Throwing things off bridges at the road below
Discussion
It could be a whole host of offences including murder.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 23 November 06:55
vonhosen said:
It could be a whole host of offences including murder.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 23 November 06:55
Und they did lock up the kid who caused the death of the lorry driver for manslaughter.. when he chucked a brick from bridge. Shock caused the driver to have heart attack after he had skilfully steered the lorry to safety und avoided a serious collision with other vehicles. (2003?)
WildCat said:
I would love the key to be thrown away. A woman pedestrian has severe spinal injuries because someone threw a traffic cone from a bridge. It landed on her head as she walked below.
at least in that case the perpetrator handed himself in when he heard what effect his action had on the woman.
vonhosen said:
It could be a whole host of offences including murder.
I remember it well. 21 Years ago, I wonder if they are out of prison now?
There is a case ongoing in Scotland at the moment. Last weekend a guy chucked a traffic cone off a bridge at night, just for a laugh.
In the street underneath, a girl was standing chatting to her friends when this traffic cone landed on her head. result - multiple spinal injuries and possible permanent paralysis.
The guy turned himself in on Tuesday after reading about it in the paper.
In Scots law there is an offence of behaving recklessly. Like Breach of the Peace, it is a non-statutory offence and there is no need to prove intention to cause harm or that any consequences were premeditated - the mere act of reckless behaviour is sufficient for conviction. I don't know what the max fine / imprisonment is though (it's non-statutory so I think at the discretion of the court).
In the street underneath, a girl was standing chatting to her friends when this traffic cone landed on her head. result - multiple spinal injuries and possible permanent paralysis.
The guy turned himself in on Tuesday after reading about it in the paper.
In Scots law there is an offence of behaving recklessly. Like Breach of the Peace, it is a non-statutory offence and there is no need to prove intention to cause harm or that any consequences were premeditated - the mere act of reckless behaviour is sufficient for conviction. I don't know what the max fine / imprisonment is though (it's non-statutory so I think at the discretion of the court).
There was a recent case in Dorset where two lads placed a temporary road sign in the middle of the road at night. A car came along the road and the girl driving swerved to avoid it and both her and passenger died. The lads were convicted of manslaughter and jailed( not long enough if my memory serves me). The reason for manslaughter, they didn't intend for anyone to die.
Fort Jefferson said:
vonhosen said:
It could be a whole host of offences including murder.
I remember it well. 21 Years ago, I wonder if they are out of prison now?
This crime would be assault or perhaps aggrivated in scots law.
The crime is basically reckless endangerment of lieges such that is common law offence.
For murder if the person had known that someone was under the bridge there could have been a case for murder. Proving intention to kill the person, proving they intended to do severe bodily harm such that a person who walking along would be most susceptable to an assault from above or that the action was so indifferent to the consequences such that it was a public walkway and was likely to be someone beneath then it could be murder. however the crime is incomplete as there has to be a death for a murder charge howeve such would be an attepted murder. Can somebody be guilty of recklessness though?
It would be the taks of the court to decide the forseeability of the rusult and wheter it is likely that they were indifferent to the death.
The crime is basically reckless endangerment of lieges such that is common law offence.
For murder if the person had known that someone was under the bridge there could have been a case for murder. Proving intention to kill the person, proving they intended to do severe bodily harm such that a person who walking along would be most susceptable to an assault from above or that the action was so indifferent to the consequences such that it was a public walkway and was likely to be someone beneath then it could be murder. however the crime is incomplete as there has to be a death for a murder charge howeve such would be an attepted murder. Can somebody be guilty of recklessness though?
It would be the taks of the court to decide the forseeability of the rusult and wheter it is likely that they were indifferent to the death.
Zod said:
WildCat said:
I would love the key to be thrown away. A woman pedestrian has severe spinal injuries because someone threw a traffic cone from a bridge. It landed on her head as she walked below.
at least in that case the perpetrator handed himself in when he heard what effect his action had on the woman.But how many have that honesty, courage or even realise
For this act of admitting - he will get clemency. But.. I have to ask
will his victim?
think we have to look at this when we sentence. She may never walk again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff