The Newsroom

US TV Choppers Crash Covering Car Chase

Four killed in accident (July 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
M
M@ Founding member
channel2tv posted:
gilsta posted:
channel2tv posted:
gilsta posted:
It's an interesting cultural clash, in the UK an enquiry would be ordered to look into how the helicopters crashed, whether pilots were under pressure from the news channels to get the footage "at all costs" (as sickening as that phrase is now), if there would be any way to improve pilot communication, the necessity for five tv helicopters to cover two cars racing round a city etc. The central feed suggestion is a good one but unlikely in the exclusive obsessed news world.

In the US, the man driving on the car on the ground, who did not dispatch the helicopters, is blamed. I hate to suggest it but the way the media are immediately pushing this angle could be an attempt to cover their own mistakes.


Watch it, pal. The man, under legal definition, from what I understand, caused this. The law says so, not the media.


May I suggest, pal, you first wait for the trial, second don't take everything from the media at face value and third not take everything so personally.


Let me spell out the following:

1. I am not saying the man IS guilty, all I am saying is that this man, under the definitions of legal code that is the Common Law, is MOST LIKELY guilty.

2. I read into an issue and decide for myself, so don't describe me as a gullible sheep, please.

3. I work in the Phoenix media in some ways, so yes, I am taking things a bit personally, as you can understand.


I think you'll find that most people here will be sympathetic towards the death of four men just doing their jobs. However, they really won't care what the law says. I think most people here will agree with me in thinking US law is mostly ridiculous and laughable. Everything that happens has to be someone's responsibility, the finger has to be pointed, the courts have to be snarled up, revenge has to be seeked. Nothing can ever be put down as an accident, which this tragic incident clearly is.

And as a side note, if your posts in this thread are anything to go by, you have an awful lot to learn if you want to be considered a credible journalist by Brits. In America though, I'm sure you far exceed the necessary integrity, spelling ability, sentence construction and balance required. You'll be blowing things out of proportion to funky rock music headline beds and garish graphics in no time.
PH
phoenixrises
US Laws may be "ridiculous", in your opinion, but it is the only thing that we can use to punish the guy who got these people into the mess. This is what you could call "you get some, you lose some".
GA
Gallunach
channel2tv posted:
US Laws may be "ridiculous", in your opinion, but it is the only thing that we can use to punish the guy who got these people into the mess..


He can be charged with theft of a car ,he can be charged with resisting arrest ,driving without due care,probably also speeding and there is probably other laws I can't think of at the moment

The robber did not get them into this mess..He did not point a gun at them and say follow me around.

The ones who got them into trouble are the bosses in the TV stations who had
five helicopters following 1 pathetic car robber all for the sake of ratings
TG
TG
Exactly. It's this very culture of shifting blame and such, that we're having to fight against in this country.

We understand, I think, that it's US law, and it's all they have.

Doesn't mean for a second that we have to agree with it wholesale.

Our laws are by no means perfect. Neither are the American ones.

Blaming someone for stealing a car is one thing.

Blaming them for news editors deciding to send helicopters up is quite another. So, that's what's likely to happen there. Fair enough.

But, please, PLEASE, don't expect us Brits to accept it just because Arizona law says so. We're entitled to our own views on it.
PH
phoenixrises
TG posted:
Exactly. It's this very culture of shifting blame and such, that we're having to fight against in this country.

We understand, I think, that it's US law, and it's all they have.

Doesn't mean for a second that we have to agree with it wholesale.

Our laws are by no means perfect. Neither are the American ones.

Blaming someone for stealing a car is one thing.

Blaming them for news editors deciding to send helicopters up is quite another. So, that's what's likely to happen there. Fair enough.

But, please, PLEASE, don't expect us Brits to accept it just because Arizona law says so. We're entitled to our own views on it.


You are, of course. I am simply presenting my case.
SE
seamus
channel2tv posted:
US Laws may be "ridiculous", in your opinion, but it is the only thing that we can use to punish the guy who got these people into the mess. This is what you could call "you get some, you lose some".



But he didn't get them into this mess. They were covering what he did, he didn't make them crash. Let's Say that a reporter is reporting some fluff story on the ground, and gets hit by a car completly accidentally, and then the person who the fluff story is about is convicted for murder. It's the same thing.
NG
noggin Founding member
channel2tv posted:


He had no way of knowing, that is why he is being charged with "Negligent Homicide".

According to Arizona Law, the definition of such is:

A.R.S. §13-1102 "Negligent Homicide" occurs when a person commits an act of criminal negligence which causes the death of another person. "criminal negligence" means the following: with respect to the result, or to a circumstance, a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk the result will occur, or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The person probably well know that his actions could cause an accident of some sort, helicopter or no helicopter, and that someone could die, either him, a police officer, or a bystander/


Not wishing to get into any form of flame war at all - but is "Negligent Homicide" really going to cover this?

I can understand if the guy caused a fatal road traffic accident, or killed pedestrians - driving too fast and illegally whilst under pursuit - as in that case the risk is "of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

However the risk of two TV station helicopters colliding during TV coverage of the event ? Is failing to perceive that "a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation"

Given that TV helicopters seldom if ever collide - wouldn't the risk most "reasonable people would observe" of TV helicopters colliding actually be quite low, and would most "reasonable people" even consider it as a result of a pursuit?

IMHO - and it is only that - I'm not a lawyer :

A "reasonable person would observe" high risk of injury or fatality to other drivers or road users by taking part in a high speed car chase.

but

A "reasonably person" would not observe a high risk of injury due to TV station helicopters colliding. I imagine most people wouldn't think of this as an issue at all when asked what the risks of a high speed pursuit were?

As a matter of interest - I'd be interested to know what Risk Assessments were in place for helicopter use by the TV stations in question - as if they haven't assessed the risks of that assignment and put processes in place to minimise them (and if this wasn't possible - cancelled the assignment) the TV stations, and senior production team members, would almost certainly be investigated under British Health and Safety legislation.
:-(
A former member
Looking at this from another angle, let's say someone on the ground was "rubber-necking" the whole thing from a nearby road, driving without due care and attention (the UK definition of what this person would be guilty of), and ran over a child in the street.

This is a tragic accident, for which the driver may or may not have a case to answer to. BUT, can we say from the interpretation of US law portrayed in this thread, that the car-thief would also bear responsibility for this hypothetical tragedy as well?

Where does it stop? If the man is "likely" responsible for the deaths of these journalists, there is something very wrong with the spirit of US law.
GI
ginnyfan
channel2tv posted:
US Laws may be "ridiculous", in your opinion, but it is the only thing that we can use to punish the guy who got these people into the mess. This is what you could call "you get some, you lose some".

'
But he wasn't the one who got them ''into the mess''. I can't understand your logic. You could blame him if he hit someone with that car, but how can you relate him with those helicopter crashing.
If you want to blame someone , blame those stupid TV stations who sent them there and even more stupid audience watching all that.
LI
LifeISgr8
.. here in the states (although I work in tv news). The charge will likely never happen. Had it been a ground crash, yes. If anything he may be liable in civil court.

noggin posted:
channel2tv posted:


He had no way of knowing, that is why he is being charged with "Negligent Homicide".

According to Arizona Law, the definition of such is:

A.R.S. §13-1102 "Negligent Homicide" occurs when a person commits an act of criminal negligence which causes the death of another person. "criminal negligence" means the following: with respect to the result, or to a circumstance, a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk the result will occur, or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The person probably well know that his actions could cause an accident of some sort, helicopter or no helicopter, and that someone could die, either him, a police officer, or a bystander/


Not wishing to get into any form of flame war at all - but is "Negligent Homicide" really going to cover this?

I can understand if the guy caused a fatal road traffic accident, or killed pedestrians - driving too fast and illegally whilst under pursuit - as in that case the risk is "of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

However the risk of two TV station helicopters colliding during TV coverage of the event ? Is failing to perceive that "a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation"

Given that TV helicopters seldom if ever collide - wouldn't the risk most "reasonable people would observe" of TV helicopters colliding actually be quite low, and would most "reasonable people" even consider it as a result of a pursuit?

IMHO - and it is only that - I'm not a lawyer :

A "reasonable person would observe" high risk of injury or fatality to other drivers or road users by taking part in a high speed car chase.

but

A "reasonably person" would not observe a high risk of injury due to TV station helicopters colliding. I imagine most people wouldn't think of this as an issue at all when asked what the risks of a high speed pursuit were?

As a matter of interest - I'd be interested to know what Risk Assessments were in place for helicopter use by the TV stations in question - as if they haven't assessed the risks of that assignment and put processes in place to minimise them (and if this wasn't possible - cancelled the assignment) the TV stations, and senior production team members, would almost certainly be investigated under British Health and Safety legislation.
PH
phoenixrises
LifeISgr8 posted:
.. here in the states (although I work in tv news). The charge will likely never happen. Had it been a ground crash, yes. If anything he may be liable in civil court.


The County Attorney in Phoenix interprets laws in a very populist manner, according to my boss at PBS. So, I think he will find some ways to charge the SOB.
NG
noggin Founding member
channel2tv posted:
LifeISgr8 posted:
.. here in the states (although I work in tv news). The charge will likely never happen. Had it been a ground crash, yes. If anything he may be liable in civil court.


The County Attorney in Phoenix interprets laws in a very populist manner, according to my boss at PBS. So, I think he will find some ways to charge the SOB.


Presumably there is a difference between being charged, being taken to trial and being found guilty?

I'm not an expert on US law - but I assume the County Attorney has some equivalence with the UK's "Crown Prosecution Service" who decide whether to take a case to court or not?

I guess a major difference is that the CPS is a national organisation, rather than an elected local official?

Certainly, if this horrible accident had happened between helicopters working for ITN and the BBC I would expect a whole number of organisations to investigate - Civil Aviation Authority, Police, Health and Safety Executive spring to mind - and certainly the HSE would be asking very serious questions of the broadcasters, and the operators (UK broadcasters almost universally lease or hire rather than own their helicopters - even if they are covered in promotional branding) of the helicopters.

Newer posts