Saw my first intentionally damaged rig

[kkeenan 13]

Quote

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

Bullshit! Let's say you had an ex-friend who had access to your house, via a spare key. You come home one night using the back door, instead of the front, which you usually use. You find a shotgun wired to the front door, aimed to kill whoever opens the door. Evidence points to the ex-friend with the key to your house. Do you think the Prosecutor would fail to arrest the person because you didn't get your head blown off ?

Kevin K.

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't know of any prosecutor who would charge something like attempted murder or agg assault unless someone unwittingly used the gear and almost got hurt or killed.

I disagree with you 100%. Tampering with a life-saving device with the knowledge that if it indeed fails as the result of the tampering, that that failure is likely to result in the user's death, is most certainly an attempted homicide. Whether or not the intended user actually uses the device (post-tampering) is absolutely immaterial to that offense. And you can bet your boots that responsible police and/or prosecutors will charge it as such.

I have to ask: On what basis do you say that?

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

"You don't think" based on what? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[GatorNation 0]

Quote

Quote

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

Bullshit! Let's say you had an ex-friend who had access to your house, via a spare key. You come home one night using the back door, instead of the front, which you usually use. You find a shotgun wired to the front door, aimed to kill whoever opens the door. Evidence points to the ex-friend with the key to your house. Do you think the Prosecutor would fail to arrest the person because you didn't get your head blown off ?

Kevin K.

Fail to arrest? I never said that someone who sabotages a rig will not be arrested. I just don't think that the charge will be attempted murder.

[GatorNation 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't know of any prosecutor who would charge something like attempted murder or agg assault unless someone unwittingly used the gear and almost got hurt or killed.

I disagree with you 100%. Tampering with a life-saving device with the knowledge that if it indeed fails as the result of the tampering, that that failure is likely to result in the user's death, is most certainly an attempted homicide. Whether or not the intended user actually uses the device (post-tampering) is absolutely immaterial to that offense. And you can bet your boots that responsible police and/or prosecutors will charge it as such.

I have to ask: On what basis do you say that?

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

"You don't think" based on what? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

What's with this animosity against me? I think that messing with a rig with the intention of killing someone is as low as you can get. But I just don't think that the prosecution will be able to bring a charge of "attempted murder" against a person who tampers with a rig, but the tampering is discovered before anyone jumps the rig.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't know of any prosecutor who would charge something like attempted murder or agg assault unless someone unwittingly used the gear and almost got hurt or killed.

I disagree with you 100%. Tampering with a life-saving device with the knowledge that if it indeed fails as the result of the tampering, that that failure is likely to result in the user's death, is most certainly an attempted homicide. Whether or not the intended user actually uses the device (post-tampering) is absolutely immaterial to that offense. And you can bet your boots that responsible police and/or prosecutors will charge it as such.

I have to ask: On what basis do you say that?

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

"You don't think" based on what? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

What's with this animosity against me? I think that messing with a rig with the intention of killing someone is as low as you can get. But I just don't think that the prosecution will be able to bring a charge of "attempted murder" against a person who tampers with a rig, but the tampering is discovered before anyone jumps the rig.

See the highlighted text in boldface. On what basis, other than just, oh, guesswork, do you come to that conclusion?

If it makes you feel any less picked-on, this is essentially the same question I asked Mcordell in response to his post #21.

[Heatmiser 0]

MURDER, ATTEMPTED
In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove:

First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]

This is from lectlaw.com I'm no lawyer, but I would think that cutting the riser would be more than mere preparation.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[GatorNation 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't know of any prosecutor who would charge something like attempted murder or agg assault unless someone unwittingly used the gear and almost got hurt or killed.

I disagree with you 100%. Tampering with a life-saving device with the knowledge that if it indeed fails as the result of the tampering, that that failure is likely to result in the user's death, is most certainly an attempted homicide. Whether or not the intended user actually uses the device (post-tampering) is absolutely immaterial to that offense. And you can bet your boots that responsible police and/or prosecutors will charge it as such.

I have to ask: On what basis do you say that?

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

"You don't think" based on what? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

What's with this animosity against me? I think that messing with a rig with the intention of killing someone is as low as you can get. But I just don't think that the prosecution will be able to bring a charge of "attempted murder" against a person who tampers with a rig, but the tampering is discovered before anyone jumps the rig.

See the highlighted text in boldface. On what basis, other than just, oh, guesswork, do you come to that conclusion?

If it makes you feel any less picked-on, this is essentially the same question I asked Mcordell in response to his post #21.

I'm sure that there could be arguments made in favor of a successful "attempted murder" prosecution, but I just don't see it that way.

My source- experience as an attorney in the US for about 10 years.

[Andy9o8 0]

I'll see yours and raise you my 25+ years of practice, much of which has been in criminal law. Deliberate tampering with a parachute, with the intent that it will fail, is attempted homicide, regardless of whether the intended victim actually tries to use the parachute. If you don't understand that, I strongly urge you to take a continuing education course on inchoate crimes.

[FanOfFalling 0]

Quote

My source- experience as an attorney in the US for about 10 years.

OP is in Canada. You may read it differently from me so I'll link the relevant sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec222subsec1 for homicide.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec463 for attempts.

As a lawyer do you think there may be at least an opportunity to charge under Canadian law?

[Andy9o8 0]

Unless I missed it, I don't think your linked documents define "attempt" under Canadian law.

From my own quick search, I found this reference, from which it appears that the definition of a "criminal attempt" under accepted Canadian law is this:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc53/2006scc53.html

Quote

(1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law.

Assuming this is correct, I stand by my analysis.

[LongWayToFall 0]

You could also look at it like slashing a tire, if you were an idiot and didn't see/feel what was going on, it could kill you. Although I totally agree with the fact that damaging a person's rig with intent to harm or simply intent to cost them money is worthy of a royal ass kicking, and then some. Maybe force them to jump the rig?? hahaha

[FanOfFalling 0]

Quote

Unless I missed it, I don't think your linked documents define "attempt" under Canadian law

The second link, as I understand it, defines attempt(and accessory) for all offenses in the Criminal Code. 463(d) specifically applying as the various types murder are indictable offenses. I am not a lawyer however.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Unless I missed it, I don't think your linked documents define "attempt" under Canadian law

The second link, as I understand it, defines attempt(and accessory) for all offenses in the Criminal Code. 463(d) specifically applying as the various types murder are indictable offenses. I am not a lawyer however.

I just re-read it to see if I missed it.
No. As I read it, § 463 simply specifies the level of offense and maximum severity of penalty for certain attempted crimes. It does not define the word "attempt" itself.

[FanOfFalling 0]

Quote

I just re-read it to see if I missed it.
No. As I read it, § 463 simply specifies the level of offense and maximum severity of penalty for certain attempted crimes. It does not define the word "attempt" itself.

It's not defined in the definition sections either, so would the dictionary definition then apply? :edit: Or does this become one of those things that requires access to a legal library?

[Andy9o8 0]

A lawyer would d look up the definition of criminal attempt in the Canadian statutory and caselaw.

[danielcroft 2]

How do the lawyers think that the visibility of the damage and a culture (idealistically speaking) of gear checking would affect an attempted murder case? What's the difference between vandalism of life saving equipment and an actual attempt to kill?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

How do the lawyers think that the visibility of the damage and a culture (idealistically speaking) of gear checking would affect an attempted murder case? What's the difference between vandalism of life saving equipment and an actual attempt to kill?

Generally, it takes two elements to commit a crime: a specific act (actus reus, or "guilty act"), AND a criminal intent (mens rea, or "guilty mind"). Ultimately whether these exist is a question for the jury. In a parachute-tampering case, assuming the jury believed the defendant committed the physical act, whether that act constituted mere vandalism, or an act of (criminal) reckless endangerment, or an act of attempted homicide, would depend on the jury's assessment of the defendant's intent.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

How do the lawyers think that the visibility of the damage and a culture (idealistically speaking) of gear checking would affect an attempted murder case? What's the difference between vandalism of life saving equipment and an actual attempt to kill?

.......................................................................

May I extrapolate?
The Canadian Air Regulations require pilots to perform thorough pre-flight inspections of their aircraft at least once a day.
The CARS also say that it is a federal offense to tamper with an airplane. "Tampering" includes removing parts, removing fuel, etc.
I extrapolate this to mean that anyone tampering (e.g. cutting) a parachute is commiting a crime, even if they expect the victim to discover the tampering before flight.

[danielcroft 2]

Thanks for the information guys, I appreciate it.

Was it decided earlier in the thread that messing with parachute equipment (in the USA) was or was not considered a federal offense? I'm asking because it seems like an interesting angle on this incident.

[stratostar 5]

Breaking into the rigging loft and tampering with a rig (cutting a reserve risers) would not likely be a federal offense.

However breaking into an aircraft parked on the airport and cutting the reserve risers or any other tampering with, would be a federal offense and if they find out who did it you can expect a visit by the FBI or even the special agent branch of the USDOT.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Thanks for the information guys, I appreciate it.

Was it decided earlier in the thread that messing with parachute equipment (in the USA) was or was not considered a federal offense? I'm asking because it seems like an interesting angle on this incident.

It may or may not be, depending on whether federal aviation laws and/or regulations are implicated (parachutes can be kind of a grey area). Not sure it makes much of a difference, though - reckless endangerment and attempted murder are usually state (not federal) offenses; and they do tend to get prosecuted vigorously and carry stiff penalties. Put another way, if you're at risk of serving, oh, 15 years in the state pen for attempted murder, an extra charge of tampering with an aircraft (or whatever) kind of pales by comparison.

[ghost47 18]

Quote

Generally, it takes two elements to commit a crime: a specific act (actus reus, or "guilty act"), AND a criminal intent (mens rea, or "guilty mind"). Ultimately whether these exist is a question for the jury. In a parachute-tampering case, assuming the jury believed the defendant committed the physical act, whether that act constituted mere vandalism, or an act of (criminal) reckless endangerment, or an act of attempted homicide, would depend on the jury's assessment of the defendant's intent.

I think danielcroft's question might be a little different:

Say that, intending to kill you, I damaged your rig in a very obvious and visible way. Say I cut the leg straps, cut the chest strap, cut the risers, etc. I thought, hah, when he puts this on and jumps out, it'll fall off!

But the damage is so visible that it's obvious the rig is not in jumpable condition.

In that scenario, even though I committed the actus reus and had the mens rea, would I still be guilty of attempted murder?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Generally, it takes two elements to commit a crime: a specific act (actus reus, or "guilty act"), AND a criminal intent (mens rea, or "guilty mind"). Ultimately whether these exist is a question for the jury. In a parachute-tampering case, assuming the jury believed the defendant committed the physical act, whether that act constituted mere vandalism, or an act of (criminal) reckless endangerment, or an act of attempted homicide, would depend on the jury's assessment of the defendant's intent.

I think danielcroft's question might be a little different:

Say that, intending to kill you, I damaged your rig in a very obvious and visible way. Say I cut the leg straps, cut the chest strap, cut the risers, etc. I thought, hah, when he puts this on and jumps out, it'll fall off!

But the damage is so visible that it's obvious the rig is not in jumpable condition.

In that scenario, even though I committed the actus reus and had the mens rea, would I still be guilty of attempted murder?

Yes.
The reason is this phrase in your factual scenario: "intending to kill you" - that establishes the mens rea needed to convict.
I suppose a defendant could use the defense, at trial, that "I just wanted to scare him and piss him off; I made the damage so obvious to make sure that he wouldn't try to actually jump it." That defense would then have to be sold to a jury.

But if I damaged your rig, intending to kill you, but in my incompetence I make the damage so obvious that you discover it and don't jump the rig, neither my incompetence nor your diligence are a defense - my intent was to kill you, and it's my intent that convicts me of attempted murder.

[mcordell 2]

I base this on over 6 years as a police officer, including time as a detective who presented cases in person to prosecutors on a regular basis. Damaging property is NEVER charged as an attempted murder type offense unless that item is actually used in a manner that is likely to cause harm or even more likely when it did cause harm but not death. A rig that is tampered with but not jumped is simply damaged property. A stretch that MAY fly would be criminal threat or perhaps in some jurisdictions assault or aggravated assault, depending on the specific facts of the case, but not attempted murder.

That being said, perhaps you have some form of expertise beyond mine and could enlighten me as to why I'm wrong. I'm open to hearing your view.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[mcordell 2]

Quote

Quote

Nah.. I don't think that a prosecutor will charge someone wil "attempted murder" when the rig was never used after the sabotage.

Bullshit! Let's say you had an ex-friend who had access to your house, via a spare key. You come home one night using the back door, instead of the front, which you usually use. You find a shotgun wired to the front door, aimed to kill whoever opens the door. Evidence points to the ex-friend with the key to your house. Do you think the Prosecutor would fail to arrest the person because you didn't get your head blown off ?

Kevin K.

This is why most states have enacted laws regarding the setting of traps. Th8is could also be charged under several other crimes in many jurisdictions that relate to the creation of inherently dangerous situations.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging