theReformed

One might say that the U.S. justice system's accountability practices might be in danger in this generation, where relative, but separate incidents could be contributed to the delinquency of another individual. Such is the case involving a 'high-speed police chase' between Christopher Jones and the Phoenix, Arizona police department ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/27/helicopter.crash/index.html ), wherein the course of the chase, two CIVILIAN news agency helicopters collided in mid-air and went down. Preliminary reports by the NTSB estimated that the collision occurred due to the close proximity of the helicopters to one another, but have not determined whether it was any sort of avionics issue, such as a defective rotor system, that may have caused either to lose control. I don't argue the case that a great tragedy hasn't occurred and I can only extend my sincere condolences to the familes of the four crew members aboard the two crafts that died, Jim Cox, Scott Bowerback, Rick Krolak and Craig Smith. What I do grow concerned with is the immediate intention, identified publically on both CNN and other news agencies covering the story, of the prosecutor's of this criminal's case to somehow (in my best estimination based on the case) to attribute this individual with manslaughter charges involving those craft and their personnel's demise. According to a CNN blurb, "NTSB says witnesses saw no problems with either craft before collision" -  so  we're going to need to account for potentially critical human error.

If this was a case where the man's actions contributed to the destruction of government/law enforcement property or personnel, it would make a case to say that due to this person's blatant negligence for the law that the prosecutors would be raising the case against him for a government/law enforcement agent's death/injury IN THE LINE OF DUTY. Does it not almost seem asinign to think that these individuals didn't know there is an inherent risk in their civilian job?

This isn't a workplace shooting we're talking about, a large percentage of reporters CHASE the stories, in some instances habitually breaking the law by entering in the middle of a ongoing investigation/apprehension to get the shot/scoop into or flying restricted airspace - this is a global mindset of media moguls that has long been ignored, to get the story no matter what and many times at any cost. These organizations aren't providing a public service as they'd like us to believe, they're in the game to make a buck, albeit they're creating diversity in reporting as opposed to many other countries that default to only state-run agencies which feed the public news for their political needs.

Now, let me clarify because I know you're probably on the edge of your seat waiting to pounce on this opinion; I am not implying that these individuals were doing anything illegal that would have caused their collision - what I am inferring is the question of why do we mediate on behalf of a industry that continously puts themselves in compromising positions or takes unnecessary risk?

Are we not only strengthening their resolve to get the story, as this case would potentially be a landmark ruling, fueling their expectancy for 'justice' when the cards don't fall in their favor? Isn't equally as confusing that the prosecutor could attribute this event to this man, when there was no direct contact with the choppers themselves - being mindful for his disregard of public safety, that would apply to pedestrians, traffic and law enforcement en tow would it not? Should I expect to be prosecuted for an accident, possibly caused by driver inattentiveness, distraction by the red and blue lights or lack of situational awareness, on the road where I was being pulled over for speeding?

I realize the letter of the law is making the statement that whenever you commit crime of this magnitude, you are giving up the rights afforded you by the Union, but on a case like this we might want to think outside of the box.

Right now, looking at the facts of the case as the media has relayed them, there are only two things I can determine that are being accomplished with this action - politics and resolve. The politics, is the municipal government going through with the prosecution/attribution to gain a clear-cut case on the individual, stack the charges and eventually the sentence against him and to make an example of him that noone is exempt from even the most implausible or indirect effects of a situation when committing a crime. The resolve, is that the family and friends have some form of closure and I can only sympathize with them in this moment.

To ensure my position on this is well-read, I mean to say, the offender should most assuredly be incarcerated, but let us make sure we had put him away for the right reasons.