?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 16):
He was more responsible for the death of that cop than the guy 30 miles away.

How so?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):
Were the tow truck driver and motorist involved in a felony?

If they weren't, they can't be charged with Felony Murder.

Now, were they involved in a Felony? Yes or No.

No,
And this Law eventually will be ruled unconstitutional for that very reason.

If the only precedent is that a person has committed a felony crime, then this means cruel and unusual punishment. Since it is a charge for a crime that wouldn't have occurred under normal circumstances.

As a defense Lawyer, I would do this at the appeal.

1. Since he was late.
2. Driving to fast.

How can we prove he wasn't going to break another work rule and go get donuts instead?
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 18):

If the car hadn't been there, the cop wouldn't have hit it and died. The felony, at this point in real life would be that to cause 2nd degree murder, someoen would have had to have had intent to swerve and hit a car.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:33 am

Stallmann’s lawyer, Robert Taaffe Jr., said what happened to Tatoian doesn’t meet the definition of the felony murder law and hopes the appeals court will overturn the conviction.

"The jury wanted to do something for Trooper Tatoian, it’s a gut instinct when you’re looking at this woman who lost her husband," Taaffe said. "Although it’s a tragedy, he was responsible for his own conduct. He was going to work and he died in a car crash. It’s not a criminal case."


 checkmark 

Sad story, but not murder.
 
MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:33 am

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 6):
Good post - I agree with all of it. I do have a question though, you cite Virginia's statue, yet this happened in Missouri. Essentially the same law in both states?

All 50 states have some form of felony murder law. It originated in the common law hundreds of years ago. Most states limit the associated felonies to robbery, rape, arson, burglary, and kidnapping... Also, most states have passed statutes defining felony murder rather than rely on the common law....
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 19):
No,
And this Law eventually will be ruled unconstitutional for that very reason.

That doesn't even make sense.

Someone that you introduced as a one off example doesn't meet the standards for being charged with the crime, making your example a complete load of garbage... so a person who does meet the standards will have his case ruled unconstitutional because? Because of what exactly?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 19):
If the only precedent is that a person has committed a felony crime, then this means cruel and unusual punishment.

How does this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 19):
Since it is a charge for a crime that wouldn't have occurred under normal circumstances.

No crimes occur under normal circumstances.

I hope you realize how garbage your argument is.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 19):
As a defense Lawyer, I would do this at the appeal.

Maybe you should work on that lawyer part before trying to overturn laws on constitutional grounds or representing clients.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 20):
If the car hadn't been there, the cop wouldn't have hit it and died.

The car being there isn't a felony.

You fall flat on your face again.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
omeone that you introduced as a one off example doesn't meet the standards for being charged with the crime, making your example a complete load of garbage... so a person who does meet the standards will have his case ruled unconstitutional because? Because of what exactly?

How can a person be charged with the death of someone 30 miles away?
Answer me that.

Felony law or not.
that is the point I am making.


Because if that is all it takes, then everytime a cop croaks on the job, some joe within 30 miles can be blamed.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:56 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
The car being there isn't a felony.

Neither is the guy being 30 miles away, but somehow that caused this troopers death?
If the trooper had been shot and killed by the guy, I would agree,. however the trooper had direct uninterfered control over his actions in that car. HE FAILED
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:03 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 24):
How can a person be charged with the death of someone 30 miles away?

Because that person was responding in a professional capacity to a crime committed by the person charged.

Why don't you take a break from posting and actually stop and read the Felony Murder law now.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 24):
Felony law or not.

Because you can't be charged with this crime if you haven't committed a felony.

Post #5, read the thread.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
Under Virginias Felony Murder statute any death that occurs as a result of the commission of a felony is a murder by the person who perpetrated the felony. The troopers death was just such a death.



Quoting CasInterest (Reply 24):
Because if that is all it takes, then everytime a cop croaks on the job, some joe within 30 miles can be blamed.

Only if that cop is killed in the process of responding to a crime committed by the person to be charged.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 25):
Neither is the guy being 30 miles away

He committed an armed robbery. That's a felony.

He committed an aggravated assault. That's a felony.

He committed an attempted murder on a law enforcement officer. That's a felony.

Where are you getting this person didn't commit a felony?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 25):
If the trooper had been shot and killed by the guy, I would agree,.

That wouldn't be Felony Murder. That would be Capital Murder or Murder 1 (depending on the state).

You are confusing your laws and the level or required involvement that seperates them.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:13 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
He committed an armed robbery. That's a felony.

He committed an aggravated assault. That's a felony.

He committed an attempted murder on a law enforcement officer. That's a felony..

he should be charge for that. I am not disputing that.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
Because you can't be charged with this crime if you haven't committed a felony.

Right so if ALL he had felony marijuana possession then he still would have been charged?

That's just BS, and over excessive punishment.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
Only if that cop is killed in the process of responding to a crime committed by the person to be charged.

So under a misdemeanor, the cop is under control of his car, and is directly esponsible for a crash?

So under a Felony, the cop has less control of his car, and by default is not responsible for the car?

If that is the case, as a concerned citizen bystander, i don't think cops should be allowed to have cars during felonies.

They aren't in control.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:27 am

Back from my civil defense days:

In Germany the driver of an emergency vehicle can use special rights (Sonerrechte) when in response to an emergency on authorisation by the dispatcher. He HAS to use his siren and flashing lights to announce to other drivers that he is using special rights.
BUT, when he is using special rights, he has to be extra cautious. He can not e.g. assume that, when crossing an intersection at red light, everybody has noticed him or will obey the special rights. Also he has to adapt his speed to the circumstances, e.g. in a construction zone with poor visibility he has to slow down. If anything happens, it is his responsibility. Firefighters, ambulance drivers and cops have been held responsible for their driving in the past.
BTW, the special rights only apply to duty vehicles. E.g. a volunteer fire fighter driving to the fire station / assembly point in response to an alert in his own vehicle (normally without siren and flashers) has no special privileges.

On the other hand we also have a law, which hold every member of a criminal organsisation responsible for people killed by other members. E.g. in 1993 the Red Army Faction terrorist Birgit Hogefeld was arrested during a firefight in a railway station. The German police set a trap for her and a fellow terrorist Wofgang Grahms in the railway station of Bad Kleinen. The Federal Police special unit GSG9 was ordered to arrest the two of them. The mission ended up in a fire fight between the police and the terrorists. While Hogefeld was disarmed and subdued early in the raid, Grahms shot and killed a police officer Michael Newzrella before he got killed himself.
Hogefeld was still accused and sentenced for being an accomplice in the murder of Newzrella (among other crimes she had perpetrated, like the killing of the American soldier Edward Pimental, who was lured into a trap by a female terrorist and then killed to get access to his military ID to plant a bomb in the US Rhein-Main Airbase.), even though rat the time of the fatal shooting she was already disarmed and handcuffed.
Being a member of the terrorist organisation, being armed and at the same place was enough to sentence her for murder. No doubt, if the police wouldn't have been able to overpower her by surprise (which failed in the case of Grahms, leading to the gun fight) she would have opened fire as well.
She is currently serving a life sentence without parole for murder in multiple cases, causing a malicious explosion and various offenses against the fire arms act and other laws.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:53 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
Why don't you take a break from posting and actually stop and read the Felony Murder law now.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903

2903.01 Aggravated murder.
(A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.

(B) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit, kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, terrorism, or escape.

(C) No person shall purposely cause the death of another who is under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.

(D) No person who is under detention as a result of having been found guilty of or having pleaded guilty to a felony or who breaks that detention shall purposely cause the death of another.

(E) No person shall purposely cause the death of a law enforcement officer whom the offender knows or has reasonable cause to know is a law enforcement officer when either of the following applies:

(1) The victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, is engaged in the victim’s duties.

(2) It is the offender’s specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated murder, and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code.

(G) As used in this section:

(1) “Detention” has the same meaning as in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) “Law enforcement officer” has the same meaning as in section 2911.01 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 05-15-2002

2903.02 Murder.
(A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.

(B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree and that is not a violation of section 2903.03 or 2903.04 of the Revised Code.

(C) Division (B) of this section does not apply to an offense that becomes a felony of the first or second degree only if the offender previously has been convicted of that offense or another specified offense.

(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of murder, and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 06-30-1998


******************************************************

The above is Ohio law. Under Ohio law he in not guilty of the officers death.

As for the predicate felony.


(2) It is the offender’s specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

The offender did not intend for the officer to die.

and



(B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree and that is not a violation of section 2903.03 or 2903.04 of the Revised Code.


30 miles away, in my opinion, fails the proximate clause.

[Edited 2007-07-24 21:54:26]

[Edited 2007-07-24 21:58:59]
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 27):
Right so if ALL he had felony marijuana possession then he still would have been charged?

If all he had done was a felony marijuana charge I highly doubt there would have been a multi-county call up and man hunt. But yes, if all he had done was felony possession and this trooper had been responding to that crime and killed in an accident while responding, then the person would be charged with Felony Murder in conjunction with that death.

This really isn't a hard concept. Have you stopped to look up the law yet? It's very clear.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 27):
So under a misdemeanor, the cop is under control of his car, and is directly esponsible for a crash?

More precisely, the person charged with the misdemeanor can't be charged in the death of the officer as he hasn't committed a felony no matter what level of control over his vehicle the officer did or did not have at the time of the accident.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 27):
So under a Felony, the cop has less control of his car, and by default is not responsible for the car?

Garbage in garbage out.

The officers level of responsibility over his patrol vehicle has no bearing on the finding of guilt of the criminal party.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 27):
If that is the case, as a concerned citizen bystander, i don't think cops should be allowed to have cars during felonies.

They aren't in control.

And I don't think you should be allowed to post further on this forum until you gain at least a basic understanding of criminal law.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
Firefighters, ambulance drivers and cops have been held responsible for their driving in the past.

And they are over here too.

This is of course a complete and seperate issue from the finding of guilt on the part of the criminal party in this case.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
Being a member of the terrorist organisation, being armed and at the same place was enough to sentence her for murder.

This appears to be a direct correlation to the Felony Murder laws in the US.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:26 am

2) Commits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.


Herei t is straight from Missouri's statute.
No where does it mention that 2nd Degree Murder can be applied to a trooper that is driving 30 miles away.

Immediate Flight would be the point where this will get overturned in the court of appeal.
This trooper was not killed as result of the original felonies or the Immediate Flight.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
he officers level of responsibility over his patrol vehicle has no bearing on the finding of guilt of the criminal party.

Neither did his crash
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am

One point that needs clarification for me is the language used in the blog cited by the original poster: "Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest." The key word here is "arrest." I looked for the Missouri Felony murder law, and while there are many references to it, I could not find the exact language.

The reason I ask, is that I'm wondering if someone is arrested for a felony during which an officer is killed, is the person who was arrested still guilty of the felony murder even if it is subsequently determined that he/she was not guilty of the original felony?

For example, say a man is walking down the streets of St. Louis, MO, and he matches the description of a wanted felon. An officer sees the man, and starts to give chase (unknown to the suspect; it's a busy street and the officer is a ways behind him), but is killed along the way. Subsequently, the suspect is found not to be the person they were seeking after all. Is he still charged with felony murder?

In another variant, what if he is the suspect they were looking for, but is found not guilty of the felony charge?
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:36 am

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 29):
The above is Ohio law. Under Ohio law he in not guilty of the officers death.

That's great.

Too bad for him he didn't commit the crime in Ohio.

Was there a point to your post other than to introduce a law that has absolutely nothing to do with the situation?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 31):
Herei t is straight from Missouri's statute.
No where does it mention that 2nd Degree Murder can be applied to a trooper that is driving 30 miles away.

What?

Did you read what you posted?

Read it again:

Quote:

Second degree murder, penalty.
565.021. 1. A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if he:

(1) Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person; or

(2) Commits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.

2. Murder in the second degree is a class A felony, and the punishment for second degree murder shall be in addition to the punishment for commission of a related felony or attempted felony, other than murder or manslaughter.

3. Notwithstanding section 556.046, RSMo, and section 565.025, in any charge of murder in the second degree, the jury shall be instructed on, or, in a jury-waived trial, the judge shall consider, any and all of the subdivisions in subsection 1 of this section which are supported by the evidence and requested by one of the parties or the court.

It's right there Bolded and Underlined for you.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 31):
Immediate Flight would be the point where this will get overturned in the court of appeal.

You don't believe that a person hiding in the woods who is the subject of a man hunt is considered to be in the "immediate flight" phase of a crime? The crime is still in progress. Forget about Felony Evading? How can it be anything other than the Commission or immediate flight from a Felony?

Thank god you aren't a lawyer.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
He committed an armed robbery. That's a felony.

He committed an aggravated assault. That's a felony.

He committed an attempted murder on a law enforcement officer. That's a felony.

Where are you getting this person didn't commit a felony?



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
It's very clear.

When he was hiding, was a he a suspect or en escapee that had been convicted?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 30):
And I don't think you should be allowed to post further on this forum until you gain at least a basic understanding of criminal law.

I thought the requirements were 50 bucks and internet access.

Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it is right. This is one of the reasons there are Appeals to a Supreme Court.

Quote:
Gasconade County sheriff's deputies arrived. Stallmann fired once. Deputies fired 60 shots in return. One reserve deputy was grazed in the cheek by a bullet fired from another deputy.

then why wasn't he also charged for being a bad shot? Or was that also charged? As in additional charge, he shot a deputy by proxy? But 60 shots and they couldn't hit him? WTF were they shooting at? A STOP sign while drinking beer?

Quote:
He swerved around the disabled car but struck a truck.

He blew it. Not only that, the suspect was caught 2 hours later. In most States, if you hit a vehicle (I am assuming he rear ended it) from behind, you are at fault. Period. He was driving to fast for the conditions. Responding to a page out or not. He owed it to himself and his wife to drive responsibly.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):
in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.

 checkmark  That clears it up.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 31):
Immediate Flight would be the point where this will get overturned in the court of appeal.

I wouldn't think so.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 31):
This trooper was not killed as result of the original felonies or the Immediate Flight.

I would expect that there is some legal definition of Immediate Flight. It strikes me that if a manhunt is going on within just hours of the original felony (that's the impression I get from the story), Immediate Flight would be on-going. It is also not clear that the suspect was 30 miles from the commission of said felony. Perhaps the Policeman who was killed lived a substantial distance from the commission of the felony and the suspect's hiding place.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
When he was hiding, was a he a suspect or en escapee that had been convicted?

He was a suspect.

Hiding in the woods after committing an impressive string of felonies.

Only after being found guilty of those felonies can you be found guilty of Felony Murder. Which is what happened in this case.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
In most States, if you hit a vehicle (I am assuming he rear ended it) from behind, you are at fault. Period. He was driving to fast for the conditions. Responding to a page out or not. He owed it to himself and his wife to drive responsibly.

That's nice, but it has absolutely no bearing on the guilt of the party accused of Felony Murder.

Here's another example of Felony Murder so people can understand this.

Suppose suspect A sets a building on fire. That's Arson, a felony. Suppose that while responding to the fire, a fire truck has a blow out, swerves and hits a school bus killing twenty children. Suspect A can now be charged with one count of Arson and twenty counts of Felony Murder.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:32 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 37):
another example

I want to agree with it the law, but then at another level, there seems like something is wrong here.

It is sad that the officer died, I just really don't know if I can agree that the offender should be charged in this specific case.

The fire truck/bus example is a different set of circumstances an I can agree with.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:41 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 37):
Suppose suspect A sets a building on fire. That's Arson, a felony. Suppose that while responding to the fire, a fire truck has a blow out, swerves and hits a school bus killing twenty children. Suspect A can now be charged with one count of Arson and twenty counts of Felony Murder.

Really? So if I'm speeding and a police car starts to follow me, and through no fault of my own the police car crashes into a school bus killing 20, I'd be charged with manslaughter or even murder?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 38):
The fire truck/bus example is a different set of circumstances an I can agree with.

Ask yourself why.

The firetruck in the example was responding to a fire.
The Trooper was responding to a crime in progress.

I think what people object to in this case is that the trooper was thirty miles away when he was killed. That's not uncommon at all in most non-urban parts of Texas. I can only imagine that other states will face similar issues with troopers. Heck, Pep didn't have another trooper for hundreds of miles. The problem is doubly exacerbated by the fact this particular trooper was apparently called because he had a trained skill required for the man hunt.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 39):
Really? So if I'm speeding and a police car starts to follow me, and through no fault of my own the police car crashes into a school bus killing 20, I'd be charged with manslaughter or even murder?

Speeding in and of itself is not a felony, so no. If you are speeding in flight from police after committing a felony, then yes, you could be charged with Felony Murder (as defined in this thread), at least in Missouri or other states with this law.

At least that's my take on this.
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 41):
Speeding in and of itself is not a felony, so no. If you are speeding in flight from police after committing a felony, then yes, you could be charged with Felony Murder (as defined in this thread), at least in Missouri or other states with this law.

OK, well fraud is a felony. If on the way to investigate my fraud a tyre bursts on the police car, swerving into a bus killing 20 children, would I be charged with murder?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:58 am

Bust, I feel bad for the cop and especially his family. But being 30 miles away and driving to fast for conditions was poor judgment on his part. At that distance, what was the point? This obviously is not a legal position, I'm trying to get my head around the law. At first glance it doesn't seem right.

To bad the 60 shots (10 guys emptying a revolver, or 6 guys with Glock G23s) didn't hit him the first time. Where is Elmer Keith with an N Frame when you need hm?
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:07 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
But being 30 miles away and driving to fast for conditions was poor judgment on his part.

It probably was.

But, as this law is written that isn't taken into account. This law is blind to the circumstances of the death. It only accounts for the occurrence of the fatality, and that it was related to the crime.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
At that distance, what was the point?

Probably had his fangs through the floor boards.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
(10 guys emptying a revolver, or 6 guys with Glock G23s)

 Smile



Most police officers aren't very well trained with their firearms.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:52 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 42):
OK, well fraud is a felony. If on the way to investigate my fraud a tyre bursts on the police car, swerving into a bus killing 20 children, would I be charged with murder?

I'm not a legal expert, but here's my thought: If you are fleeing the scene of any felony, including fraud and the police are chasing you, then yes, you could be charged. However, investigation of fraud, to me, does not constitute "the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony," as described in the legal text below. Such relatively complex laws are why lawyers are often regretably necessary.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):
Second degree murder, penalty.
565.021. 1. A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if he:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):
(2) Commits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony.

I still have a question: if someone is arrested for a felony during which an officer (or anyone) is killed going to the scene to make the arrest, but the suspect is later found to be not guilty of the felony, does the language of the law " the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony" imply that if found not guilty, no "perpetration of said felony" occurred?
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 45):
I still have a question: if someone is arrested for a felony during which an officer (or anyone) is killed going to the scene to make the arrest, but the suspect is later found to be not guilty of the felony, does the language of the law " the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony" imply that if found not guilty, no "perpetration of said felony" occurred?

My understanding of the law is that yes, the suspect must be convicted of another felony crime or convicted of attempting to commit another felony crime in order to be convicted of Felony Murder. If the suspect is found to be not guilty of committing/attempting another felony crime than they may not be found guilty of Felony Murder.

In this case, I believe the suspect was convicted of ten other felonies.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5356
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34):
You don't believe that a person hiding in the woods who is the subject of a man hunt is considered to be in the "immediate flight" phase of a crime? The crime is still in progress. Forget about Felony Evading? How can it be anything other than the Commission or immediate flight from a Felony?

Explain to me how this guy in Immediate Flight was indirectly responsible for the death of the Sniper 30 miles away driving a car.

There was no proximity between the Felon or the cop. Thank God you aren;t a Judge.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:02 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 47):
Thank God

The idiocy is the law. Not the coppers (unless you can claim shooting another cop in the face is idiocy, but shit happens).

Can you still go to jail for corn wholling somebody in Georgia? What is the sense or maintaining the law on the books?
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Is It True Or Hoax?

Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:07 am

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 47):
Explain to me how this guy in Immediate Flight was indirectly responsible for the death of the Sniper 30 miles away driving a car.

Read the thread?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
The man committed an armed robbery, aggravated assault, and attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.

The trooper was responding to a man hunt as the result of the criminals activity and was killed in a traffic accident in the process of responding to the crime.

Under Virginias [later amended to Missouri because of error (post#8)] Felony Murder statute any death that occurs as a result of the commission of a felony is a murder by the person who perpetrated the felony. The troopers death was just such a death.



Quoting CasInterest (Reply 47):
There was no proximity between the Felon or the cop.

Proximity is required by the OHIO law. This case was tried under Missiouri law which has no proximity requirement.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], tommy1808 and 47 guests