Drunk driver gets up to 12 years for cop’s death in accident he wasn’t involved in

[alaskanseminole]

This is an interesting precedence?

LR thoughts on this one?

LINK: Drunk driver gets up to 12 years for cop’s death in accident he wasn’t involved in

A Long Island man was sentenced to up to 12 years in prison Wednesday for the DWI-related death of a Nassau County cop — even though he wasn’t driving the car that killed the officer.

Police Officer Joseph Olivieri was responding to two crashes caused by James Ryan’s drunken driving, jurors found in January, when another driver slammed into Ryan’s car on the Long Island Expressway and then fatally struck Olivieri.

”I want to say to the Olivieri family, words don’t express how deeply sorry I am for your loss,” a choked-up Ryan told relatives of the officer in the courtroom. “And the officer was a very great man and I deeply regret he lost his life that night.”

Ryan’s teary-eyed parents sat behind him throughout the hour-long hearing. Under sentencing guidelines, he’ll serve a minimum of five years. The 29-year-old had faced up to 20 years in prison on the 10 counts on which he was convicted.

“James Ryan does deserve to be here,” said Assistant District Attorney Maureen McCormick. “His refusal to accept any blame borders on delusion.”

The case was closely watched by legal experts, who said it was rare for someone other than the driver to be charged in a crash. The charges were based on the legal principle of “causation/foreseeability,” in which suspects are charged in events that are foreseeable results of their actions.

In one such case from 1994, a New York City man was convicted of murder in the death of an officer who had been chasing after him in a robbery investigation and fell to his death through a skylight.

A jury found Ryan guilty of charges including aggravated criminally negligent homicide, vehicular manslaughter, drunken driving and reckless endangerment.

However, they acquitted him of the most serious charge — aggravated vehicular homicide, which was initially tossed by a judge, who was later overruled on appeal.

Ryan’s attorney said Wednesday he was filing notice to appeal the conviction and would request the sentence be stayed. Called to the scene, Olivieri was outside his patrol car talking with Ryan when an SUV smashed into the Toyota and then fatally struck the cop. Prosecutors said Ryan’s blood-alcohol level was 0.13, far higher the state’s threshold of .08.

After a night of drinking in New York City, Ryan got behind the wheel of his Toyota and crashed into a BMW on the Long Island Expressway, the first in a chain of accidents. He then traveled almost another mile down the road before stopping, where he was hit by another car.

During the trial, defense attorney Marc Gann argued the SUV driver failed to avoid crashing into the wreckage from Ryan’s earlier accident.

That driver was never charged.

 

[DFSNOLE]

I can see the state's argument.

 

[Random_John]

Am I guilty of jay walking if I see someone Jay Walk but I don't report it or stop it?

 

[NDallasRuss]

I can see the state's argument.

After reading the article, I get it.

The drunk driver caused a couple of wrecks. He gets pulled over and while the cop's doing his job, another driver who was trying to avoid all of the drunk driver's vehicular carnage tried to avoid one wreck and caused another. I'd agree that the actions of the drunk driver were still responsible for that last wreck - since he was responsible for all of the circumstances that led to it.

 

[kc78]

If he hadn't have been driving drunk, none of the accidents would have occurred, therefore it is his drunk driving that caused it. I have no problem with this ruling.

 

[alaskanseminole]

After reading the article, I get it.

The drunk driver caused a couple of wrecks. He gets pulled over and while the cop's doing his job, another driver who was trying to avoid all of the drunk driver's vehicular carnage tried to avoid one wreck and caused another. I'd agree that the actions of the drunk driver were still responsible for that last wreck - since he was responsible for all of the circumstances that led to it.

I, too, could see the states side, but does this set a bad precedence in other cases?

Take yesterday for example. A semi-truck traveling in the left lane hit the barrier, then went into the right lane and jack-knifed. This was during a downpour, thus backing up traffic for miles (literally). What if there were other accidents caused by this jack-knifed truck or worse, the responding officer was struck and killed. Is every subsequent incident this driver's fault (or would he need to be intoxicated).

 

[NDallasRuss]

I, too, could see the states side, but does this set a bad precedence in other cases?

Take yesterday for example. A semi-truck traveling in the left lane hit the barrier, then went into the right lane and jack-knifed. This was during a downpour, thus backing up traffic for miles (literally). What if there were other accidents caused by this jack-knifed truck or worse, the responding officer was struck and killed. Is every subsequent incident this driver's fault (or would he need to be intoxicated).

I don't think it sets a precedent - it seems like this has been applied before.

The big, defining difference is that this was the commission of a crime, or crimes, that led to what happened - not an accident that resulted in additional accidents. The fact that the initial act was an intentional illegal act (or multiple acts) makes it a way different situation than what you described.

 

[kc78]

Only if he were committing a crime at the time that the accident is caused. There is legal background for someone being charged with other items at the result of committing a crime, for example a group of teens robbing a house and the homeowner kills one of the teens. The other teens can be held liable for murder.

If this were simply an accident due to bad roads or simply a poor decision and the driver was not actively committing a crime at the time or deemed to be completely negligent (ie having sex in the car or watching a movie on his phone) then I don't think there's any precedent for it, but if he is committing a crime (such as driving drunk) then there's definitely precedent.

 

[alaskanseminole]

I don't think it sets a precedent - it seems like this has been applied before.

The big, defining difference is that this was the commission of a crime, or crimes, that led to what happened - not an accident that resulted in additional accidents. The fact that the initial act was an intentional illegal act (or multiple acts) makes it a way different situation than what you described.

That makes sense. I'm good with the court's decision, just was thinking outside of the situation a bit.

 

[Zeek99]

Only if he were committing a crime at the time that the accident is caused. There is legal background for someone being charged with other items at the result of committing a crime, for example a group of teens robbing a house and the homeowner kills one of the teens. The other teens can be held liable for murder.

If this were simply an accident due to bad roads or simply a poor decision and the driver was not actively committing a crime at the time or deemed to be completely negligent (ie having sex in the car or watching a movie on his phone) then I don't think there's any precedent for it, but if he is committing a crime (such as driving drunk) then there's definitely precedent.

What if the truck driver was speeding or not speeding, but too fast for the conditions? I agree with the ruling, but how far does the chain of events go with the person being responsible.

 

[runkpanole]

He set in motion a chain of events that led to somebody's death. I have no sympathy for him. He certainly didn't intend for anyone to die, but through his reckless behavior, somebody did.

 

[KitingHigh]

beyond ridiculous and in all honesty, I would like to see the prosecutor and judge go to jail.

 

[KitingHigh]

If he hadn't have been driving drunk, none of the accidents would have occurred, therefore it is his drunk driving that caused it. I have no problem with this ruling.

And had the cop been responding to a fender bender where alcohol was not involved would you feel the same. The majority of accidents do not involve alcohol. The only person responsible for hitting the cop, is the driver who hit the cop.

 

[kc78]

And had the cop been responding to a fender bender where alcohol was not involved would you feel the same. The majority of accidents do not involve alcohol. The only person responsible for hitting the cop, is the driver who hit the cop.

No, I would not and there would be no legal precedent for that. You may disagree with the law that allows for people committing a crime to be held liable for injuries caused due to the commission of their crime, but the ruling is in compliance with the law. To answer the question about speeding, I would need to look at the law, but I think it only applies to felonies and not misdemeanors. I may be wrong on that.

 

[Gonolz]

Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people that I never met and that I never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a s**t. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and f***in' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the f***in' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the schrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.

 

[NDallasRuss]

Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people that I never met and that I never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a s**t. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and f***in' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the f***in' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the schrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.

You deserve a retainer.

 

[KitingHigh]

No, I would not and there would be no legal precedent for that. You may disagree with the law that allows for people committing a crime to be held liable for injuries caused due to the commission of their crime, but the ruling is in compliance with the law. To answer the question about speeding, I would need to look at the law, but I think it only applies to felonies and not misdemeanors. I may be wrong on that.

That's hypocritical. Either he caused it or he didn't. The cop pulls people over all the time and responds to accidents. It's what he does and that he was hit is tragic, but it is either his fault, the fault of the driver that hit him or both. Charging the guy who wasn't involved in the fatal crash is asinine, immoral and unAmerican. Those laws are wrong and those who prosecute and allow them to be prosecuted should be punished for their own actions which are morally criminal. It's a very bad precedent.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people that I never met and that I never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a s**t. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and f***in' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the f***in' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the schrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.

Great flick! LOL

 

[West Duval Nole]

No, I would not and there would be no legal precedent for that. You may disagree with the law that allows for people committing a crime to be held liable for injuries caused due to the commission of their crime, but the ruling is in compliance with the law. To answer the question about speeding, I would need to look at the law, but I think it only applies to felonies and not misdemeanors. I may be wrong on that.

I am not sure. This is a tough one. I don't feel too sorry for the guy that got convicted though.

At what point did his illegal/criminal act stop would be my question? Once he was pulled over and outside of his vehicle? If not, then once in back of cop car? If not, and the cop is driving and gets in a fatal car accident on the way to jail when he in fact would not have been on the route to jail had he not arrested this person for DUI? Or does the criminal act only stop once he is in at the detention facility and the police officer hands custody off to another person.

 

[SeaPA]

I don't think it sets a precedent - it seems like this has been applied before.

The big, defining difference is that this was the commission of a crime, or crimes, that led to what happened - not an accident that resulted in additional accidents. The fact that the initial act was an intentional illegal act (or multiple acts) makes it a way different situation than what you described.

What if the driver in the original accident was simply speeding? Say, going a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Personally, I don't agree with the decision & don't like the "butterfly effect" feeling of it. Hell, maybe the DUI guy's crash resulted in the death of that cop - but altered the course of things & kept a busload of people from driving off a cliff.

 

[goldmom]

Had Ryan not been driving drunk, none of this would have happened and the Officer's wife would not be a widow. It's a chain of events that began with Ryan's actions.

 

[KitingHigh]

Had Ryan not been driving drunk, none of this would have happened and the Officer's wife would not be a widow. It's a chain of events that began with Ryan's actions.

Again, this could have happened with any accident and the overwhelming majority of accidents occur without alcohols influence. .13 while above the limit is not stammering drunk and he very well might have got in the accidents regardless. Even if he didn't someone else likely would have.

It's politically correct nowadays to blame the drunk driver, but the cold hard undeniable fact is that he did not cause this anymore than anyone else who has ever been in an accident or pulled over by police.

 

[kc78]

As mentioned earlier, the speeding claims hold no merit to my understanding of the law as they are not felonies. I believe the law that allows this only applies to felonies being committed at the time that the incident occurs. He didn't get hit because he pulled a guy over, he got hit because the individual caused an accident which then caused another car to have an accident and kill the cop. Its a chain of events, directly related, that he caused, and caused while in the commission of a felony.

Similar things have happened when an officer is shot due to a civilian defending him or herself against a criminal. The criminal did not shoot the officer, but their actions in the commission of a felony did and as a result they are held liable. Again, you may find the law problematic. I'm neither defending or attacking the law as I'm mixed on the law, but to say that the judge was incorrect in allowing the ruling is not backed up by case law.

 

[KitingHigh]

As mentioned earlier, the speeding claims hold no merit to my understanding of the law as they are not felonies. I believe the law that allows this only applies to felonies being committed at the time that the incident occurs. He didn't get hit because he pulled a guy over, he got hit because the individual caused an accident which then caused another car to have an accident and kill the cop. Its a chain of events, directly related, that he caused, and caused while in the commission of a felony.

Similar things have happened when an officer is shot due to a civilian defending him or herself against a criminal. The criminal did not shoot the officer, but their actions in the commission of a felony did and as a result they are held liable. Again, you may find the law problematic. I'm neither defending or attacking the law as I'm mixed on the law, but to say that the judge was incorrect in allowing the ruling is not backed up by case law.

I have a serious problem with the law and anyone enforcing it.

However, this is not the same as someone being shot during a robbery. The equivalent would be more like the cop that was on its way to take a report about the robbery crashed his car and killed himself. In that case it's unlikely the the robber would be charged with the cops death and nor should he be.

 

[OsceolaNole]

Had Ryan not been driving drunk, none of this would have happened and the Officer's wife would not be a widow. It's a chain of events that began with Ryan's actions.

Had Ryan not been born it wouldn't have happened either. Maybe we should toss mom & dad in the pokey.

I don't intend to sound insensitive, and I agree Ryan should be punished. The above is an extreme example of how you could make the argument. If Ryan has better counsel, he doesn't get pinned with all that.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

Reminds me of a true story almost 100 years ago. A dude in NYC was rushing to catch his commuter train (LIRR - which was owned by a private company back then) and was about the slip while boarding the train. He was next to two railroad employees, one on the train, one on the platform. The employee on the train pulled him to safety, and the one on the platform pushed him from behind into the train. The passenger did safely get on the train due to the help of the railroad employees, but their help caused him to drop his package. Turns out it was a small bag of fireworks which exploded when he dropped it. One of the fireworks ricocheted off the ceiling and knocked a hanging light fixture from the cieling which fell and severely injured a lady standing way at the other end of the station. Lady sued the railroad and won a fat verdict. Railroad appealed and won on the grounds that the injury was too remote to the wrongful conduct.

 

[NDallasRuss]

What if the driver in the original accident was simply speeding? Say, going a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Personally, I don't agree with the decision & don't like the "butterfly effect" feeling of it. Hell, maybe the DUI guy's crash resulted in the death of that cop - but altered the course of things & kept a busload of people from driving off a cliff.

I'm not going to do the research needed to find out - and it seems as if KC already has, but I'm sure at some point some judges far more familiar with the laws and the different considerations than me settled on a demarcation point between the circumstances that wouldn't result in being held responsible for the downstream effects, and the intentional acts (like crimes committed) for which one could be held responsible for downstream effects that happened (directly or indirectly) as a result of their malfeasance.

It seems to me that if someone drives drunk and bashes into other cars leaving a trail of crashed-up cars and pieces of cars in the road, then gets pulled over, and while pulled over, someone else tries to avoid all of the road garbage that the drunk driver directly caused and crashes into the pulled over cars - killing the cop - it's pretty easy to connect the dots from the drunk driving to the death of the cop. It's certainly WAY simpler than Lemon's Rube Goldberg-like chain of events that he described.

 

[NDallasRuss]

The equivalent would be more like the cop that was on its way to take a report about the robbery crashed his car and killed himself.

This is not equivalent at all. In the case of the drunk driver, the officer was actively detaining the suspect when he was killed. And he was specifically killed because of the environment that was directly created by the crimes committed by the suspect whom he was detaining. You don't see that being any different than driving to take a report?

 

[KitingHigh]

This is not equivalent at all. In the case of the drunk driver, the officer was actively detaining the suspect when he was killed. And he was specifically killed because of the environment that was directly created by the crimes committed by the suspect whom he was detaining. You don't see that being any different than driving to take a report?

It's not different at all. In one both cases the cop is responding to a crime and in both cases he is killed by an accident that is not caused by the original criminal. They are exactly the same.

The driver that actually hit the cop wasn't charged at all making the most logical deduction that the cop died because he himself screwed up, and didn't follow proper procedure or lacked awareness of his surroundings. He was struck after the SUV hit the Toyota so at the minimum he wasn't standing where he should have been. You always should be toward traffic from stopped cars for that exact reason. There is no logical reason for charging the dui driver with homicide. Is an unjust emotional reaction to punish an easy target even though he isn't the responsible party in the death.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

you guys are confusing "but-for" causation (but for the original crime, this injury would not have happened), proximate causation (the original crime or tort was a close cause of the second injury), and intervening acts.

 

[coloradonoles]

As mentioned earlier, the speeding claims hold no merit to my understanding of the law as they are not felonies. I believe the law that allows this only applies to felonies being committed at the time that the incident occurs. He didn't get hit because he pulled a guy over, he got hit because the individual caused an accident which then caused another car to have an accident and kill the cop. Its a chain of events, directly related, that he caused, and caused while in the commission of a felony.

Similar things have happened when an officer is shot due to a civilian defending him or herself against a criminal. The criminal did not shoot the officer, but their actions in the commission of a felony did and as a result they are held liable. Again, you may find the law problematic. I'm neither defending or attacking the law as I'm mixed on the law, but to say that the judge was incorrect in allowing the ruling is not backed up by case law.

Is it a felony to get a DUI that involves a wreck? Was it a hit and run? Or did the felony kick in when the officer died?

Seems like he was already pulled over and the cop was talking to him. If the cop never got killed would he have been charged with any felony?

 

[kc78]

Is it a felony to get a DUI that involves a wreck? Was it a hit and run? Or did the felony kick in when the officer died?

Seems like he was already pulled over and the cop was talking to him. If the cop never got killed would he have been charged with any felony?

It all depends. Generally a first time DUI is simply a misdemeanor (I do not know if this was the first or second time). However if the DUI causes an accident in which someone is injured, it is most often raised to a felony. There were several accidents as the result of his DUI, I would assume there are several injuries (other than the officer), although I don't have that full level of detail either.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

I don't think there is misdemeanor manslaughter. if you kill someone criminally, its likely to be a felony.

 

[Dannynole16]

Seems stupid to me. I never get the people who always say don't do something wrong and your wont get punished. These are same people that think cops can justifiably shoot someone if they are committing any crime. "Well if Johnny just listened to the cops they wouldn't have shot him, doesn't matter that he was only jay walking."

Everyone is saying the car that crashed and killed the cop was a result of avoiding the first crash, but it doesn't line up and is incorrect. Plus all the articles I found on the subject are confusing.

"He then traveled almost another mile down the road before stopping, where he was hit by another car."

So he was almost a mile away from the first accident yet that accident caused the driver to hit him?

"He then was hit by another car after stopping 1,500 yards down the highway."

After the first accident he did the right thing and pulled over when another car crashed into him. So we don't even know if the second accident was his fault.

Then there is this tidbit'
"But the attorney said the SUV driver failed to avoid crashing into the wreckage from Ryan's earlier accident. That driver was never charged"

So did the guy who hit the cop also hit the people in the first accident? Was he drunk as well or just a really bad driver? having just seen an accident should he have been going slower?

To me this a crazy ruling if he was not drunk would he still have been charged? There is too much information missing and confusing parts for me to agree with

 

[billanole]

What if the truck driver was speeding or not speeding, but too fast for the conditions? I agree with the ruling, but how far does the chain of events go with the person being responsible.

 

[coloradonoles]

It all depends. Generally a first time DUI is simply a misdemeanor (I do not know if this was the first or second time). However if the DUI causes an accident in which someone is injured, it is most often raised to a felony. There were several accidents as the result of his DUI, I would assume there are several injuries (other than the officer), although I don't have that full level of detail either.

OK, and not to be argumentative.... but you have made the statement that simple speeding would not rise to the level of culpability because it wasn't a "felony"... I'm not sure we can assume he did any felonious activities before the cop died.

I hate this ruling from a common sense standpoint, I am not a lawyer but it seems to me to be a very slippery slope. Clearly the driver who actually hit and killed the cop deserves some blame if he/she failed to avoid a wreck 1 mile before where the cop was standing...

 

[BarryB1081]

Reminds me of a true story almost 100 years ago. A dude in NYC was rushing to catch his commuter train (LIRR - which was owned by a private company back then) and was about the slip while boarding the train. He was next to two railroad employees, one on the train, one on the platform. The employee on the train pulled him to safety, and the one on the platform pushed him from behind into the train. The passenger did safely get on the train due to the help of the railroad employees, but their help caused him to drop his package. Turns out it was a small bag of fireworks which exploded when he dropped it. One of the fireworks ricocheted off the ceiling and knocked a hanging light fixture from the cieling which fell and severely injured a lady standing way at the other end of the station. Lady sued the railroad and won a fat verdict. Railroad appealed and won on the grounds that the injury was too remote to the wrongful conduct.

Thanks Judge Cardozo. As my contracts professor always said, a shot glass worth of facts is worth a tub of law.

 

[kc78]

OK, and not to be argumentative.... but you have made the statement that simple speeding would not rise to the level of culpability because it wasn't a "felony"... I'm not sure we can assume he did any felonious activities before the cop died.

I hate this ruling from a common sense standpoint, I am not a lawyer but it seems to me to be a very slippery slope. Clearly the driver who actually hit and killed the cop deserves some blame if he/she failed to avoid a wreck 1 mile before where the cop was standing...

You may be right. I don't have all the details. Generally, simply driving drunk does not rate to the level of a felony. However when you cause injuries as a result of your impairment then it often does. Now, what I don't know is whether they are counting this officers death as an injury caused by his impairment, or whether there were other injuries in the other accidents he caused. One would assume that there were at least minor injuries in the accidents caused by this driver. If that were the case, then even without the death of the officer, his actions could be deemed high enough to warrant a felony.

 

[AllNoles]

Barry was that Fat Bill at FSU?

This is ridiculous. But for causation can't be rationally applied, and frankly scope of criminal proximate cause should be more limited, not broader, than civil proximate cause analysis.

I get the emotion of all this, but under this theory someone who robs a house is guilty of killing anyone who gets hurt on the way to investigate the crime. Hell, what if they are following up on the investigation months later and get in an accident and are hurt or killed while driving to interview a witness. Or attend court. Or anything. This is simply ridiculous.

 

[BarryB1081]

Barry was that Fat Bill at FSU?

The one and only....