0
pchapman

Saw my first intentionally damaged rig

Recommended Posts

Great information, thanks again all. B|

I think I gather from a lawyer's perspective, having the intent to kill is critical (and required) for attempted murder irrespective of what damage was done. It seems that perhaps from a police perspective there's a difference between the scenario based on whether the person was actually in danger, not just potentially in danger. I'm sure that defense counsel would cast the defendant's actions as vandalism in the scenario that ghost47 mentioned, I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove intent to kill (obviously it depends on the evidence, arguments & the jury).

Is there the potential for civil suits (other than property damage or whatever)? Like there's the concept of wrongful death in traffic accidents, is there an equivalent for vandalizing safety equipment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Great information, thanks again all. B|

I think I gather from a lawyer's perspective, having the intent to kill is critical (and required) for attempted murder irrespective of what damage was done. It seems that perhaps from a police perspective there's a difference between the scenario based on whether the person was actually in danger, not just potentially in danger. I'm sure that defense counsel would cast the defendant's actions as vandalism in the scenario that ghost47 mentioned, I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove intent to kill (obviously it depends on the evidence, arguments & the jury).

Is there the potential for civil suits (other than property damage or whatever)? Like there's the concept of wrongful death in traffic accidents, is there an equivalent for vandalizing safety equipment?



Being charged criminally doesn't exempt someone from being sued civilly and someone could find themselves being penalized in both courts. What you have to remember is that it doesn't really matter how anyone interprets the specific statute, nor does it matter if the specific act TECHNICALLY fits into a specific statute. What matters is if the prosecuting attorney is willing to charge it under that law. In this instance, I can't think of any jurisdiction in which the specific act mentioned would ever be charged under a murder statute, unless the person was critically injured in an attempt to use the equipment. Not only would most jurisdictions be UNABLE to charge under this statute, but even if they could, the prosecuting attorney would likely not do it in favor of charging the suspect with something that is more solid and likely to stick. Even after they charge the person, they are likely to plead it down to an even lower charge to ensure a conviction.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.:P



One should never assume to understand a statute merely by reading it. That's great research and all, but what you have to understand is that in the United States we have something called case law where in courts interpret the meaning of each and every word of a statute and subsequent cases are based on that interpretation. I'm sure, based on the wording you quoted, that a court would interpret "substantial step" and I think you would be surprised at how laws change from what is seemingly cut and dry to something you wouldn't recognize from the original text.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



Well see now the topic has shifted. You seem to have gotten all fired up over the initial question and a couple of responses, I think mine included. The initial question wasn't a question of guilt as far as I read it, but rather a question of whether someone could be charged. As an attorney, you should understand better than anyone that no prosecutor will charge that as attempted murder, even if it technically fits.

A prosecutor would look at this case and assume that the defense used at trial will be that they only intended on scaring the person or that they only wanted to damage the rig, but not to kill the jumper. It doesn't really matter what their intent is. The prosecutor will weigh the defense against the case put together by the police and find it nearly impossible to get a conviction. Keep in mind that as a defense attorney, one would only have to show a reasonable doubt. Is it possible that they only cut the webbing to scare the person or to damage the rig? Absolutely, it's possible. If even one juror believes that then the trial ends in acquittal and the person walks. If the prosecutor charges them with criminal damage to property, there is almost no chance of defense providing the reasonable doubt necessary to gain acquittal at trial. This realization will almost assuredly result in a lesser charge being filed.

Is the person guilty of trying to kill someone? Yes, if that is indeed their intent. Unfortunately intent is a difficult thing to prove and it won't be charged that way. I contacted two of my prosecuting attorney friends by the way and presented these facts to them and both agreed that they wouldn't charge it as anything more than criminal damage unless the facts of the case included a threat, in which case they would charge criminal threat and criminal damage to property.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get your point in the OP's case, however I don't agree if we start talking about a skydiver cutting a reserve riser (front or all) you can bet that had the person that cut Mr. Verners riser been found there would so many experts lined (Dewolf, Pointyer, Strong, Booth etc) for the prosecutors side to prove that there is no way a person with enough know how to cut a reserve riser or ripcord and get it back in a rig so as to not be noticed before use and then used would in fact be an act to try to kill the user.

The only reason someone was not charge in that case or Mullins is because they couldn't prove who did it. But I bet those two guy have a good idea of who it was.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



Several years as a prosecutor (including as a charging supervisor) and 25 years practicing law, including a great deal of criminal law, in 6 different jurisdictions. Tampering with someone's property with the intent to harrass or piss them off is criminal mischief, criminal harrassment and destruction of property. Tampering with something with the intent that it places them in real danger of getting hurt, with a lesser chance of getting killed - say, tampering with their car's break lines or steering - would be agg assault and reckless endangerment. Tampering with a PARACHUTE with the intent that it will fail while in the process of being deployed after having jumped from an aircraft in flight - is trying to kill someone; and that's attempted murder.

I'll see your couple of prosecutors who wouldn't charge that as attempted homicide (along with lesser included offenses), and I'll raise you a whole boatload who would do so (including myself).

As I noted up-thread, an attempted crime, one of the forms of inchoate crime, does not require that the owner of the parachute actually try to use it for the offender's crime to be complete. All that is required for the crime to be complete is the criminal act and the criminal intent. Maybe you, like the other poster up-thread, could benefit from some continuing education on inchoate crimes.

That's why you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But if I found some one messing with my rig (with a knife like in this case) I would consider seriously hurting the stupid fuck and making sure his ability to talk and walk would be impaired indefinitely.



nice - putting yourself in jail would really show him a thing or two

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://antimisandry.com/abuse-dv/female-skydiver-charged-murder-after-love-rival-fell-13-000ft-her-death-3664.html

Ok this person tampered with a rig that caused death and was charged with MURDER.

It would seem to me that if you did the same thing, knowing it would have killed the person, and the only reason it did not was the simple fact that the person just had not jumped it yet it would be attempted murder.

You have to prove they did it, they intended harm, and harm would have came out of the incident, which would have been death most certainly.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



Several years as a prosecutor (including as a charging supervisor) and 25 years practicing law, including a great deal of criminal law, in 6 different jurisdictions. Tampering with someone's property with the intent to harrass or piss them off is criminal mischief, criminal harrassment and destruction of property. Tampering with something with the intent that it places them in real danger of getting hurt, with a lesser chance of getting killed - say, tampering with their car's break lines or steering - would be agg assault and reckless endangerment. Tampering with a PARACHUTE with the intent that it will fail while in the process of being deployed after having jumped from an aircraft in flight - is trying to kill someone; and that's attempted murder.

I'll see your couple of prosecutors who wouldn't charge that as attempted homicide (along with lesser included offenses), and I'll raise you a whole boatload who would do so (including myself).

As I noted up-thread, an attempted crime, one of the forms of inchoate crime, does not require that the owner of the parachute actually try to use it for the offender's crime to be complete. All that is required for the crime to be complete is the criminal act and the criminal intent. Maybe you, like the other poster up-thread, could benefit from some continuing education on inchoate crimes.

That's why you're wrong.



I understand your point. In your jurisdiction, or perhaps in the jurisdictions you have served as a prosecutor, perhaps this charge would work. There is also the possibility that it wouldn't, but it seems you would charge it regardless. I don't work in your jurisdiction, and you don't work in mine. I have been an officer in two states and in 4 different counties. I was a state officer prior to moving to my current state where I currently work in a department which overlaps counties and as a result I present cases to both counties on a regular basis. What I can tell you is that in any of the jurisdictions in which I have worked, this case would not be charged as attempted murder.

I saw a question regarding an area in which I have some expertise, that is the application of criminal law. I don't know you, and you certainly don't know me. I didn't get on here and attack you and I'm not entirely sure why you have done so to me. I DON'T need continuing education to better understand this issue. I understand it entirely and am fully capable of applying criminal code to the circumstances as presented.

I didn't get on here to get into a pissing contest with you and if you need me to say that yours is bigger than mine for you to feel better about yourself then fine. Yours is bigger and I was wrong. I learned a long time ago that you can't tell an attorney they are wrong about anything, even when they are. Some of my good friends are attorneys and they are no exception to the rule.

I appreciate the conversation regarding criminal law as I always enjoy that topic. While I don't appreciate your personal attack, I accept it and move forward. Since this thread no longer serves a purpose I think I'll go back to discussing skydiving with other skydivers on another thread....an area in which I have NO expertise. I think I'll learn more there.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



Several years as a prosecutor (including as a charging supervisor) and 25 years practicing law, including a great deal of criminal law, in 6 different jurisdictions. Tampering with someone's property with the intent to harrass or piss them off is criminal mischief, criminal harrassment and destruction of property. Tampering with something with the intent that it places them in real danger of getting hurt, with a lesser chance of getting killed - say, tampering with their car's break lines or steering - would be agg assault and reckless endangerment. Tampering with a PARACHUTE with the intent that it will fail while in the process of being deployed after having jumped from an aircraft in flight - is trying to kill someone; and that's attempted murder.

I'll see your couple of prosecutors who wouldn't charge that as attempted homicide (along with lesser included offenses), and I'll raise you a whole boatload who would do so (including myself).

As I noted up-thread, an attempted crime, one of the forms of inchoate crime, does not require that the owner of the parachute actually try to use it for the offender's crime to be complete. All that is required for the crime to be complete is the criminal act and the criminal intent. Maybe you, like the other poster up-thread, could benefit from some continuing education on inchoate crimes.

That's why you're wrong.



Thanks for the law lesson. The last thing I needed was someone telling me to take a CLE on anything at a skydiving forum.

You feel better now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But if I found some one messing with my rig (with a knife like in this case) I would consider seriously hurting the stupid fuck and making sure his ability to talk and walk would be impaired indefinitely.



nice - putting yourself in jail would really show him a thing or two



He didn't say anything about 'getting caught'...:ph34r:



...anybody remember what happen to the guy stealing rigs who was 'taken into custody' by skydivers at the 2nd Freak Brothers Convention? :$

~ that one was settled 'out of court' & nobody went to jail! ;)










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you right now that I know mcordell personally and it is pointless to try and argue with him. He is right no matter what you say. This attitude keeps me off of whatever load he is on. He was a cop once but as far as I know that isn't the case anymore. Even if he is still and officer of the law the last place he was at before getting "asked to leave" was in a small suburb of a small mid-west town.
:)El Josh AKA Ruby

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the first place, it's probably unfortunate that this thread has diverted so much from the OP. In the second place, it's gotten too personal. In that regard, if you've got a problem with him, it's really preferable that you take it up with him one-on-one, rather than airing out a personality conflict in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you feel that way. We had a disagreement, I reacted inappropriately and apologized to you. I didn't realize you were harboring negative feelings about me. For what it's worth I apologize again for having offended you.

I would ask that you not smear me on public forums as your assumptions about my work history are inaccurate at best. I did change agencies, but it was my own decision and I'm plenty happy with it. Also, I am still an officer.

That being said, I'm happy to discuss it via pm if you want and I'm really not that bad of a guy. Perhaps some day you will change your mind and we can drink some beer after hours together.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0