Yes, it is a fair question. The bottom line seems to be that you seem to feel that if a person commits any offense, regardless of the severity, then they should be criminally responsible for any and all outcomes regardless if intervening causes. In this case, the intervening causes would be the reckless conduct and incompetency of the responding officers. In civil cases, the injuries must be "reasonably foreseeable" to hold a defendant liable in damages. I think the reason Texas law requires the commission of a felony and a related death before charging a defendant with murder is to somewhat extend this same concept to criminal law.EEllis wrote:Because I don't think it was a fair question. It's like asking when you stopped hitting your wife.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Why didn't you answer the question that was asked?EEllis wrote:But why don't we leave it where it is. The officer doesn't pull out in the street and hits anyone but instead crashed into a car in minute 5 of your police chase that occurred when you failed to pull over. Where does the logic stop? With the Jury. We need to trust the jury can understand the difference between the two scenarios and apply the law reasonable and correctly.jmra wrote: Let's take this a step further. You are going 7mph over the speed limit. An officer is parked on the side of the road. As he pulls onto the road to stop you he pulls out in front of a car and kills the driver in the other car. You are now charged with vehicular manslaughter? Where does this line of logic stop? Very dangerous thought process. Hope the judge tells the DA he's an idiot.
Chas.
Wrong! Try reading my posts before you start attributing position statements on my behalf. My complaint is with the charges that were filed against the defendant, i.e. assault charges due to the reckless conduct of the officers. I'm not saying one thing about charging the officers, or letting them "off the hook" as you say. Why do you feel the need to rush to the officers' defense when I'm not saying they should be prosecuted?EEllis wrote:The theory of legal liability for events as a consequence of illegal activity is well established. Your main issue is that Texas law requires a felony and you think it lets cops off the hook right?
Again, for purposes of this thread, I don't care one whit about the officers, so you can leave them out of any responsive posts.EEllis wrote:Well it happened in NY so unless there is some incite into NY state law I'm not sure how one can castigate the DA for operating under NY law and the fact that one can ascribe legal liability to a lawbreaker does not prevent the DA from holding police officers accountable. There is no legal bar that I know of them to prevent both parties from being charged. Yes I understand that would make both cases infinitely harder to win but that does not prevent anyone from trying AFAIK
You apparently don't know what NY law is either, but NY and NJ have a very poor track record in terms of filing frivolous charges. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is involved in at least three cases where peace officers from others states were arrested by NY COPs for unlawfully carrying handgun. When the officers said LEOSA makes it legal, the response in all three cases was, "this is New York and we don't [care] about federal law." More importantly I made it clear I'm talking about Texas law and the absurdity of charging the subject in NYC if that State's law allows for such charges.
Chas.