Is This Murder?

[SamuelFire]

Edited due to content

[Higby916]

I believe the term could be vehicular manslaughter. No intent to kill, but death results none the less due to negligent or illegal behaviour. So yes, it could be considered so.

And now that I've answered the original post is gone.

[jacklrd]

Edited due to content

Maybe murder of a thread?

[Dave1983]

Maybe murder of a thread?

Im in for 5 pages.:p

[BLSboy]

Im in for 5 pages.:p

The way things have been going lately, Ill say 6

[SamuelFire]

Once I posted the thread, I felt that maybe it wasn't the proper time for it.

In another thread a lot of firefighters thought that someone who ran a stop light and someone died should be charged with murder and I was wondering their thoughts on this.

[adam18]

I guess without geting too deep, to charge that individual the same as they would a person who deliberatly took someones life would be inapropriate in my opinion. Something more then just a slap on the wrist would be in order, but in no way do I think we are improving our society by locking these people up for life.

[FlyingKiwi]

If they are in the BRT and obeying the laws pertaining to driving the BRT then no.

In a POV running a stop light. Yes.

[Bones42]

If they are in the BRT and not obeying the laws pertaining to driving the BRT then yes.

[LaFireEducator]

Very simple.

If they are in the apparatus and the sign says "stop" and they fail to, and kill someone, including someone in the BRT, they should face the same charge as a civilian.

If they are in the apparatus, and the light is "red" and they roll through it, and kill someone, including someone in the BRT, they should face the same charge as a civilian.

If they are in the apparatus and the sign says "yield", and they fail to do so, and someone dies, including someone in the BRT they should face the same charges as a civilian.

If they drive recklessly, or speed (especially if they exceed department SOPs), and thier actions kill someone, including someone in the BRT, they should face the same charges as a civilian.

It's simple. Make apparatus drivers 100% responsible for thier actions. Charge them as a civilian. Send them to jial if convicted. It's simple.

[johnny46]

Murder is the intentional and unjust taking of a human life. No accidental killing, no matter how much stupidity or negligence was involved, is murder.

A screw up in the line of duty is not the same as a civilian rolling through a stop sign because he wants to get home sooner. Yes, it is serious, but it should be a case by case basis.

[jasper45]

Once I posted the thread, I felt that maybe it wasn't the proper time for it.

In another thread a lot of firefighters thought that someone who ran a stop light and someone died should be charged with murder and I was wondering their thoughts on this.

It wasn't a lot of firefighters; it was a particular, individual, shall we say? I say individual, because I consider anyone who advocates a reduction in staffing to not be a firefighter, who called for the murder charge. In any event, we can't draw a conclusion without any information. The donkey aside

Let your conscience be your guide on whether to post the article, or not. It's your choice, and your choice alone. The facts will play out as they are released, and some will wait for a full disclosure before jumping to conclusions; as not every firefighter gets off on hanging another firefighter.

[Higby916]

Murder is the intentional and unjust taking of a human life. No accidental killing, no matter how much stupidity or negligence was involved, is murder.

A screw up in the line of duty is not the same as a civilian rolling through a stop sign because he wants to get home sooner. Yes, it is serious, but it should be a case by case basis.

I beg tp differ. The original question was actually about the volunteer who was going so fast to a call that he basically ran into it, hitting the good samaritan who came out of his house to help at the original call. The article said there was a rig at the scene at the time, so there would have been warning lights. The question was, should there be charges (such as murder, although I disagree that would be an appropriate charge) against this individual who ran over another individual with his personal car?

PS - it wasn't a screw up, he didn't miscalculate pump pressure, he was reckless and showed blatant disregard for safety and the laws of driving/responding as set out by the HTA.

[LaFireEducator]

The bottom line is drivers of apparatus and POVs are 100% responsible for controlling thier vehicles while responding.

If they do not control thier vehicles, and death or injury to civilains or firefighters result, they should face the same charges that a civilian would face in the same situation in that state.

It might be murder. It might be manslaughter. It might be careless and negligent operation w/ death resulting. It's whatever that state uses for the charge under the circumstances. Whatever it is, the BRT or the red lights on thier POVs should NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, exempt them from charges.

They are 100% responsible. Period.

[johnny46]

PS - it wasn't a screw up, he didn't miscalculate pump pressure, he was reckless and showed blatant disregard for safety and the laws of driving/responding as set out by the HTA.
Still not the same as a civilian causing an accident under normal driving conditions from disobeying the law. Not the same circumstances, not the same motivations. It should be taken on a case by case basis.

[johnny46]

The bottom line is drivers of apparatus and POVs are 100% responsible for controlling thier vehicles while responding.

If they do not control thier vehicles, and death or injury to civilains or firefighters result, they should face the same charges that a civilian would face in that state.

It might be murder. It might be manslaughter. It might be careless and negligent operation w/ death resulting. Whatever it is, the BRT or the red lights on thier POVs should NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, exempt them from charges.

They are 100% responsible. Period.
Yes, thay are responsible. But you are saying that a vehicle responding to an emergency and having an accident is the same as a civilian under normal driving conditions having an accident, both from breaking traffic laws. They clearly are not. The circumstances are not the same.

The definition of murder is pretty clear. Unless the guy swerved to kill someone on purpose, it isn't murder. If the engineer was drunk and killed someone unintentionally, it still wouldn't be murder. Murder involves intent, not your desire to punish people for being stupid, careless or selfish.

Thankfully, our justice system can take into account circumstances, and isn't completely beholden to the current trends.

[LaFireEducator]

Johnny ..

Please explain to me why it's not the same. The driver of that POV or engine or tanker decided to break the law by not stopping or driving recklessly. Responding to an emergency in most, if not all states, does not exempt emergency vehicles from obeying traffic laws. Most laws clearly state that it does not protect the emergency vehicle driver if an accident results.

It is the same.

And I stand by my statement that the BRT or the red light on the dashboard of the POV should never exempt a driver from his responsibility to operate in a safe manner. Never.

We have a responsibility to act in a professional manner and obey the law. It's that simple.

Note I also said if the state law defines it as murder, it's murder. If it defines it as manslaughter, it's manslaughter. And so on. The emergency vehicle operator should face the same charge that a civilian would face in that state in the same situation and serve the same sentance if convicted.

[CaptainGonzo]

Very simple.

If they are in the apparatus and the sign says "stop" and they fail to, and kill someone, including someone in the BRT, they should face the same charge as a civilian.

If they are in the apparatus, and the light is "red" and they roll through it, and kill someone, including someone in the BRT, they should face the same charge as a civilian.

If they are in the apparatus and the sign says "yield", and they fail to do so, and someone dies, including someone in the BRT they should face the same charges as a civilian.

If they drive recklessly, or speed (especially if they exceed department SOPs), and thier actions kill someone, including someone in the BRT, they should face the same charges as a civilian.

It's simple. Make apparatus drivers 100% responsible for thier actions. Charge them as a civilian. Send them to jial if convicted. It's simple.

If they are in the apparatus and stop at a green light and cause an accident in which someone dies, should they also be charged?

[LaFireEducator]

Gonzo ...

If it's determined to be reckless operation by the apparatus driver and they can explain to the judge why they could not stop within the 500' seperation distance required by state law here in LA, as well as many other places.

[redneckemt]

I beg tp differ. The original question was actually about the volunteer who was going so fast to a call that he basically ran into it, hitting the good samaritan who came out of his house to help at the original call. The article said there was a rig at the scene at the time, so there would have been warning lights. The question was, should there be charges (such as murder, although I disagree that would be an appropriate charge) against this individual who ran over another individual with his personal car?

PS - it wasn't a screw up, he didn't miscalculate pump pressure, he was reckless and showed blatant disregard for safety and the laws of driving/responding as set out by the HTA.



Based on this information its Involuntary manslaughter.

Manslaughter: Involuntary
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.


Section 1112. Manslaughter

(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary - Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
Involuntary - In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting
to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without
due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce
death.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States,
Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

From the USC Chapter 51, Section 1112

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/sections/section_1112.html

[Higby916]

Still not the same as a civilian causing an accident under normal driving conditions from disobeying the law. Not the same circumstances, not the same motivations. It should be taken on a case by case basis.

That is not the way the law works. It is not designed to be broken by someone who is in a hurry. This young man in question was speeding, was apparently not even completely sure where he was going by the sounds of things (or maybe he would have been going slower as coming upon the scene). As I have stated, blatantly disregarding the safety of others and the rules set out by the HTA is and should be punishable.
I do not understand why responding puts you above the law. if I am driving the pump and I run a red light, I am charged, the city is usually sued and my driving priveledges are suspended at work. Follow the rules of the road and use good judgement. There is not a judge in the world that would rule on a case by case basis, nor would want to. Ignorance and poor judegement are not excuses.

[johnny46]

That is not the way the law works. It is not designed to be broken by someone who is in a hurry. This young man in question was speeding, was apparently not even completely sure where he was going by the sounds of things (or maybe he would have been going slower as coming upon the scene). As I have stated, blatantly disregarding the safety of others and the rules set out by the HTA is and should be punishable.
I do not understand why responding puts you above the law. if I am driving the pump and I run a red light, I am charged, the city is usually sued and my driving priveledges are suspended at work. Follow the rules of the road and use good judgement. There is not a judge in the world that would rule on a case by case basis, nor would want to. Ignorance and poor judegement are not excuses.

It actually is the way the law works. Intent plays heavily into the justice system because prison is both for penalty and protection of the public. This is why women proven (to a jury) to be suffering from post partum depression are dealt with differently if they kill their children as opposed to someone who just kills them because they're pissed. Agree with it or not, the law does take into consideration your intent.

I never said responding put anyone above the law. I said it's different from a civilian driving home. There's no emergency. Different. Not above the law. I've never argued there should be no penalty. I am against the crowd that thinks we should hang people who make a mistake. Case by case basis, even if a death results. People screw up. Everyone screws up. Some people are simply lucky.