Man convicted of murder in death of trooper
UNION • The subject of a police manhunt in 2005 was convicted of second-degree murder Thursday night in the death of a Missouri Highway Patrol trooper who crashed his car racing to help in the search.
...
The trooper was Ralph C. Tatoian of north St. Louis County, a trained sniper who was rushing along Interstate 44 to join the manhunt in Franklin County on April 20, 2005. He died when he struck a tractor-trailer that had stopped to help another motorist.

Even though Stallmann was hiding in woods some 30 miles away from Tatoian’s crash site, prosecutors won the murder conviction. Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest.

Apparently, this particular law is one of those "felony murder doctrine" varmints, which greatly expands the criminal responsibility of the perp.

Questions for debate:
1} Does the Missouri law in question strike you as violating either the Constitutional prohibtion on cruel and unusual punishment, or the equal protection clause?

2} Is this a case of a good verdict, an absurd result of a good law, a law badly written, or a bad law at its core?

3} Trooper Tatoian was moving briskly (i.e. speeding) through a construction zone, should that have mitigated the "crime"?

4} What sort of limits, if any, should be placed on "felony murder" laws? What would be the justification for the limits?

1} Does the Missouri law in question strike you as violating either the Constitutional prohibtion on cruel and unusual punishment, or the equal protection clause?
Yes, both.

2} Is this a case of a good verdict, an absurd result of a good law, a law badly written, or a bad law at its core?
I think it is badly written and bad law. I don't understand how any person could be legally held liable for a crime they did not commit. Trooper Tatoian was not murdered, he died as a result of his own actions. Ergo, no one should be charged with murder. I'm struggling to understand why this law was written as it was, and how any jury could reach the decision they did.

3} Trooper Tatoian was moving briskly (i.e. speeding) through a construction zone, should that have mitigated the "crime"?
Yes. It would have also helped if he had not been enebriated.

4} What sort of limits, if any, should be placed on "felony murder" laws? What would be the justification for the limits?

If the officer's death was the DIRECT result of the felon's actions, I believe that a murder charge would be in order. For example, if the felon took out a gun and pointed it at an unarmed officer and demanded he jump in front of a moving train. This officer died in the line of duty, but he was not killed in the line of duty. That is the difference.

Well, wait a minute, MrsP. I understand why laws such as these are written, and it's not always bad law.

For example, in a bank robbery if someone is shot and killed during the holdup, the look-out or the getaway driver can be , and sometimes are charged with murder as well. They were involved in the crime, and even though they didn't pull the trigger, they are just as culpable in the long run, as those who did.

The question is, how far should this extend? 5 miles? 50 miles? In this case, I believe the law goes too far. As you said, the officer was speeding through a construction zone, to get to a crime scene that already had plenty of officers in on the manhunt. The officer was not killed as an immediate result of the pursuit (i.e.: he was not killed while actually chasing the suspect).

So, bad law? Not necessarily. Badly misused in this instance? I think so.

This is simply a case of splitting hairs with the law and any half-baked lawyer could get their client off with ease I'm sure. But this is an exceptionally different case. The dead reckless speeder was a cop, but not just any cop, he was a sniper. Special case which his colleagues would like to see payback for. So some hapless clown hiding in the woods, literally a babe in the woods, gets caught up in something that he had no control of. Sad but who is really to blame? The cop speeding through a construction zone? Some guy in the woods (that's funny owing to his defence: "I didn't do anything! I was in the woods!")? The judicial system? Me, I say the cop is to blame. He was trained in driving techniques, he likely gave out many tickets over the very same thing i.e. the rules of the road he was trained for, he was the one with the foot on the gas and (not) on the brakes. This is reverse vigilante justice only because the whole affair was out of the perp's hands i.e.he was hiding in the woods.

Just to add an extra dimension to this, there was an incident in Phoenix tonight where 2 news helicopters covering a Police chase collided and all 4 people on board the 2 choppers died. The suspect was arrested and, in addition to the charges related to the original crime and subsequent chase will also face charges related to the 4 deaths.

If a prosecutor brings those charges, he should be disbarred. Any judge who entertains the charges should be tarred and feathered, run out of town and disbarred, and any jury that convicts on the charges should be executed. The failure of two pilots to avoid one another is the pilots fault, period. Tragic, yes, but purely their fault.

Yep, you're responsible for your own actions. That is Fundamental Life 101. However, this and the speeding cop who couldn't handle his vehicle point to an insanity trend. Looks like the human race is steadily going down the tubes, going crazy, got it's head screwed on wrong . . . however one wants to put it. Or maybe it's just Americans.

We are instructed to think illogically all the time. I'm not surprised.

Bad thinking, bad law, bad decision and it's only getting worse.

Well, maybe it's always been this way, come to think of it. We who sometimes think we're special. Chosen.

This is ridiculous. I wonder if the suspect would have crashed and died instead, if the police could be charged with murder.

I hope this case doesn't set a disturbing precedence.

Criminals could claim that if it wasn't for my poverty level I wouldn't have commited the crime, or if I didn't play my XBOX I wouldn't have shot this person.. so it's actually Bill Gates who is at fault.

This story reminds me of our discussion on Hudson v. Michigan, where law-abiding conservatives supported the ruling because, well, if you're using/selling illegal drugs you should stay in jail, even if police come by the evidence illegally.

One of the botched no-knock raids cited by CATO involves Antron Dawayne Fair and Damon Antwon. They're up for the death penalty for firing and killing a deputy after police broke into their residence. Also charged with murder are "Cynthia Greene, 20, Thomas Mason Porter Jr., 22, and Hassan Shirell Harclerode, 26. Harclerode wasn't at the home at the time of the shooting, but he was charged because, as the home's renter, he was responsible for activities there, authorities have said."

Stallmann is another example of a society that defers to authority. Not only do we grant politicians immunity, but in our deference we grant special status to law enforcement for "protecting" us.

Eh. But what do I know.

This sort of relates to the reason I don't agree with PhotoCop systems. It tickets the owner of the vehicle, not the person driving said vehicle. If I committed a murder where I live, should my roommate who owns the house be prosecuted for the murder? No. The law is designated to prosecute those responsible for said crime. While I understand the cop was travelling to find the criminal, it is unbelievable to charge him with murder. This reminds me of an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" where someone said they felt a bond with the 9/11 victims because their brother (or sister or whoever it was) died the same day--somewhere else of unrelated causes. Larry David's character complained that his death was not related to the 9/11 attacks, which subsequently got him in hot water for reducing the impact of the terrorist attack. Very funny episode by the way.

Where does it stop? Should someone be charged with murder because a cop was killed as a result of some crime which they were not responding to? Where does that line get drawn? This will probably end up in federal court with the aid of the ACLU. While he should be charged with the crime he committed, it's almost offensive to suggest the cop's own actions which resulted in his death can now be blamed on the criminal because he was hiding. Nobody forced the cop to race to the scene. If anyone should be charged, police dispatchers should be for causing the cop to speed to the scene. That's just as absurd too.

Yes, and definitely the tractor-trailer driver that stopped to help another motorist. Afterall, the cop died because he hit it. Maybe the taxpayers are liable for paving the roads in the first place, allowing cars to speed rather than put along on bumpy dirt which would be safer (though filthy). We could have an annual lottery and arbitrarily select citizens to represent the punishment of all for scores of indirect crimes. One person could be penalized per thousand people who die on the road every year.

Edited to add (in response to Niteguy):

Thanks, it does make a bit more sense that way. But I still think we go down a very slippery road when intent isn't considered in a crime. I don't believe anything short of intended murder can or should be charged as murder. Involuntary homicide, negligent homicide, aiding and abetting, yes...not murder unless the death was the obvious intended consequence of an action.

Well, we do have manslaughter to cover unintended murder. However, you need to be doing the unintended murdering, by my way of thinking. In other words, the police officer unintentionally committed suicide by smashing his vehicle into the semi. The guy taking the hit on this was nowhere about, ergo did not do anything to cause the crash.

Had the police officer not crashed but instead ran over someone and murdered, then he'd be up for manslaughter -- only because he was actually driving the vehicle that did the killing. Maybe vehicular homocide, but I'm not clear about the difference.

But, illogic seems to be ruling the day. Around here I usually write it off to the thin air at altitude. Maybe there's some sort of crazy wave from outer space affecting people. An alien reality TV show? They must all be existentialists.

Or the gods must be crazy (good flick).