Cannon failure - Manslaughter charge

[Loyalist Dave]

I wouldn't be too sure of blaming the barrel for contributing to the event..., as I've seen a few more than a dozen BP barrels that failed, and all of the ones misloaded with smokeless as though it was BP shattered like crockery, while the two that went from BP one was bulged, and one was split. I think this is 100% mis-use of smokeless propellant.

LD

 

[Gene L]

Back when I was working as a LEO, about 30 years ago, we had training about "improvised" firearms. One was a shotgun made from two pipes for IIRC a 12 ga. shotgun ignited by slamming one pipe down on the other.

Maybe shotguns aren't all that high-pressure. I shot the thing several times...the firing "pin" was a BB fixed to an end cap.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I think this is 100% mis-use of smokeless propellant.

LD

If this is the case....and the barrel was marked " black powder only" as so many are......
Then I think the "specific intent" requirement of the Involuntary manslaughter charge has been met....

Verification of propellant type from the crime lab may have been the reason for the delay in filing charges.... The difference between an accident and negligence.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The two pipe 12 ga was something taught to resistance fighters in WW2. The NRA Museum had one on display decades ago when it was still in DC. Next to it they had one of those sheet metal 45 acp single shot throw away guns.

The reason the cannon blew is not really in the facts reported. Just know that many in the justice system view any noise makers as a public nuisance and chomp at the bit to make life miserable for those who like such bubba past times. We have a neighbor, a half mile down the road, that celebrates any and every holiday, known, unknown, and, "had a six pack day" as well, by setting off sky rockets and aerial bombs. I like to have fun myself so I would never call about such a thing, but some times a person calls the police and one state trooper has threatened to charge him with some nebulous charge of creating a public disturbance, public nuisance and causing a public panic. If there was to be an injury accident or damaged property from his fireworks, I am sure they would prosecute. When I first moved to this area, an improvised pipe cannon exploded at a summer picnic killing a guest and the owner of the noisemaker was charged with the same Manslaughter charge. he got 12 to 18 months as I recall.

There is a need to be overly cautious with these things. To many people simply don't think

 

[slumlord44]

I have a .50 caliber CVA barrel that I have been thinking about making into a small cannon. This is giving me second thoughts but as I see it the improvised breech is the key along with the possibility that smokeless powder may have been involved. As long as I leave the factory breech intact and use black powder it should not be unsafe. This guy must have done something really stupid. It's a shame somone died.

 

[swathdiver]

This guy must have done something really stupid. It's a shame somone died.

Seems to me he just ran afoul of some anti-gun prosecutor/activist. Accidents happen and there's no reason for the government to destroy people when stuff like this happens. I reckon the lady was there on her own free will like everybody else. It's a shame that she lost her life and that fella will have to live with that.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The law folks here do not recognize "accidents." People get hurt because someone was careless and failed to take necessary precautions. All they need do is find a way to claim the activity was reckless or wanton and they can get a conviction. Teenagers racing down the highway over 80 mph, vehicular manslaughter, Person shooting at random, manslaughter. Person ties a cable across a path used by trespassing dirt bikes, manslaughter.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Person ties a cable across a path used by trespassing dirt bikes, manslaughter.

That one shows intent to do harm ...I think it should be murder.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Accidents happen and there's no reason for the government to destroy people when stuff like this happens.

Yes the majority of accidental deaths in the nation do NOT result in criminal charges. (They usually involve cars.) Perhaps this case is indeed from an over zealous non-gun prosecutor, OR perhaps the barrel was actually marked "black powder only" and his using something different, or modifying the original item, makes him culpable? At some point, "I didn't mean to do that," becomes a flimsy defense.

By your complaint, a person not qualified to perform a brake-job on their car, should not be charged if his brakes fail after he "worked" on them and he killed somebody in an "accident".

Sometimes criminal legal action is taken not to teach the lesson already learned by those involved who survived, but to try and reduce the chances the next person with poor judgment might not repeat the event. It's not a perfect system (none are), but it's not necessarily unjust either.

Zimmerstutzen wrote:
The law folks here do not recognize "accidents." People get hurt because someone was careless and failed to take necessary precautions. All they need do is find a way to claim the activity was reckless or wanton and they can get a conviction.

Well, I don't know where "here" is, and I hope you're not referring to the entire United States. It's not a question of "recognizing" anything; it's a question of how the law is written. You need a judge and/or a jury to be convinced to get a conviction..., not just a charge. IF you do some research you will probably find a lot of charges, with a lot less convictions, though the charges will be front page news, as may be the convictions, but the cases that end up with a much lesser charge, and especially the ones the prosecution loses will not be mentioned at all. You're then falling prey to thinking they all = convictions as charged.

They used to arrest living historians for taking a flintlock into public schools for a presentation, here in Maryland. The law that was used carried a $1000 fine and a max of 3 years in prison, and it would end a person's right to possess modern firearms. It didn't matter that a flintlock was a) not illegal as written in the law, and b) the presenter was invited by faculty. Made front page news every time, and didn't make the news each time the charges were dropped. (The attorney general for the state was very antigun.) One brave fellow intentionally continued to be arrested until the state legislature finally made it clear that law could not be used to charge a person with the flintlock, invited to give a presentation.

LD

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Dave, I don't do much criminal defense work, but enough to see what happens in PA just north of the mason dixon line. And yes juries sometimes see past the prosecutor and do the right thing.

Clyde, The cable across the path thing happened here 20 years ago. The guy put half inch steel cable across the path about 30 inches high, the same as our Game Commission put across it's access roads for decades. A No Trespassing sign was fastened to the mid point, but that was pried off a few months after the cable was put up. A kid hit it at late dusk or about dark and was killed. In that case it would not have mattered if the guy put a telephone pole or chain across the path. kid would have been just as dead. How are you supposed to block a path? The jury wrangled with it for days. I was amazed that they found the guy guilty. I even went and watched part of the trial

 

[coloradoclyde]

Additional info makes all the difference....Thanks for clarifying....The decision seems much more appropriate now.... :thumbsup:

 

[Lonegun1894]

Dave, I don't do much criminal defense work, but enough to see what happens in PA just north of the mason dixon line. And yes juries sometimes see past the prosecutor and do the right thing.

Clyde, The cable across the path thing happened here 20 years ago. The guy put half inch steel cable across the path about 30 inches high, the same as our Game Commission put across it's access roads for decades. A No Trespassing sign was fastened to the mid point, but that was pried off a few months after the cable was put up. A kid hit it at late dusk or about dark and was killed. In that case it would not have mattered if the guy put a telephone pole or chain across the path. kid would have been just as dead. How are you supposed to block a path? The jury wrangled with it for days. I was amazed that they found the guy guilty. I even went and watched part of the trial

By that logic, any one of us who puts anything on our property to keep trespassers out is doing something wrong. Got a fence? If so, I bet there's a gate somewhere along it so you can get in and out. That's all this man did. In my case, I have a 6 ft tall fence to keep trespassers out and my dogs in. By the conviction above, I should take down my fence because someone could fall and hurt themselves when they try to jump my fence, but at the same token, anything less than what I have won't keep my dogs in, and between the smallest one I have being 125 lbs and them being trained as guard dogs, if they get out, they know how to hurt people. Now they aren't dangerous to anyone who isn't a threat to me or them, but they do know how to hurt someone if they need to defend themselves. So what are my options? Take down the fence so no one hurts themselves due to their own stupidity, and invite a conviction because I didn't restrain my dogs to my own property, or leave it up and invite a conviction due to someone getting hurt due to a different but still equally dangerous level of stupidity? Makes me wish I could have been on the jury that convicted (cause there would NOT have been a conviction) that man, especially since per your post, he did exactly what the State does to restrict access to property it controls. I mean, who would have been convicted if the same trespasser (regardless of age, the kid was committing a crime at the time of his death) had died while trespassing onto State land. Lets face it, the man did nothing wrong, but rather the kid committed suicide by his criminal action, regardless if his suicide was intentional or negligent.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

the question was whether the cable was intended as a dangerous trap to harm trespassers. There was no fence anywhere around, just the cable across the path. Had it been a thin almost invisible cable 4 ft high designed to take a head off, there would have been no question. Just like folks who have "set guns" aimed to go off if someone opens a window, etc. You can't intentionally create a tap to injure trespasses. You can't use wilfull and wanton disregard for safety in creating a trap that is likely to injure a person. Hed there been a fence around the farmer's property, there would have likely been no charges. I put a chain through a piece of 2 inch pipe across an abandoned road that entered my property. The pipe is ten feet long and painted flame orange. In addition, there are no trespassing signs on the trees on both sides of the road and a couple of giants rock under the pipe all across the road. There is a fence row on both sides of the old road. Not likely to be seen as a trap to cut heads off.

 

[Lonegun1894]

Here's the parts that gets me and I just don't see how they convicted him..

"The guy put half inch steel cable across the path about 30 inches high, the same as our Game Commission put across it's access roads for decades."

He did the same exact thing as your State does, so to me that seems ike he had a VERY good argument for why he used that specific method and had good reason to believe it was the approved method.

" A No Trespassing sign was fastened to the mid point, but that was pried off a few months after the cable was put up."

Unless HE is the one that removed the No Trespassing sign, how is he responsible for the actions of some criminal? Seems to me that he put up a sign to mark the boundary, in addition to blocking the trail entering his property, showing he took care to warn trespassers/criminals not to go through, but is being held responsible for some criminal removing the sign and then another, or possibly the same (?), criminal deciding to trespass.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Without having all the evidence one can only speculate.....But many things could have been the deciding factor....
Malicious intent .....illegal
blocking a public right of way.....illegal
creating a known hazard....illegal....

The list goes on......

The violation of any law that results in someone's death could be grounds for manslaughter.......Any law.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I was surprised by the verdict too. Keep in mind that many Pennsylvanians think trespassing is a right. Shop lifting a pack of gum at Walmart is considered a more serious crime. I caught a kid riding a dirt bike in my hay field and went to have a discussion with his father. The father, recently moved here from Philadelphia, listened patiently to me and when I finished, said" Gee, it is just a field. Where is he supposed to ride?" Many folks here have no concept of private real estate that isn't planted in lawn.

The point is, here you can not set a trap for a trespasser. The jury decided that it was a willful and wanton danger created by the landowner considering that he knew about the trespassing problem.

It is the same willful and wanton behavior that they put to home made cannon accidents. These guys with work bench pipe bombs have no clue what they are doing. I follow a rule about barrel wall thickness that is probably a little more on the side of safety than the hobby artillery rules. I can at least point to a set of construction guidelines issued by an organization in the field. And say cannon/mortar/thunder mug exceeded those safety recommendations.

 

[Lonegun1894]

I guess I see it differently because of the attitudes around here and growing up being told that "stupid ought to hurt". To me it is just a simple matter of, the trespasser, regardless of age or reason, violated a law when he chose to trespass on property he doesn't own and had no permission to be on, so whatever the consequences of his actions turn out to be, they are his own fault.

Around here, you can set a trap for trespassers, but not one designed to kill. So trip wires, alarms, etc, are fine. Many also have barbed wire fences, and people are constantly getting injured on the barb wire, but it is seen as the trespassers fault.

My last incident with a trespasser, was about 3-4 years ago now with the neighbors 17 year old "kid" who kept cutting my garden hose in the front of the house, and I set trip wires. Local PD thought it was hilarious when the kid tripped and sprained his wrist, and then his mother tried to press charges against me. They refused and told her that her son will get hurt if she doesn't start being a parent and teaching him right from wrong. Well, fast forward a month, and my dog alerted me to something going on in my driveway without letting the trespasser know. I went out there with my 12ga, and found the next door "kid" trying to pry my truck door open with a screw driver. He didn't see me til I asked him what in "Hades" he thought he was doing, at which he turned to face me and took a step forward with his screw driver, so I put a load of rock salt in his chest, and worked the pump to chamber a load of 00 Buck, and called the PD to let them know I'd dealt with a problem, and could they come out please. Well, when they arrived, we walked the "kid" home and explained to his parents, who were all kinds of upset with me, what their delinquent had been doing. They insisted on pressing charges against me, but the officers refused and informed them that I had just used my last shell of rock salt, but that they would give me a box of buckshot to use if I had any more trouble. Would you believe if I told you that I haven't had any more problems once word got out what happened, and those neighbors found themselves a new house to rent a few months later? Even better is that the new neighbors have heard about that incident and their kids come over now and then with their father to shoot BB guns in my back yard. No trouble out of them, and I bet there won't be, cause the parents raise them right. Wish I could say the same about the previous neighbors kid, but last I heard, he got himself shot in a drug deal, but unfortunately survived, and failed to learn from it. There WILL be a next time for him, even though I wish he had learned and changed his ways instead.

 

[Lonegun1894]

Without having all the evidence one can only speculate.....But many things could have been the deciding factor....
Malicious intent .....illegal
blocking a public right of way.....illegal
creating a known hazard....illegal....

The list goes on......

The violation of any law that results in someone's death could be grounds for manslaughter.......Any law.

I understand what you mean, but if I understand this case correctly, the man basically closed an opening onto his property, no different than you or I closing our front door and some trespasser being stupid enough to try and walk through it, and walking into it instead and breaking their nose in the process. Now if he blocked a public road way, I completely agree with the verdict, but if that is the case, then I completely misunderstood what he did, and tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have.

 

[Gene L]

If you set an un-manned lethal trap on your front door, like a shotgun attached to the doorknob, you're going to be in deep trouble.

To set a potentially fatal trap (a neck-high cable) for the commission of a misdemeanor (trespassing) you're in deep trouble.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Here in PA trespassing is only a misdemeanor under certain limited circumstances. A dirtbike, ATV or snowmobile trespass on property is only a summary offense like a speeding ticket. Trespass seems to be a time honored tradition among many here.

In addition, the law around here dislikes competition. Any citizen arrest, or act of self defense is likely to be the subject of charges here. Had one where the guy was told his ex was out in the parking lot beating on his corvette with a 2x4. He went out and grabbed the 2x4 from her hands. She raked her fingernails down across his face leaving several bloody scratches, so he punched her, breaking a tooth. He drove around the corner and called police. He was charged with criminal assault. She was charged with nothing. I pointed out the statute about defense of property for grabbing the 2x4 and throwing it and then the self defense statute for slugging her to stop the her physical attack. the judge threw out the charge. The police woman tried to appeal to have the charge reinstated. I have defended several people on the basis of self defense and the DA's office keeps prosecuting them, even when folks in other areas would not have even filed charges. It depends on the DA's views.

As far as the original post, it comes down to whether a jury believes that what he did was reckless and wanton. That is generally a jury question. This is the pa law on involuntary manslaughter:

§ 2504. Involuntary manslaughter.
(a) General rule.--A person is guilty of involuntary
manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful
act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a
lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes
the death of another person.
(b) Grading.--Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor of
the first degree. Where the victim is under 12 years of age and
is in the care, custody or control of the person who caused the
death, involuntary manslaughter is a felony of the second
degree.

Most states have nearly identical laws. It comes down to interpreting the terms reckless and/ or grossly negligent.