Lawyer Friends: Please tell me CSI was wrong about this

covertheearth:

smartasshat:

funsizebytes:

I just happened to catch a bit of a repeat of CSI episode “Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda”.

There was a part of the story that really bothered me, but IANAL so I thought I’d ask it here in the hopes that someone who knows something about the law would chime in.

In the story, two boys were driving along playing Mailbox Baseball: they were driving along hitting mailboxes with a baseball bat.

One man, after having his mailbox routinely vandalized, replaced his mailbox with one filled with cement.

The boys came back again, and the one with the bat hit the cement mailbox. The bat bounced back, hit the driver in the head. The car crashed and they both died.

The CSI folks figured out what happened, and arrested him on “two counts of negligent homicide.”

The first time I saw the episode, and again when I saw the repeat, I thought to myself, “Oh, come on…”

I realize it’s just a TV show, but first of all that sounds more like my layman’s understanding of “manslaughter” and secondly they were destroying his private property.

Imagine someone had an electric fence around their property, and you tried to break in. You didn’t know the fence was electrified, and happened to be standing in a puddle or some other weird thing happened so that when you were trying to tresspass, you ended up getting electrocuted and died.

How is that the fault of the person who put up the electric fence? Why is it not the fault of the person doing something illegal? Nobody wanted/intended for anyone to die, but blaming the person protecting their personal property for a crazy accident that happened because someone else was doing something illegal? That just seems backwards.

So, ok lawyer friends, tell me what I’m missing. (And I’ll tell you this: if you’re the prosecuting attorney on this case, you don’t want me on the jury.)

Also, I’ve heard that having poison ivy window planters is illegal.

I’d like to hear on this too. My neighbor’s yard was next to a street and people would constantly drive over it because of the low curb. He got sick of his lawn getting tore up and put a giant rock there. The city made him remove it because of the damage it could cause to cars and drivers. But they’re destroying his lawn. Maybe it’s his property vs. their possible death?

People > Property.  Even the assholes.

1. doublejack liked this
2. inmi liked this
3. shakinbacon liked this
4. poeks liked this
5. funsizebytes reblogged this from rolandfox and added:

   rolandfox wrote a helpful answer to part of my legal question:...I’m usually loathe to...

6. lisag732 liked this
7. monkeyfrog liked this
8. xntrek liked this
9. paulina liked this
10. ronbailey reblogged this from covertheearth and added:

    People > Property. Even the assholes.

11. redcloud liked this
12. yayaa liked this
13. blanddiva11 liked this
14. yhf liked this
15. pocketcontents liked this
16. coyotesqrl liked this
17. nolagrrlnyc liked this
18. brentgilliard liked this
19. do-over reblogged this from covertheearth and added:

    Short answer: You may not create something or fix something onto any property — public or private — that can reasonably...

20. baileygenine liked this
21. covertheearth reblogged this from smartasshat and added:

    I’d like to hear on this too. My neighbor’s yard was next to a street and people would constantly drive over it because...

22. ampersands liked this
23. smartasshat reblogged this from funsizebytes and added:

    Also, I’ve heard...poison ivy window planters

24. jonathaneunice liked this
25. hellonurse liked this
26. rolandfox reblogged this from funsizebytes and added:

    can see defining this...from Williams v. State, 518 So.2d 888. I pulled

27. mathcat345 liked this
28. swayingdawn liked this
29. funsizebytes posted this