Cop Searching For Suspect Dies In Traffic Accident, Suspect Later Convicted For His Death

[DeSwiss]

Jury Convicts Suspect In Highway Patrolman's Death

KSDK NewsChannel5
7/20/2007 12:49:33 PM

KSDK - If it hadn't been for Massigh Stallman, Missouri Highway Patrol Trooper Ralph Tatoian would still be alive, and Stallman is responsible for his death, a jury has ruled.

In April of 2005, Trooper Tatoian was driving on Interstate 44 to the scene were police were looking for Stallman, a wooded area in Gasconade County. As he drove with his lights and siren on, he came over a hill near Pacific, and slammed into a tractor trailer. Trooper Tatoian was killed. Meanwhile, more than 40 miles away in Gasconade County, police from several agencies continued the manhunt for Stallman. They eventually found him and arrested him.

The manhunt began after Stallman held up a convenience store, robbed a woman, and shot a Gasconade Sheriff's Deputy. The deputy survived the shooting, and Stallman led police on a chase that ended along Highway 50, where Stallman ran into the woods. The jury also convicted Stallman of charges related to those crimes.

Stallman's attorneys planned to appeal the conviction for second degree murder in Trooper Tatoian's death, saying he should not be held responsible for the crash. Stallman, 28, is from High Ridge. He now awaits sentencing, which could include life in prison.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=124701

[Swamp Rat]

1. By that logic George W. Bushler is guilty of all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan

over the last 6 years.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

2. Works for me.

[DeSwiss]

4. Agreed....

...maybe I should send this article to Congress?

[Richard Steele]

19. That's a bad analogy, because he -is- responsible. (Deaths due to the WAR, anyway).

This ruling is more like claiming that the
9/11 hijackers are personally responsible for
the carnage in Iraq.

Whatever metaphor we use for it, though, this
verdict is some scary bullshit.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Not according to BushBots.

;)

[Richard Steele]

29. Well, that's different then!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Swamp Rat]

30. Exactamundo!

Heeeeyy!! :D

[pokercat999]

68. How did this even get to court?

[Richard Steele]

71. These things usually happen because the "DA" is planning a run for political office , that's how. nm

[timtom]

57. And, of course,

he is.

[misanthrope]

3. Why stop there?...

...Someone had to invent the automobile and without them, the cop would have never been in the traffic accident.

What about the people who laid the road? Without that, the cop wouldn't have had the accident there.

[DeSwiss]

5. And if Mr. Tatoian hadn't been fooling around with Mrs. Tatoian....

...there would never have been a Officer Tatoian and therefore no murder!

And they say that the law is complicated. Pffftt....

[Truthiness Inspector]

6. Well-suited conviction

Many if not most states have sections that state that ANY death that happens in the commission of certain felonies (in this case, robbery, and the fleeing is included) is first degree homocide.

Maybe some here need to get more acquainted with our actual laws. :)

[DeSwiss]

7. Some are perfectly well acquainted with the law...

...they just don't agree with it.

[Truthiness Inspector]

8. Ugh.

Ok, but don't suggest this conviction was not according to law, that is all.

Carry on.

[DeSwiss]

10. Well, I'll get right on that....

...just as soon as you show where I did.

???

[Truthiness Inspector]

12. You didn't

but your smilie in your OP suggested the law was nuts.

Sounds like a misunderstanding. I think this conviction is just, based on law, you obviously don't because you disagree with the laws in place. Fair enough?

[DeSwiss]

16. Fair enough... n/t

:)

[Louie the XIV]

9. Well Said

This was an extension of the felony murder doctrine, nothing more nothing less. These types of prosecutions are routine.

[misanthrope]

11. You mean the ones governing "homicide?"**nm

**

[Truthiness Inspector]

14. Care to elaborate?

Or are you just taking a gratutious slam on my typo? LOL.

[Richard Steele]

20. The only one requiring more acquaintance with "actual laws" is YOU.

You're just simply as wrong as can be.

[Truthiness Inspector]

26. Are you sure about that?

LOL. Let me know. I'm ready.

[Richard Steele]

28. Yes. I'm sure you're just as wrong, and just as proud of it, as you usually are. nm

[Truthiness Inspector]

32. You are funny

For example, from the California Penal Code:

189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.

--snip--



Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html

On edit: Forgot to add that this is a subsection of 187 PC.

[Richard Steele]

33. Not half as funny as you and your new pal Looey pretending to be lawyers. Now THAT'S comedy gold!

[Truthiness Inspector]

35. LOL

You need some rest. I have never claimed to be an attorney. In other words, you concede, reluctantly, the point. Sweet dreams.

[Richard Steele]

36. I concede only that you lack understanding of the subject under discussion, and thus appear foolish.

What's even funnier- you'd have at least one of
your "facts" straighter if you'd just actually
READ the OP.

[Truthiness Inspector]

37. I did read the OP

Your point? (Specifically)

[Richard Steele]

38. You're the one quoting "the law" at everyone- surely you don't need my help to find your error.

[Truthiness Inspector]

39. I need your help!

Please tell me! :)

[Richard Steele]

41. Sorry, I have no formal training in abnormal psychology. I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Truthiness Inspector]

42. Where to begin? With the actual law.

You have no formal training in that either but that isn't stopping you.

[Richard Steele]

43. Who told you I have no formal training? NO ONE. You're just making stuff up as usual.

Look, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret here:
I don't engage you in conversation because I care to hear
the perpetual stream of childishly argumentative nonsense
that you spout every day at DU.

I "engage you in conversation" because you are obviously
talking out of your ass on every thread,
and I feel that encouraging you to keep talking is
the best & fastest way to allow the MAXIMUM number of DU members
to realize what a deliberately worthless waste of space
your posts are. In the shortest amount of time.

Look, in words you MIGHT understand:

You are a childish fool.
Your posts PROVE that you are a childish fool.
I want more DU members to realize that you are a childish fool.
Therefore, I want you to post more, so more DU members see your posts and realize that you are a childish fool.

Even after I've said all that, I bet you'll respond to this. Childish fool.

[Louie the XIV]

44. This should help clear it up for you

I think this is simplified enough


felony murder doctrine
n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder

[Richard Steele]

46. Child, do you understand the phrase, "Don't tell your grandma how to suck eggs" ?

Some points you would do well to learn:
1:
This is the INTERNET, Einstein: it's 2007, we ALL know how to "cut-n-paste"
paragraphs from other sites. No one is impressed with that last post,
and no one ever will be.

2:
This one is in two parts:
If you are gonna pretend to be a "practicioner of the law" online,
you need to:
2A: pick a site with a much LOWER average IQ to play "lawyer" on.
2B: pick a TV show with a much HIGHER IQ to learn the lingo from.

This ain't some fanboy board, child, this is DU.
We have REAL lawyers here every damn day, and we know them well.
Well enough to know that you are just some sad "wannabe" attempting to
play an online role, and FAILING very badly in the attempt.


Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Sincerely,
Richard

[Louie the XIV]

47. LOL, Is this ranting and raving some kind of schtick?

or are you having some sort of psychotic episode?

I have yet to see any substantive response from you on this topic and I have a feeling one won't be coming so I'm not going to wait in anticipation.

[Richard Steele]

48. there is more in my "schtick" than is DREAMPT OF in your philosophy.

[Bluebear]

45. Well, that about summed it up! nt

[baby_mouse]

66. Just ignore them.

It makes everything simpler.

[Richard Steele]

69. Poking morans with a pointy stick is one of the few evil habits I still allow myself.

:evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

22. It seems to be a question of proximate cause.

I think reasonable and well-informed people CAN disagree. It's intellectual sloth to smear all others (with whom one disagrees) as being ill-informed. It's a fallacy, too, and doesn't portray valid reasoning skills.

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

[Truthiness Inspector]

24. Nope

Laws are laws, that is all. I don't make them. Don't kill the messenger. :)

You can disagree with the laws all you like, that doesn't make those laws any less lawful. :)

[Guaranteed]

77. The cause-in-fact requirement is often stretched to its limits in criminal law

As for proximate cause in criminal law, it usually is just a policy question. Do we want to encourage/discourage the type of behavior exhibited by the defendant? Is it right to hold a defendant criminally responsible for the victim's death, under the circumstances? In this case, it was determined to be the right thing to do.

The suspect shot a cop. Another cop was speeding to get to the area where the suspect was being pursued. Under the felony-murder rule, which is admittedly a BRUTAL rule at times, the decision seems correct, at least as a matter of policy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Maybe that particular law is just fucking stupid

:shrug:

I've already been dismissed early from a jury because I told them I would refuse to convict on that sort of statute if the intent to commit a homicide was not present or threatened. It is an outrageous law and should be scuttled or refined.

[Louie the XIV]

50. So if a firefighter dies while putting out a fire caused by an arsonist

you don't think the arsonist should be held accountable at all for the death?

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Arson's a special category

Because of the inherent risk of injury to unknown parties and response personnel.

This is precisely not about purity. The case I was on went like this: two guys committed a burglary. One guy left. The other guy was still trolling around when someone came home. He killed that person. They charged the first guy with felony murder (committed in the course of a burglary). That's total bullshit, and I said so. So you can get as cute as you want with your hypotheticals. The law is problematic precisely because it allows prosecutors to overcharge (as they always do) seeking fucking plea deals, and when people don't plea, they end up going to trial with a completely absurd jury instruction.

[Louie the XIV]

59. So there is no inherent risk of injury to bystanders in an armed robbery?

You left out some important details, was the guy charged carrying a weapon? Did he plan on returning? These are things that will be considered in determining his culpability.

[MadHound]

81. Having been a firefighter at one time,

I can honestly answer no on this, you don't hold the arsonist responsible. As a firefighter I knew walking in that I was putting my life on the line, to a greater or lesser extent, every time I answered the call. It didn't matter how the fire started, just that it needed to be put out, and if I fucked up, or shit just happened and I died, it was on me for I chose to answer that call.

I feel the same applies to law enforcement officers, you take the badge, you also take the inherent risk. It is the job of the police to put their lives on the line, and to punish others for their choice is unjust in my opinion.

Besides, the first rule of both professions is to keep yourself safe. Knowing the roads in the area that they speak of, it is quite believable that the trooper was traveling too fast for traffic/road conditions. Again, nobody's fault but his.

To find somebody guilty of murder for something that happened forty miles away is unjust on many different levels.

[dsc]

60. I have a question

Given this conviction, why didn't someone go after Enron's crooks for felony murder? Surely someone ruined by those bastards either killed themselves outright or died from stress. It seems every bit as fair as this case.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

74. The Felony Murder Rule

Any act that is a probable consequence of the commission of felony renders the one who committed the felony liable for that outcome. It's a form of strict liability under the law. For example, if three guys rob a bank and in a shoot-out the police kill one of the robbers, the other two robbers are guilty of murder for the death of their comrade at the hands of the police. His death was a probable consequence of the felony robbery.

Here without more fact I think the connection on its face is too remote. Why not make the robber responsible for the death of a police officer who madly rushed to eat his breakfast at home on his way to search for the robber and choked to death? That would be ridiculously remote and improbable. In jurisdictions that apply Model Penal Code causation principles, a defendant may not be convicted of felony-murder if the death was not a probable consequence of his felonious conduct. It's a question of mens rea (guilty mind). Could it be contemplated by anyone with the intent to commit one crime that a certain causation could exist between that criminal act and another? Here, in my opinion, an accident occuring after the robbery and far from the scene, involving an intervening motorist is too remote, and is not a "probable consequence" unless there's other evidence to connect it to the search (which there may well have been). Now if there was a hot chase involving a fleeing felon and a police officer who dies in the chase, there probably is a legitimate case for murder because the deaths of those chasing a fleeing felon could be a reasonable and probable consequence and should have been considered a probable consequence by the one committing the original felony. Here, I think we need more facts to know how close a connection there was.

[Louie the XIV]

83. The officer was joining the pursuit of the armed felon

that was why he was drving so fast.

The rule is based on the principle that if you commit a felony like arson or armed robbery it is forseeable that you are creating a dangerous situation and that police and or firefighters will be called out after you. The felon here was fleeing at high speeds and endangering innocent lives it is foreseeable that this action would cause a traffic accident and death. The fact that the cop was 40 miles away at the time is irrelevant because he was driving to intercept the felon, that was the reason he was on the roads and driving at high speeds.

As a side note, in most rural areas it is not unusual at all to see law enforcement members from long distances join in felony pursuits/investigations because of the limited manpower and resources of most small town police departments.

[Jed Dilligan]

13. Better luck next time, officer

You should have learned to drive better. I hope the truck was okay.

[Raskolnik]

51. Classy.

Very classy.

[Jed Dilligan]

55. Glad someone noticed

:P

[Raskolnik]

56. Yeah, bullshit posts like that usually are just cries for attention.

There really isn't any other reason to say something that remarkably stupid and callous.

[Jed Dilligan]

58. Other than the enormous amount of damage

that law 'n order politics, privileging prisons over schools and welfare, and the subsequent expansion of the police and police corruption have done to this country, I guess you're right. Or maybe I was just spitting in the face of the sentimental idiocy that people feel over slain cops, when they shrug and laugh at the deaths of poor and homeless and incarcerated persons.

I hate cops and I'm not afraid to say it loud and clear. Their thirty year reign of terror is ripping the heart out of democracy.

To quote Body Count: "I know you're family's grieving--Fuck 'em."

[Raskolnik]

61. That officer was responsible for all that?

If you're too simple-minded to realize that the ills of which you speak are primarily the fault of our political process, and *not* the fault of a man pursuing a violent felon, please don't assume the rest of us suffer from your failures as well.

There are massive problems with modern police departments (no reasonable person could argue otherwise), but if you think we can function as a society without an effective police force, I would encourage you to continue raging against the machine from behind your comfy little computer and avoid the real world at all costs.

Have a lovely evening.

[Jed Dilligan]

62. They are all complicit, every last one of them.

Of course we need a police force--without a single person in it who is currently in it.

Thanks for your well-wishing, even though it is meant as some sort of backhanded insult.

[TnDem]

73. Broad brush meet utopian bullshit....

So every single police officer who currently wears a badge is a murderous SOB and needs to be fired?

I'm glad your post isn't the public mantra of this forum...


Mkay....

[Jed Dilligan]

75. The few good ones aren't worth saving.

Too much trouble. Fire them all, replace them with people selected for totally different personality traits. This isn't utopian. There ARE countries where the cops are not fascist pigs.

[SayWhatYo]

76. lol...

:yourock: :hide:

[slampoet]

15. So if a boy scout gets lost in the woods and a cop gets eaten by a bear searching for the scout.....

....then the fault is with the scout and not the bear?


effin right.



By this same logic the cop's wife can shoot her cop husband and not be convicted as long he was out looking for a different suspect at the time.


If a cop pulls me over for a speeding ticket and walks out into traffic and gets hit coming up to my car am i then going to be convicted even though i was doing everything the officer wanted me to do?

This is an obvious mistrial and if it didn't involve the "Cult of the Dead Cop" the judge would have negated the jury verdict or declared mistrial before then came up with a verdict.

[Truthiness Inspector]

17. Here's a clue

A boy scout getting lost in the woods is not a FELONY, in fact it isn't even an infraction. So your whole schtick falls apart after that.

Felony, that is the key word here.

[slampoet]

70. Ok so the Boy scout gets lost after stealing $1500 of scrap metal. A felony.

Now what?

Spitting on someone can get you charged with a felony. So can fainting when the officer cuffs you, (resisting arrest).

[Guaranteed]

78. And a violent felony, at that. nt

[Louie the XIV]

18. This doctrine only applies when the suspect has committed a felony

the boy scout in your example did not so it is not applicable.
Also, another felony, for example the shooting by the wife, would interrupt the chain and she would be responsible for the death.

[Truthiness Inspector]

21. Hey are you my twin brother? LOL

And welcome to DU. :)

[Louie the XIV]

27. LOL, No just a fellow practicioner of the law

thank you for the welcome.

I can understand how this can be convoluted to the layman, however the doctrine's intent is to deter felonies so I can't see how people can be too upset.

[Richard Steele]

31. SUUUURE you are. That's just so totally believable. I'm buying it completely, Looey.

:rofl:

[baby_mouse]

65. It isn't convoluted. It's idiotic.

[Suich]

34. Hm-m-m-m...thanks for the clarification.

I've always had a question or two about the Pang Warehouse fire and the conviction of Martin Pang.

:)

[Louie the XIV]

40. Did that involve an arsonist being charged for the death of a fireman?

If so that is the same legal reasoning being used here.

[Suich]

63. The son of the owners of the warehouse set it on fire,

thinking he would get the insurance money. Four firemen died. He got life.

[pitohui]

54. the scout did not commit a felony by getting lost in the woods EOM

m

[yodermon]

25. Ah yes, that reminds me of this wonderful post from Citizen Spook!

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/10/treasongate-felony-murder-rule-iraq.html

TREASONGATE: THE FELONY MURDER RULE - The Iraq War Fraud Could Lead To State Court Prosecutions For Murder Of American Soldiers
Ordinarily, the President, as Commander In Chief, and his Executive Branch, could not be held legally responsible for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield. But if congressional, military and monetary support for the Iraq war was procured through a fraudulent criminal conspiracy, the Bush syndicate will have no protection from prosecution in state courts -- out of jurisdicitonal reach of the President's pardon power -- which is limited by the Constitution to federal crimes against the United States.

Fitzgerald's court filings appear to have zeroed in on, not just the leak fact pattern, but the Niger document fraud as well.

This is massive.

...the greatest criminal conspiracy in American history:

The fraudulent case to bring our country to war that took the life of 2000 soliders and lined the pockets of Bush's "base". Fact.
...

(more at link)

[pitohui]

53. uh yeah, this is the law in many states

if you commit a felony and it leads to someone's death, guess what, it is at least manslaughter (second degree murder is apparently the charge in that state)

is that unfair?

he made a choice to set a chain of actions in motion when he decided to commit an armed robbery on a woman, requiring an immediate response because he has shown his willingness to stick his gun in an innocent person's face and that type of person keeps going until they are stopped, no matter how many they maim or kill

the cop had to take a chance to move quickly, to save future lives, instead he was killed in the accident

i'm sure it seems harsh to the armed robber who is happy to kill, maim, and threaten for $$$, i bet it seems less harsh to the woman who had a gun put on her so he could take money

i have no pity for anyone who uses a gun or threat of force to steal money, be they george bush, be they scumbag armed robber

they need to be tried in a court of law and if convicted put away forever

[baby_mouse]

64. What a stupid law.

Punishing a criminal for a cop's mistake? Dim. No wonder there's no respect for law in the States. If that sort of stupid crap's on the statue book it's no surprise that people invent their own rules for themselves.

[Guaranteed]

79. It's just the felony-murder rule. It's extremely controversial.

Most academics are against it, think it should be abolished, because it can be unbelievably harsh. I mean, MUCH harsher than what happened to this guy. This guy, at least, shot a cop before the other cop was killed in the accident.

Others are just kids who do something stupid, like get involved with drugs, and then somebody accidentally gets killed- literally, accidentally- while a deal is going down, and end up in prison for life.

[WinkyDink]

67. This is completely absurd and unjust!!!!!!!! OMG, I'm getting to absolutely HATE THIS PLACE.

[Louie the XIV]

84. Don't commit a violent felony and you will be alright

HTH

[DeSwiss]

72. Well I'm glad to see that there are a few others....

...who have a problem with the application of this law besides me. To me, the idea that a chain of events which commenced with the felony somehow MUST be assigned to the suspect is not only illogical but unfair. Why is a felony required? What if the death had occurred while responding to a misdemeanor? Sorry bub, not today? Or do you refile the charges to make them fit what is needed? And where does this "chain of events" begin and end? If the officer's wife becomes so distraught over her husband's death and injures herself or commits suicide, is that one to be added to the mix?

The point is, fire personnel and police officers enter into service with the knowledge that their jobs carry with it the possibility of injury or death. I'm not saying that this devalues their commitment, I'm simply saying that because of their commitment they should not be afforded EXTRA rights beyond what an ordinary citizen would.

By way of example I pose this scenario: if an officer who is working in the police station becomes excited and upset as a result of these felonious events and then has a heart attack and dies, should that death also be attributed to the suspect? There is a definite linkage between the death and the felony. If the felony hadn't occurred the officer would not have gotten upset and had a heart attack. Or another scenario: what if the officer hadn't been heading toward the search area (which was 40 miles away I re-emphasize), but was just out on his regular patrol when he hit the truck. Who would have been at fault then? Himself? Or the truck driver?

To me, what this is really about is the settling of scores and payback -- pure and simple. By allowing this conviction to advance, the convicted man's estate is now fair game for a civil lawsuit by the officer's family. Its the same as the blood price paid back in ancient times when a robber was caught and had to pay restitution with money if he had it, or his limbs if he didn't. And he still could end up being cut up or stoned.

It's my opinion (for whatever its worth) that by accepting such a law we are according a value to a police officer's life that is greater than anyone else's. Greater only because they were doing their jobs. A job they voluntarily chose and accepted the consequences and risks on the front end. That's not supposed to be the way in a democracy where equality reigns supreme. No one's life is supposed to worth more than another. But I guess we're not as advanced as we thought. The ancient ways still have hold of us. But maybe one day we will break free of them.... IMHO

DeSwiss

[pitohui]

80. why don't people inform themselves at least a little before going off on these extended rants?

your analysis is completely bonkers because if ANYONE had been killed by accident during the course of this armed robbery, ANYONE, not just the police officer responding to the call, then the perpetrator of the armed robbery would be prosecuted under the same lawyer

in fact, say there were 2 armed robbers, and the clerk at the store has a gun to defend herself and shoots one of the armed robbers and he dies, the clerk has an absolute right to self defense and is innocent of any crime, it is the surviving armed robber who goes to prison for the manslaughter -- and this is exactly as it should be

there is no special favor being granted to police officers, so your entire extended rant is completely irrelevant to reality

a common example--shit head does an armed robbery of a convenient store, the woman behind the counter has a heart attack and dies, shit head is then charged w. the manslaughter in addition to the armed robbery

there is nothing unfair, the law protects everyone who is a victim of felonious shit heads who kill people by "accident," in fact, the reason the law exists in the first place is that every time someone was killed in a armed robbery for about the last skaty-eight years the shit head would claim it was an accident and waste a lot of the court's time, no, sorry, bubba, you pick up a weapon and decide to stick guns in people's faces for $$$, let's cut to the chase, if someone is hurt it's because you set up a circumstance where there is huge and predictable chance that if you do this then someone is going to be shot or have a panic/heart attack

this conviction is proper and in accordance w. a sensible law, don't want the law applied to you, it's pretty easy, don't commit felonies

[dorkulon]

82. Wow, I can't believe this will survive an appeal.

It seems insane and unconstitutional.