NJ Trooper Not Guilty In Sisters

[G10mm]

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/...Higbee_Verdict

CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, N.J. - New Jersey State Trooper Robert Higbee was found not guilty Monday in a car crash that killed two sisters in Cape May, NJ.

Jurors spent much of the day Monday hearing portions of the trooper's testimony read back to them.

Higbee was accused of running a stop sign while pursuing a speeder with his lights and siren off, and killing two sisters in a minivan.

The trooper is charged in the deaths of Jacqueline and Christina Beaker in Cape May County's Upper Township in September 2006.

The jury, which began deliberating late Thursday afternoon, had to decide whether the trooper acted recklessly or whether the crash was a tragic but unavoidable accident.


My moral compass must be way off. The Trooper went throw a stop sign with no lights or siren and crashed in to these two girls. I just don't understand why the let him go.

Your thoughts

[adymond]

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/...Higbee_Verdict

CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, N.J. - New Jersey State Trooper Robert Higbee was found not guilty Monday in a car crash that killed two sisters in Cape May, NJ.

Jurors spent much of the day Monday hearing portions of the trooper's testimony read back to them.

Higbee was accused of running a stop sign while pursuing a speeder with his lights and siren off, and killing two sisters in a minivan.

The trooper is charged in the deaths of Jacqueline and Christina Beaker in Cape May County's Upper Township in September 2006.

The jury, which began deliberating late Thursday afternoon, had to decide whether the trooper acted recklessly or whether the crash was a tragic but unavoidable accident.


My moral compass must be way off. The Trooper went throw a stop sign with no lights or siren and crashed in to these two girls. I just don't understand why the let him go.

Your thoughts

While it is a sad story, I don't know that the trooper was guilty of vehicular homicide which was the charge. Additionally I believe he was following police procedure in the "pursuit" he was in.

Now to enter a highspeed pursuit for failing to stop at a stop sign is just retarded IMO.

[camper]

While it is a sad story, I don't know that the trooper was guilty of vehicular homicide which was the charge. Additionally I believe he was following police procedure in the "pursuit" he was in.

What would the two girls have been charged with if they ran a stop sign and killed the trooper, I wonder?

Police are not above the law, and this certainly makes one believe the opposite. I am a BIG supporter of the police, but driving 70MPH in a 35MPH limit to catch someone who blew a stop sign is ironic considering his blowing a stop sign is what killed the two girls in the van.

Jersey...state police....not suprirsed.

camper

[adymond]

What would the two girls have been charged with if they ran a stop sign and killed the trooper, I wonder?

Police are not above the law, and this certainly makes one believe the opposite. I am a BIG supporter of the police, but driving 70MPH in a 35MPH limit to catch someone who blew a stop sign is ironic considering his blowing a stop sign is what killed the two girls in the van.

Jersey...state police....not suprirsed.

camper

Here's where I would say I see it a bit differently. LEO are not above the law, but they also have seperate rules they follow when functioning within department policy. To insist they always obey stop signs, speed limits, etc. would be as foolish as engaging in a high speed chase over running a stop sign.

I didn't say the trooper is innocent. Rather I said I don't see that his actions (following department policy for engaging in a pursuit) rose to the level of the charges he faced. There are drunks that don't face the time he faced when they kill someone.

Had things been reversed and the girls survived and the trooper not survived I would say "If the girls had stopped, and proceeded when out of no where the trooper slammed into their vehicle they would also not be guilty of vehicular homicide." There are not seperate considerations as far as I am concerned.

[ETA] One might also say that had the girl driving been more aware she may have seen his vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed. Though I don't know enough of the details to say one way or another what the likelihood of that is.

[bogey1]

i cant believe he was facing 20 yrs.

[camper]

Here's where I would say I see it a bit differently. LEO are not above the law, but they also have seperate rules they follow when functioning within department policy. To insist they always obey stop signs, speed limits, etc. would be as foolish as engaging in a high speed chase over running a stop sign.

Understand...which is why they have lights and sirens. Even if their siren isn't on so as not to wake the neighborhood, their lights should be on. Had they been, I guarantee this wouldn't have happened.

I didn't say the trooper is innocent. Rather I said I don't see that his actions (following department policy for engaging in a pursuit) rose to the level of the charges he faced. There are drunks that don't face the time he faced when they kill someone.

I agree. However, the best way to make sure that he doesn't get tried with anything, is for the DA to make sure that the charges are the highest possible allowed by law. Few people would feel that this man deserves life in prison (or even 20 years) for a simple mistake...but many people do because they take sympathy on police that they would not afford anyone else simply because they have a 'hard job'.

Honestly, I don't know what the punishment should be...but I know that now there won't be one because the stiffest punishment was what was pursued, and nobody saw that was reasonable.

camper

[adymond]

Understand...which is why they have lights and sirens. Even if their siren isn't on so as not to wake the neighborhood, their lights should be on. Had they been, I guarantee this wouldn't have happened.

This is why I made the point to say he was following departmental procedure. Had their procedure required him to have his lights on and he didn't there's a case for reckless endangerment or negligance. That's not the policy though. He was following it. It's stupid, but he was following the rules as set forth for his conduct.

I agree. However, the best way to make sure that he doesn't get tried with anything, is for the DA to make sure that the charges are the highest possible allowed by law. Few people would feel that this man deserves life in prison (or even 20 years) for a simple mistake...but many people do because they take sympathy on police that they would not afford anyone else simply because they have a 'hard job'.

Honestly, I don't know what the punishment should be...but I know that now there won't be one because the stiffest punishment was what was pursued, and nobody saw that was reasonable.

camper

I agree here for the most part. I have a hard time condemning a person when they are behaving within the constraints placed upon them (for you and I that is the law, for LEO it is the law and also department policy not always the same as the law especially in the instance of a pursuit). What is the punishment for a mother who lets her kid play in the front lawn when that kid runs into the street and is hit by a car? They could have, should have, would have done something differently, but they weren't breaking the law. A police cruiser not obeying traffic law to get to shift change is one thing, lawfully engaged in a pursuit is another.

Now the nature of the pursuit is something else entirely, but most departments require regular approval for continued pursuit. I don't know NJ policy on that.

[camper]

Tough call aydmond, because at the root of anything like this we all want to see justice prevail and punishment metted out in a fair and equitable way.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.

camper

[jsc83]

he was following departmental procedure

Maybe I missed this in the story, but how do you know he was following dept procedure? I am all for the police, but they and fire and EMS guys have to be careful when zipping around the area where unexpecting civilians are. They have a duty to protect all the citizens. If he was following procedures, he got the right verdict. If not, he should have gotten something. On the flip side, if NJSP has a policy where cops can go speeding through controlled intersections without their lights on, then the policy needs to be rewritten. Lets give the cops the tools to protect us, but they need to respect the citizenry as well.

[voola]

B"H

I am sure if he had his lights and siren on the sisters would have some how got off the road and let him go by. I mean, isn't that how it is supposed to be? you hear sirens , you look around and let the cop go by. but if they could not hear any sirens or see any lights how exactly were they supposed to "look out for any danger" or take any sort of action?