I'm curious on peoples thoughts about this. A drunk driver is pulled over, and then...

[GummyBearz]

a third party runs over and kills the cop who pulled him over. The drunk driver is charged and convicted for the death of the cop. Is this justifiable? I am interested in other peoples opinions here

http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/drunk-driver-gets-8-years-for-cops-death-during-dwi-rampage/

[GOLGO 13]

1. Both drivers are responsible.

I have no problem with a degenerate drunk driver getting convicted.

[GummyBearz]

3. I have no problem with the DUI driver getting convicted for the crime he committed

Which was DUI... I just don't get how he is responsible for someone else running over the cop. Does this mean any time one sees a cop pull over a drunk driver, its open season to kill the cop and pin it on the DUI driver?

[Svafa]

6. I agree.

If it had been someone pulled over for speeding and not DUI, would we be attempting to justify holding them accountable for the officer's death?

[WillowTree]

14. I would. For the same reason as stated below.

[Hortensis]

26. The original driver's drinking and then driving is the

initial proximate cause of the death of the police officer. The responsibility of the second driver does not negate this. This is a very, very, very old legal concept that has endured through every change of society since.

[Fairgo]

27. Yep

That's the argument.

[Hortensis]

28. Attorney?

Any notion how old this may be? I was taught it arose from English Common Law, but I figure a lot of that was probably old and established 5000 years ago in, oh, Damascus, and many other places.

[Fairgo]

31. No thanks, I've got one of my one.

But seriously, I get most of my legal education from watching Boston Legal reruns. I just wanted to agree with you about something. And you were right...that would be the argument, given the case as presented. I have no idea what the finer points would be.

[Hortensis]

43. L.A. Law was my favorite, but I think at least one of

its writers worked on Boston Legal. Me either on the legal points, but there's so much western centrism in our "history," and you just know the notion that this stuff arose only 500 years ago in a distant cultural backwater has to be very wrong.

[Fairgo]

34. It would be interesting to look up though...

Does this premise have a name like "fruit of the poisoned tree"?

[Hortensis]

50. I suspect clues to some roots are in there. :)

I also suspect, though, that many roots took on various continents, often in civilizations, and even more often isolated villages, that did not leave written records. Indeed, feel it must have been so. This originated, after all, in problems of how to handle disputes over dead goats and property boundaries.

Here's a list I just found on looking for differences between English and older Roman law. Big subject, and what did earliest people in what is now Damascus use, or the many peoples of Asia and Africa. It couldn't all have been left to the momentary whims of chieftains.

2350 BC: Urukagina's Code
2050 BC: Ur-Nammu's Code
1850 BC: The Earliest Known Legal Decision
1700 BC: Hammurabi's Code
1300 BC: The Ten Commandments
1280 BC: The Laws of Manu
621 BC: Draco's Law
600 BC: Lycergus' Law
550 BC: Solon's Laws
536 BC: The Book of Punishments
450 BC: The Twelve Tables
350 BC: The Chinese Code of Li k'vei
399 BC: The Trial of Socrates
529 AD: Justinian's Code
604 AD: The Seventeen Article Constitution of Japan
653 AD: T'ang Code
1215 AD: Magna Carta
1689 AD: The English Bill of Rights
1740 AD: South Carolina Slave Code
1765 AD: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
1787 AD: The Constitution of the United States of America
1788 AD: Through the Operation of Penal Law, A Country Is Formed
1791 AD: The American Bill of Rights
1803 AD: Marbury versus Madison
1804 AD: Napoleonic Code
1864 AD: The Geneva Convention
1865 AD: The Thirteenth Amendment
1945-46 AD: The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial

You know Netflix only offers LA Law in DVD? Just went looking for that too.

[WillowTree]

42. I agree. That's pretty much what I was saying.

[WillowTree]

12. If Mr. DUI hadn't been drunk on the road.......

.......the cop wouldn't have been in that place at that time and would not have been hit. So yeah, I think he bears part of the responsibility for the cop getting hit.

[Codeine]

2. Absolutely. The drunk driver committed a crime

and during the commission of that crime, as a direct result of that criminal action, a death occurred. Eminently reasonable.

[Nye Bevan]

5. What if a cop pulls me over for rolling though a stop sign,

and while the cop is walking back to his car with my license and registration, someone runs him over and kills him? Should I then go to prison?

[Codeine]

23. I don't believe that's a crime

Afaik that's just a traffic code violation. Legally I would imagine that makes a difference.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Correct

At least here in Illinois, the commission of a actual criminal act, not a regulatory misdemeanor is necessary for culpability in a death case.

It happened in Chicago several years ago. IIRC, a guy threw a bag of trash out of his car and was pulled over. When the cop was out of his car, another driver hit the cop car and spun into the cop. (State trooper i think.) They charged the original guy but charges were later dropped.

I'll try to find that case but since i don't pay for Tribune star membership anymore, i'll have to figure out where else to look.

[jberryhill]

48. You need a felony

Basically, there is what is called in many jurisdictions a "felony murder" rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

[nichomachus]

4. No -- the drunk driver is not to blame in the cop's death

Anyone who says differently has to make a rather extensive argument for that. So far, I haven't seen that,

[jonno99]

7. The drunk created the dangerous situation by his actions. Just to be clear,

the drunk was not "pulled over", he had crashed into another vehicle. Here is a better version of the events:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/18/accident-investigation-under-way-after-wreck-on-the-l-i-e/

[Nye Bevan]

17. And if a cop pulls you over for driving at 45 in a 35 limit zone,

and then the cop gets hit by someone else and killed, you created the "dangerous situation" by speeding, so you should go to prison, right?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. Reading that article, I still wouldn't charge the drunk with manslaughter.

Police have dangerous jobs, they go into dangerous situations. That doesn't mean that extra charges should be piled onto anyone they arrest simply because that person committed some crime.

What if some Bundy type nutjob had been following that cop to kill him, and just took that opportunity to run down the cop? Should the drunk be blamed simply because the nutter chose that particular moment to attack?

[Vinca]

8. I think the drunk driver should appeal.

The drunk driver is responsible for driving drunk, but whoever hit the cop is the one who killed him.

[ladjf]

11. .... not to speak of some imprudence by the policeman, who could have pulled the drunk

over in a safer location and why didn't the policeman check traffic before he walked out into the lane?

[jonno99]

52. Safe location?! The cop didn't "pull over" the drunk. The cop was responding to the scene of the

2nd accident that the drunk had caused - when the officer was struck by yet another car.

From a more descriptive article:
The drunk "...abruptly stopped in the HOV lane where he was struck by a another car..."
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/18/accident-investigation-under-way-after-wreck-on-the-l-i-e/

Safer location? Yep - it seems would it have been better for all involved if the drunk had simply stayed at the scene of his first accident.

[ladjf]

54. I didn't have all the info. Bad situation.

[jonno99]

55. Yep - sorry, I was snarky...nt

[Nye Bevan]

9. Not justified. What if a cop is running after someone who stole a loaf of bread,

and while pursuing him, the cop gets run over by a bus? Send the bread thief to prison?

[kcr]

18. Not even if the running thief runs in front of a bus?

I'm not sure why criminals get some sort of magical protection from liability during and after their crime.

[rock]

29. Now for sane reply

Right you are!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

40. Or pulled someone over for Driving While Black.

[ladjf]

10. My opinion: The drunk driver is guilty of one crime, DWI.

I didn't see anything in the article that indicated the driver that hit the policeman was breaking any law. In most states, drivers are required to slow down and move over a lane when a policeman is dealing with another car on the shoulder.

Further, the policeman might have been out in the right of way.

I can so no way that the drunk caused the other vehicle to hit the policeman. The second the drunk stopped his auto, he was no longer operating a vehicle. He was only sitting. The policeman could have chosen a safer place to stop the drunk.

[CincyDem]

13. Let's try a different scenario...

Car is stopped at the side of the road on an interstate. Cop drives by and notices a mom and infant sitting in the car. He circles around the exits and pulls up behind her. He gets up out to check on her. Walks up to the side of the car. Guy driving down the expressway swerves for whatever reason and clips the cop, killing him.

Is the woman responsible and should she do time for the cop's death ?

Most people will probably say no because she could not foresee the outcome of her deciding (or being forced by mechanical failure) to sit on the side of the expressway. In this case, the cop was just doing his job and killed in the line of duty.

In the DUI case, however, the court agree that he should have been able to foresee the death of the policeman. While I am NOT advocating driving under the influence but I will say that, at the time of the stop, the cop did NOT know he was DUI. I would submit that the unfortunate fact here is that the cop was killed in the line of duty.

This whole "foreseeable outcome" thing can get to be scary a la Minority Report. Especially when it's applied without consistency. For example, one might think that choking a man on the street while he wheezes "I can't breathe"...one might think that his death was a foreseeable outcome of choking him.

I'm just saying...

[kcr]

15. It depends

If the stop happened at a dangerous intersection where the stop was unsafe? Yes, there should be some culpability assigned to the drunk driver. If the death were due to recklessness caused by the third party and would have been easily avoidable otherwise, than I'd have no problem if culpability were assigned solely or mostly to that 3rd party. This is my opinion and I don't really know how the law actually works. I suspect the drunk driver is the one screwed either way.

[Orrex]

16. Suppose that the cop had pulled him over in error

The cop is standing at the driver's window while the cop's partner waits in the cruiser.

Meanwhile a snowplow skids out of control and flattens the cruiser with the cop inside, killing him.

Who's at fault for the death?

[panader0]

19. In my little town, two punks tried to hold up a fast food joint.

The cops arrived and shot and killed one of the kids. The other one was charged with his death.

[Nye Bevan]

22. That's a bit different. Armed robbers who get involved in a shootout

are generally charged in the death of anyone at the scene, regardless of who pulled the trigger.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Yeah, I think that sort of charge is total BS.

Who pulled the trigger? Not the punk.

It's just another way for cops to pretend they aren't responsible for their own choices and actions.

[LanternWaste]

20. It seems that if we apply this consistentl

I wouldn't think so. The incident in question seems based on the legal principle of causation-foreseability.

If we apply this consistently, and we're pulled over for having an air freshener hanging from the rear-view mirror in the state of NJ, or being a female driving on Main Street in Waynesboro, VA, or screeching tires in Derby, KS, or even a woman wearing a housecoat in CA (all of which are against the law in their receptive state/locality), then we're forced to accept that foreseeability implies an almost inhuman prescient ability for any driver.

[cwydro]

24. Respective lol.

Not receptive.

But it was funnier your way

[jberryhill]

45. In the case where someone is DUI...

The resultant harm is the type of harm one would expect from driving while drunk.

It's not entirely the same as the civil liability of foreseeable harm, but it is a distant cousin. In general, one can be criminally liable for injury to others due to the foreseeable consequences of committing the crime.

If someone is driving drunk, might they expect to be pulled over? Yep. Does that create a safety hazard to the cop pulling you over? Yep. Is the resulting injury of the type one might expect as a consequence of the increased risk of harm? Yep.

As has been pointed out, one might inquire as to whether pulling him over at that point was safe. However, there is a downside to letting the guy continue to drive as well. But it does not initially appear to be like the "cop pulls over car at railroad crossing" situation which happened in a town nearby to me a while back. Idiot cop pulled over a driver at the railroad grade crossing. When the train came, idiot cop ran back to move HIS car back. Didn't notice the passenger sleeping in the back of the car he pulled over.

[SheilaT]

21. Of course the drunk driver isn't responsible.

What's totally mind-boggling, if I read that article correctly, is that the man who actually killed the cop wasn't charged.

So the lesson I'll take from this is that if I hated cops (which I don't) and I saw one who has pulled someone over, I have a free pass to run over that cop, because I wasn't the one responsible for the cop to be out of his car in the first place.

[GummyBearz]

25. I share your opinion

I'm surprised this topic seems to be about a 50/50 split so far.

[NutmegYankee]

30. NO. The DWI driver was detained at that time.

Once he was pulled over, he was legally detained and his crimes impact on safety stopped.

[tularetom]

32. I think the manufacturer of the automobile that the drunk driver used is responsible

If you can twist logic to the point where the manufacturer of a gun which is used to kill someone is responsible for that persons death, then it isn't a huge leap to blame the car manufacturer in this case.

[panader0]

46. Or the company that made the alcohol....

[MindPilot]

33. No. Using that "but for..." logic the bartender and the owner of the brewery could be liable too.

And the cashier at the gas station, and the mechanic. But for the actions of any of those people Mr DUI would not have been drinking and driving at that particular moment.

The idea is just plain stupid. It's what i call "mom logic". "if you hadn't gone over to Ronnie's house you wouldn't have fallen in that puddle, and I wouldn't be washing clothes on a school night. You know I don't like his mother."

I would go so far as to say that in a vast majority of situations--particularly given that most traffic laws, including DUIs, are very lucrative sources of revenue, and have little or nothing to do with safety--a cop with someone pulled over is actually creating a much greater traffic hazard than whatever violation was commited.

[WillowTree]

44. Try telling that to someone whose loved one was killed by a drunk driver.

[jberryhill]

37. Yes - if someone is killed by the consequences of a crime you are committing - you are liable

Let me try this one out on you:

Cop sees mugging, mugger takes off, cop chases mugger. During chase, cop falls down and breaks leg. Is mugger responsible for the cop's broken leg?

Run someone over with your getaway car? Cops get injured or killed while apprehending you for your crime? Yes, all of those foreseeable consequences are on the table when you are engaged in committing a crime.

[TeeYiYi]

38. Sounds like the state...

...might have some responsibility.

In the last 10 years, 25 officers have been struck between Exits 35 and 41 on the expressway, CBs 2’s Gusoff reported. The state recently approved construction of new safety lanes for police traffic stops.

TYY

[Runningdawg]

41. It could have

been a mother of 3 getting issued a ticket for a busted tail light.
NOW how many of you are eager to charge her? Should she be on the hook for murder? <SMH>
The first person should be charged with DUI. The car that hit the officer should be charged with negligent homicide, unless the prosecution can show clear intent for a murder charge.

[jberryhill]

47. Not a felony

Some jurisdictions have a "felony murder" rule which essentially bumps up the penalty if anyone dies as a consequence of your felony.

[Oneironaut]

49. One detail (I think) missed from the story -

It seems like the drunk driver (indirectly) caused the crash that killed the cop by introducing a bunch of unsafe obstacles in the road. I can see where the charge came from. It's not like that person (the one who ultimately hit the cop) was just not paying attention and drive into the cop. The drunk driver created a chain reaction which ultimately caused the fatal crash. I think that's what happened, anyways. Is there a more detailed explanation of what happened?

[jonno99]

53. Yep - the OP's story is light on the details. This article does a batter job:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/18/accident-investigation-under-way-after-wreck-on-the-l-i-e/

[R.A. Ganoush]

51. My vote would go for

Criminally negligent homicide on the part of the DUI driver, and if proven, whatever moving violation charges against the driver originally pulled over.