Legal ramifications of 'The Negotiator'

[Hal 2000]

Basic plot of the movie for those who don't know; Samuel L. Jackson's character, a cop, is framed for murder; takes hostages in a high rise with the intention of proving his innocence; doesn't kill anyone himself, though one cop ends up dying during the ensuing chaos.

Question my friends and I discussed... Assuming it's shown that he's not guilty of the original murder, what would likely happen to this cop from a legal standpoint?? Or, better yet, what do OOT'ers THINK should happen??

[swede123]

I'd say he would be fired from the force at the very least. Possible probation. Civil suit from the family of the dude he got killed.

Swede

[Brainwalter]

Commendation.

[Loci]

blow job from the commissioner.

[James Boston]

I've actually had what sounds like the same discussion. The conclusion was that, even in efforts to prove your own innocense, taking hostages and setting fire to a federal building is still illegal.

Neibaum's (sp?) murder was clearly shown to be an assassination, so I doubt Danny is on the line for that one.

[daveymck]

Taking people hostage is a crime therfore trial and prison, his motives for doing the crime in this case are not good enough to allow him to get off scott fre.

[offTopic]

Danny pleads down to a lesser offense in exchange for his testimony against the corrupt cops. Part of the agreement is he is forced to retire, but keeps what's left of the pension /images/graemlins/cool.gif. He becomes a creative consultant to Dick Wolf.

BTW, I can't believe that movie has a 7.2 on imdb. I didn't think it was awful, but it certainly wasn't great, and definitely was a waste of an excellent cast.

BTW (part 2)...someone with a name like "Siobhan Fallon" should be hotter.

[PLOlover]

Gee from my Law and Order TV education it is obvious that since someone died during his felony of kidnapping, he is guilty of felony murder.

I mean, he's clearly guilty of kidnapping and stuff, right?

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
Gee from my Law and Order TV education it is obvious that since someone died during his felony of kidnapping, he is guilty of felony murder.

I mean, he's clearly guilty of kidnapping and stuff, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that cut and dried. The causal connection has to be a bit stronger than that (which is saying something). The dudes who killed Neibaum were on an assassination mission, and that probably supercedes enough to relieve Danny of liability for the murder.

Imagine if a husband was caught cheating on his wife. Husband goes to the bank during the regular course of business to deposit a check. Wife, totally out of her gourd with jealous rage, goes after Husband to kill him. While Husband enters bank, but before Wife arrives, Felon does the whole "nobody move this is a robbery" schtick. Wife then walks through the door of the bank and unloads six bullets into Husband's chest. Not felony murder.

They were on an assassination mission because Danny lied over the radio and said that Niebaum was willing to name names. Danny is indirectly responsible for the death of Niebaum because he knew that the crooked cops would come after the Inspector.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Danny is indirectly responsible for the death of Niebaum because he knew that the crooked cops would come after the Inspector.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that legally makes you responsible for murder. Danny lied, but the assassins still took their own course of action. If I tell a buddy I think his wife might be cheating on him, and he in turn kills her, am I liable for her death?

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]

If I tell a buddy I think his wife might be cheating on him, and he in turn kills her, am I liable for her death?


[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, yes, particularly if you were lying and/or if it could be shown that the outcome was obvious or that you should have know it would be, then you could be charged with something like Criminal Negligance Causing Death (at least) if not Conspiracy. Especially if it could be proven that your intent was to trick your buddy into killing his wife.

For example, if you knew your buddy had previously tried to kill women he'd been in relationships with. Or if you had previously threatend the wife yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Danny is indirectly responsible for the death of Niebaum because he knew that the crooked cops would come after the Inspector.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that legally makes you responsible for murder. Danny lied, but the assassins still took their own course of action. If I tell a buddy I think his wife might be cheating on him, and he in turn kills her, am I liable for her death?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew that he was very likely going to kill her if he found out(he had a very violent personality, and would kill cheaters), then yes, I would say that you are indirectly liable for her death if you tell him and do not call the police.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
if it could be shown that the outcome was obvious or that you should have know it would be, then you could be charged with something like Criminal Negligance Causing Death (at least) if not Conspiracy. Especially if it could be proven that your intent was to trick your buddy into killing his wife.


[/ QUOTE ]

My analogy doesn't fit perfectly. Back to the movie though, it's unlikely that they could prove Danny's intent was to get Neibaum killed, since it was Neibaum who had the information Danny needed. He might be guilty of some form of negligence, but that seems like it would come in behind taking hostages and setting fire to a federal building.

[astarck]

It was a good movie.

[PLOlover]

I haven't seen the movie but my understanding is that if you rob a 7-11 and while you are robbing it a customer slips and hits his head and dies or has a heart attack you get charged with felony murder.

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen the movie but my understanding is that if you rob a 7-11 and while you are robbing it a customer slips and hits his head and dies or has a heart attack you get charged with felony murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of. There still has to be a causal connection, but in either of those cases, the victim simply being aware of the burglary would probably be enough to fill that requirement. For the heart attack case, it's clear -- Victim sees Felon robbing 7-11, Victim has heart attack, Victim dies. A jury could easily find that Victim was literally scared to death.

For the slip-fall-die guy, well, you'd have to see something more (but not much). If Victim slipped because he was trying to run from or hide from Felon, that should be enough -- and again, that is probably something a jury could rationally infer.

But you are painting with two broad a brush. Imagine a situation where Felon goes into a 7-11, sticks up the joint, and while that happens, Victim, unaware of the goings on at the register, slips on a Slurpee spill, cracks his head open, and dies. If that's the case, there's no conviction for felony murder.

The thing is that, most of the time, the facts of the case are not so cut and dried. The prosecution could very easily allege that the Victim did, indeed, know that the burglary was going on (7-11s are not usually all that large, and one can notice a masked gunman from pretty much anywhere in the store). So, take this example:

Guy walks into a Super WalMart. Goes to register #1, located in the far southeast corner of the square mile megaplex. Holds up the cashier at gunpoint. Meanwhile, a guy in the gun section suddendly trips over his own shoelaces and falls jugular-first onto a bayonet. Felon? Sure -- armed robbery is a felony, and one for which felony murder usually applies. Death? Clearly. Felony Murder? No way, and it isn't even close.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen the movie but my understanding is that if you rob a 7-11 and while you are robbing it a customer slips and hits his head and dies or has a heart attack you get charged with felony murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of. There still has to be a causal connection, but in either of those cases, the victim simply being aware of the burglary would probably be enough to fill that requirement. For the heart attack case, it's clear -- Victim sees Felon robbing 7-11, Victim has heart attack, Victim dies. A jury could easily find that Victim was literally scared to death.

For the slip-fall-die guy, well, you'd have to see something more (but not much). If Victim slipped because he was trying to run from or hide from Felon, that should be enough -- and again, that is probably something a jury could rationally infer.

But you are painting with two broad a brush. Imagine a situation where Felon goes into a 7-11, sticks up the joint, and while that happens, Victim, unaware of the goings on at the register, slips on a Slurpee spill, cracks his head open, and dies. If that's the case, there's no conviction for felony murder.

The thing is that, most of the time, the facts of the case are not so cut and dried. The prosecution could very easily allege that the Victim did, indeed, know that the burglary was going on (7-11s are not usually all that large, and one can notice a masked gunman from pretty much anywhere in the store). So, take this example:

Guy walks into a Super WalMart. Goes to register #1, located in the far southeast corner of the square mile megaplex. Holds up the cashier at gunpoint. Meanwhile, a guy in the gun section suddendly trips over his own shoelaces and falls jugular-first onto a bayonet. Felon? Sure -- armed robbery is a felony, and one for which felony murder usually applies. Death? Clearly. Felony Murder? No way, and it isn't even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a practicing attorney, I must say it looks like you did well on the bar.

[The Armchair]

I hope you're right /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Your Mom]

Niebaum was responsible for his own death.

[ QUOTE ]
Niebaum was responsible for his own death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Danny was partially responsible but the killers were mostly responsible. To say that the killers have no responsibility in this is preposterous.