Two news choppers go down in Phoenix

[Logan]

Unfortunately, Maxim magazine's website's search function isn't working for me...but if it was, I would point to an article that documented how dirty and cutthroat the network news chopper business is, and what these guys do to get the scoop on each other.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's fine to criticize if you want ... as long as you're willing to forego the rest of the coverage that those evil ratings also generate the revenue to provide.

Aren't TV stations required to produce news coverage (or other public service) as a part of their license to broadcast? So ratings or no ratings, the news would have to go on, I'd think.

I don't mind stations chasing ratings as part of their normal programming - that's how they pay the bills, even if it sticks us with "Grey's Anatomy." But I don't think chasing ratings for news coverage is particularly good if the news is supposed to inform the public. At some point, it stops being news and starts being a reality show.

One thing I've always thought would be interesting would be a complete ban on advertising during newscasts...

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I definitely have no love for the media, but you make it seem like this is something that happens routinely. It seems like you want to focus on how dirty they are, whereas to me its more striking how completely batshit insane somebody has to be to run from the cops. To me, when you do that, whatever happens is your fault.

How far do you take this?

A 3rd station wants to get a helicopter on scene, but it is low on gas.
To only one with the keys to the truck just go off duty and already ponded a bunch of beer.
The station calls him and demands he drive back with the keys, along the way he hit and kills someone.
So, the drunk driver isn't at fault?
Do you charge the fleeing guy with murder for that too?

I think the pilots are at fault.
I don't know the details, but would guess they violated several laws (probably felonies) themselves for this to happen.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Surtt

How far do you take this?

A 3rd station wants to get a helicopter on scene, but it is low on gas.
To only one with the keys to the truck just go off duty and already ponded a bunch of beer.
The station calls him and demands he drive back with the keys, along the way he hit and kills someone.
So, the drunk driver isn't at fault?
Do you charge the fleeing guy with murder for that too?

I think the pilots are at fault.
I don't know the details, but would guess they violated several laws (probably felonies) themselves for this to happen.

I agree the pilots are probably at fault. I just don't see it as an either/or situation.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I agree the pilots are probably at fault. I just don't see it as an either/or situation.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
As I see it as they were covering a "news event", which was their job.
The event itself was not responsible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Aren't TV stations required to produce news coverage (or other public service) as a part of their license to broadcast? So ratings or no ratings, the news would have to go on, I'd think.

News, no. Public service, to a small extent. And that can be fulfilled in off-hours with virtually no budget, usually by having a token minority employee interview some other token minority guest in a single camera shoot on a bare bones set about a topic that not even both of them care about.

if the news is supposed to inform the public.

Where on earth did you get that silly idea? That hasn't been the case for any news media since, good Lord, pre-Hearst at least. Information as a marketable commodity perhaps, but for information's sake? Puh-leeze.
(no offense intended Brillig, so please don't take any. That's just so far from reality that I don't know hardly how not to mock it at least a little bit)

One thing I've always thought would be interesting would be a complete ban on advertising during newscasts...

Hey, if you want more episodes of Wheel of Fortune & Jeopardy, all you gotta do is ask

[red95vette]

Just consider this thought experiment. Your teenage son/daughter is out driving your car on the highway at 10 mph over the limit (not drunk, not stolen) and a police car clocks them for speeding and starts to pursue. However, just as they are starting their pursuit, an unaware 3rd party driver accidently gets in the way of the officer-- now driving quickly to catch up and issue a ticket. The cars collide and the 3rd party driver is killed.

Should your son/daughter be charged with murder?

OK, 2nd scenario same as first EXCEPT now the police officer collides with the 3rd party driver some time after starting pursuit, because your 16 yo son/daughter doesn't immediately stop since they are afraid and hope they might be able to lose the cop rather than get into big trouble with you.

Since they are fleeing, is that a murder charge?

Last scenario, same as either 1 or 2 except the officer is killed. Will you be visiting your son/daughter in prison now?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

its more striking how completely batshit insane somebody has to be to run from the cops. To me, when you do that, whatever happens is your fault.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

I agree with the Saint on this one.

Break the law like that and you should have to bear some of the responsibility for anything that happens because of what you did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by red95vette

Should your son/daughter be charged with murder?

In each case, absolutely yes, murder charges should be filed.
Or negligent homicide. Or manslaughter. Depends upon the possibly applicable laws state by state.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Where on earth did you get that silly idea? That hasn't been the case for any news media since, good Lord, pre-Hearst at least. Information as a marketable commodity perhaps, but for information's sake? Puh-leeze.

If that's the case, then First Amendment shouldn't really apply anymore, eh?

Edit: on a separate note, apparently there were five news helicopters and a police helicopter involved in the pursuit. Anyone still want to argue that the guy's crime necessitated pursuit by these two newsies?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brillig

If that's the case, then First Amendment shouldn't really apply anymore, eh?

As a specific press exemption? Probably not, or at least not nearly so much as it can be.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Couldn't it also be argued that police chases in general cause these sort of problems? If the police would have limited their pursuit to 25 mph and the suspect would have eluded them by doing 30mph (through a school zone no less!) these four men would still be alive.

I mean, someone will argue this. They're a complete idiot, but they will do it...

I wonder about these chases if it would make a difference in the chasing police might not be better in simply pursuing less aggressively and more or less observing the suspect, while another part of the department coordinates where may be best to spread a ton of tack strips (or whatever method they would use tho blow his tires, hopefully causing a one car accident, saving the taxpayers money!)

In an age where something the size of a walkman can play bootleg dvd's of The Newlywed Game and give you specific step-by-step on-the-go directions to White Castle, you would think that we could come up with a more effective method of apprehending an idiot in a moving vehicle than "GET HIM!"

Phoenix actually has a very passive pursuit policy, this chase was conducted at or just above the speed limit for the most part. The ground units had backed off and he was being tailed by a Police Chopper.

The ironic thing here is that if the pursuit had been more aggressive this accident wouldn't have happened. The suspect ditched his Landscaping truck after he ran over stop sticks and jumped into a Construction truck that had the Keys left in it. Because the Police were engaged in a passive pursuit they did not arrive in time to adequately box him in and prevent him from driving away in the Truck....it was shortly after he stole the second Vehicle that the crash occurs.

This was a very tragic event but one thing really annoyed me. Phoenix went to this policy years back as a result of outcry, fueled in large part by Media sensationalism of incidents occuring during high speed pursuit. One local reporter asked the Police Chief in a very terse manner during the press briefing "Why wasn't this pursuit ended sooner?" Are you fucking kidding me? The media was all over the Police when they exercised a more aggressive policy, now they are getting on them for a policy they had, at least a small part in implementing? I know there are a lot of emotions but this just struck me wrong.....and again, not to take away from the tragedy, all involved were very respected within the industry and well known by the public here in the Valley.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Why? I thought that it raised interesting issues about the nature and limits of moral culpability, as well as about the extent to which the media can/should/does function as a public service. Shurg.

[red95vette]

Honestly, the logic applied in here scares me to my wit's end, really.

One last scenario-- A twelve year old boy attempts to steal madden 08 from Walmart. The door alarm system sounds. He bolts. A security guard pursues and is struck by a mammoth SUV driving through the parking lot, immediately killed. I guess we had better get out those shackles for junior quick cause he is a murderer.

Listen, I am a law abiding honest citizen and wish there was no crime of any sort in our society. But, this is a really slippery slope you're on here.

I'm very surprised by the number of people who don't see it that way.

I guess these viewpoints are also why we have so many frivilous civil lawsuits since every person or entity anyhow remotely associated with any bad event MUST be responsible in some way and therefore MUST pay out big bucks commensurate with the size of their pockets.

You know, I wrote the last paragraph tongue in cheek, but since it IS how our civil system works, frig it, let's do the same for the criminal system. Or even better, let's adopt the system used by "The Agency" in the game Crackdown and just kill all criminals on the spot. No one really wants them around anyway, so this will save a lot of time and money.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by red95vette

Listen, I am a law abiding honest citizen and wish there was no crime of any sort in our society. But, this is a really slippery slope you're on here.

What is the slippery slope, because I don't see it. I'm just not sure I see a dark outcome in saying that when you act recklessly and illegally, whatever happens because of that is your fault. That seems totally appropriate to me.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Phoenix actually has a very passive pursuit policy, this chase was conducted at or just above the speed limit for the most part. The ground units had backed off and he was being tailed by a Police Chopper.

Yeah and this is what confused me. A lot of arguement here in this thread is that somehow the media was assisting the police, which I don't believe to be true. Or at least that is not their function in Phoenix.

And I also think this would have been an entirely different story if a police copter was hit by the new copter. I bet that the car thief would not have even been considered at all.

... all involved were very respected within the industry and well known by the public here in the Valley.

Yeah and that's pretty sad. I recognized 3 out of the 4 people killed due to watching them on the local news out there.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

Yeah and this is what confused me. A lot of arguement here in this thread is that somehow the media was assisting the police, which I don't believe to be true. Or at least that is not their function in Phoenix.

There were a total of 6 Copters in the air during the chase, 5 news media and 1 Police. The Air space had to be pretty congested and apparently the heat creates lift problems for Copters, where they will lose lift if they hover....Don't know if that was a contributing factor, it was merely mentioned. I know the media will assist the Police if there is no Police Copter on the scene, but that was not the case here.

The News Helicopters have to be cleared to be in the Air during these types of things. To me it would make a whole lot of sense for only 1 Copter to be cleared for involvement with pursuits and the News stations arrange to share the feed.

[red95vette]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What is the slippery slope, because I don't see it. I'm just not sure I see a dark outcome in saying that when you act recklessly and illegally, whatever happens because of that is your fault. That seems totally appropriate to me.

Well, you obviously don't see it and this won't convince you either but the slippery slope is simply this.

Murder is the intent and successful accomplishment of directly killing someone. It's not the unfortunate side effect that occurs due to the attempt to enforce laws on someone who has stolen a vehicle, commited a 10 mph speeding offense or stolen Madden 08 (no matter what EA might push for ).

If the guy stealing the vehicle crashed into someone and killed them himself directly, then you could argue for murder or vehicular homicide or manslaughter or whatever. But you cannot start taking all tangential consequences from an event and start pinning them on the perpertrator of a much less serious crime. THAT is the slippery slope. There are an infinite number of similar scenarios that can illustrate the same point.

[Brillig]

Except the rule is the "felony murder" rule. Petty theft is a misdemeanor, so the kid stealing madden couldn't be charged.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What is the slippery slope, because I don't see it. I'm just not sure I see a dark outcome in saying that when you act recklessly and illegally, whatever happens because of that is your fault. That seems totally appropriate to me.

I can definitely see a slippery slope because minor infractions will have a much larger scope to all involved.

Example #1: In Oceanside, there is a law that you can't start a bonfire after 8:00. Let's say somehow has left their bonfire going after 8:15. Said news person decides to report on the ridiculous bonfire law and parks the news vehicle close to bonfire. As he reports on it, something pops and the vehicle lights up and explodes. Well whomever started the bonfire gets an involuntary murder change because the newsman parked too close to the illegal bonfire.

Example #2: You are in a city where you can only show so much skin in the summer. A gorgeous woman is barely over the law because she is an out of towner and had no idea. Some guy driving by can't keep his eyes off her and ends up in a head on collision with another vehicle. Well since she was breaking the law, she is responsible for their deaths.

Example #3: Young child (about 6 years old) runs out a store in the mall with a video game he wanted his mom to buy. A security guard goes after the child half heartedly. While this is happening, two guys are competing to get these images on their camera phone. Since they on the other side, they both climb stand on the bottom rung of the railing (since they are upstairs) to get a better view, bump into each other and fall 3 floors to their deaths. Who gets the blame?

[st.cronin]

In all 3 of those circumstances, Ant, it seems to me that the question isn't whether a given party is to blame, but how much that person is to blame. I've said several times, its not an either/or thing - saying the naked woman deserves some blame is not to say that the drivers are also at fault.

When something bad happens, there's usually more than one reason that you can point to. The example at hand, though, is of somebody FLEEING from the cops - that's about as outrageously wrong and anti-social as it gets. If one of the pilots made a mistake in procedure, that's wrong - but its nowhere near as reckless and illegal as what the fugitive did, and sequentially and causally it was secondary, not primary.

[red95vette]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Except the rule is the "felony murder" rule. Petty theft is a misdemeanor, so the kid stealing madden couldn't be charged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder

Funny enough this wiki entry shows that similar discussions have occured for quite some time. Who would have thunk it.

Very interesting topic, indeed.

[andy m]

If nobody watched this kind of bullshit then no helicopters would be in the air in the first place. The viewers are therefore the ones that are responsible for this.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree. And since ratings are used to judge the value of news and the choppers were out there to get ratings, clearly Nielsen Ratings is also responsible.

[dime]

some of the logic on this thread makes it easier to understand the OJ verdict.

[Glengoyne]

Just saw this.

I'm thinking the guy might be charged in the deaths, but him getting convicted is pretty much a long shot. No chance of twelve Cronin's finding their way onto this jury.

Pretty much any defense attorney can bring up the fact that the pilot actually had responsibilities that didn't involve flying the air craft. He was reporting on the incident, and reviewing a monitor inside his air craft. The decision to divide the pilot's attention was easilly as much to blame for this incident as the decision for the criminal to run from the police.

[PilotMan]

In Visual Meteorlogical Conditions (better than 3 miles visibility and 2000 ft celings) it is the responsiblity of the pilot in command to maintan clearance from other aircraft/objects etc. Sure he may have been talking to some sort of controlling agency, but my guess is in this particular case that is what it all boils down to. It is possible that the pilots could have even been talking to each other on another frequency. In area of intense traffic conditions common traffic fequencies are common. Either way, someone became distracted, lost awareness with some other traffic and the accident happend.

And no, I don't think that anyone else is held responsible. The pilots were doing the jobs that they were being paid to do. This whole 'pass the buck' mentality of responsiblity is so far out of control that it is ruining our society. The pilots fly the helicopters, they crashed the helicopters, noone else influenced their abilities to control the aircraft.

The cop who gets hit by a car, took a chance and got hurt, it could have been just as easy that the criminal would have been hit.

Would someone please stand up and take responsibilty for their own actions. In death, especially tragic deaths, the victims are suddenly infallible.

[Surtt]

What if the guy is innocent?
Do you just drop the murder charge?

I know he looks guilty but strange things happen in court cases.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

No chance of twelve Cronin's finding their way onto this jury.

Thank goodness for that.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by molson

What if an old lady has a heart attack watching this on the news - can she cash in too?

Wasn't this a joke in Scrooged?

[BrianD]

I don't get how the criminal can be at all responsible for the deaths in the chopper crash. I also don't understand the argument that the choppers wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the guy. News agencies choose what to cover, and how to cover it. If they choose to overpopulate the sky just to watch one guy, that is their choice. There is nothing requiring the choppers to be there, so they are responsible for the outcome of their actions.

[JeeberD]

Kinda scary...a local news copter crash landed yesterday morning. Luckily no one was seriously hurt, but the timing is kinda freaky.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...815122,00.html