Reckless endgerment who is going to pay for this horrible crime .?

Question

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html
A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result.

Answer 1

Possibly, but I think we need more information about the conditions under which the police did their shooting, to determine the degree to which it was "reckless."

Answer 2

I think this would fall under the "accident" category, since there is no mention that the officers knew other people were around. It is odd that the officers did not admit that they had been firing at a snake when they discovered the boy had been shot. From the story, it does not appear there were any other shots fired in that area, besides the officers.

I don't think reckless endangerment applies, if they were unaware that anyone else was in the area there is no way they could have foresee hitting anyone. If this was in a city park or a place frequented by people, it would be entirely different.

Answer 3

I don't know if it was a "horrible crime", but it was a horrible and preventable tragedy to be sure.

I cannot imagine pointing a gun skyward without considering where the bullet will land, and the possible danger imposed on the public. I consider this even when out in the deep forest, knowing there is nobody withing miles of me.

There had to be a better way of getting a snake out of a tree than to shoot up at it.

Answer 4

Yes, that's the crime of reckless endangerment.

I disagree that it is a "horrible crime" -- by itself, no harm has been caused -- only the risk of harm.

I don't believe in punishing people because there is a possibility of harm -- they should only be punished if there IS harm. And then the person can be punished more severely based on their mental state if they were reckless as opposed to it being an accident.

"stray bullet fired by a police officer trying to shoot a snake hit and killed a 5-year-old". That IS harm. The child was shot and killed. So, this is a punishable offense based on the fact that harm was actually caused.

Answer 5

Look, being cops, they should have checked the area before shooting. The snake was lodge in a tree, where was the imminent threat to them that they could not have taken a few more minutes just to check the area? That sounds like more of what a child would have done, not an adult, and most of all not cops.

Answer 6

If these people were cops, they should be fired and then prosecuted for this horrific crime. Cops are trained when it's safe to shoot. If they're sworn officers, they sure as hell should have had the training that would have prevented it. Ask the cop who killed the child, how he would respond if it were his child innocently fishing one moment and lying dead, the next. It's a sickening story.

Answer 7

This is not only reckless endangerment but at the very least involuntary manslaughter as well.

Throw that cop in prison.

Answer 8

Horrible, indeed, and it wrenches my heart to hear stories like this.

But is it really a "crime?" I don't think so.

Answer 9

yes!! it is absolutley ridiculous. most ridiculous thing i've ver seen. they should get prison for life. who the hell shoots a snake!?!? hit it with something. stupid testosterone-addled, trigger-happy cops.

Answer 10

You