Posted on 04/03/2018 5:46:51 PM PDT by Hojczyk
72-year-old John Schooley has been charged with second-degree murder in the tragic death of a child on the water slide he co-designed. Schooley was arrested at the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport on Monday, just after returning from China. In addition to murder, Schooley also faces charges of aggravated battery and aggravated endangerment of a child.
A Kansas grand jury has indicted all three men involved in the incident that resulted in the decapitation of Caleb Schwab, son of Kansas State Representative Scott Schwab. The boy’s raft lost control on the 17-foot slide, and he was killed as he hit an overhead loop at high speed.
Charged along with Schooley are co-owner Jeffrey Henry and the private construction company of the park, Henry & Sons Construction Co. Both have been charged with reckless second-degree murder as well as 17 other felonies related to other incidents on the “Varruckt” slide.
But it was Schooley himself who signed off on the ride, claiming it met all of the required American Society for Testing and Materials standards for use. Even then, he allegedly said that “if we actually knew how to do this, and it could be done that easily, it wouldn’t be that spectacular.”
“Not a single engineer was directly involved in Verruckt’s dynamic engineering or slide path design,” according to the indictments. Those same indictments also claim that Henry rushed production of the slide in order to impress executives involved with a Travel Channel television program.
Thus far, the Schwab family has reached a $20 million settlement with the Schlitterbahn water park and companies associated with the slide’s production.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Nay! Is law all there is to a life?
Surely you know that when all you have is a hammer, it all looks like a nail!
I know that and yet choose a full tool box. Not every technically possible use of law is righteous.
Shakespeare knew!
When you design an inherently dangerous ride without input from engineers it's easy to make that case. When you have an email from the owner/designer saying, "damn, I could die on that thing," it's easy to make that case. When you have employees being told to cover up injury reports, it's easy to make that case. When you take money from people with full knowledge that the thing is inherently dangerous, it's easy to make that case. Really, you and HighTechRedNeck should take the time to learn the facts and research the law before spouting off. Every now and then I am saddened to realize that conservatives can be just as ignorant as liberals.
Will they plead down to something less than second degree murder? Maybe. Is second degree murder an appropriate charge given the facts? Absolutely!
“Now, try to make the case that the designer of the slide, or the operator/owner for that matter, committed second degree murder.”
The indictment also cites comments from Henry suggesting he was well aware of the ride’s dangers.
“(Verruckt) could hurt me, it could kill me, it is a seriously dangerous piece of equipment today because there are things that we don’t know about it,” Henry said, according to the indictment. “Every day we learn more. I’ve seen what this one has done to the crash dummies and to the boats we sent down it … It’s complex, it’s fast, it’s mean. If we mess up, it could be the end. I could die going down this ride.”
“In all my years reading Freerepublic I don’t think I’ve seen as much ignorance so confidently displayed by a poster in a thread as your postings in this thread. “
In all your years you have never come across his post before?
“When an individual commits an act of gross recklessness for which he must reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result,”
Exactly. He put metal rods directly in the path of the occupants against regulations.
“The murder charge is idiotic. Manslaughter makes sense.”
Dude, even Chris now believes that the correct charge was made.
This is why people in businesses that incur risk are told not to yack in email about it. The context doesn’t matter when a bloody shirt is sought. Lawyers know how to game courts. What else was done as a result of these fears? We do not know.
And yet things we accept today could also be talked about that way. Where is the freedom to choose something that lets the vast majority of its users use it unscathed?
Surely that regulation can be dug up.
Law can be an ass too.
You are of course the one who always takes the mounties’ side no matter how crooked — when it’s biker gangs at stake. So clearly there are some evils you stomach.
Yup it was actually a fraction as dangerous as it looked.
How do we get around the sheeple problem? Those who will say baa, if it looks risky but nobody plasters it with danger signs, it’s actually safe?
>>General intent means that the person did not intend to cause the death, but acted in such blatant regard for human life that loss of life was likely. This could result in a second degree murder charge or manslaughter charge depending on the circumstances.
This depends on state statutes and really doesn’t deal with the issues here. There still must be a mens rea. You must still intend to inflict SOME harm to someone and likely some level of the person non-consensual. Serious horsing around, for example, is going to be, at worst, manslaughter. Say I come over to your place one night to “teach you a lesson.” I burn your detached garage down not knowing you are in there. I didn’t intend specifically as you said to kill you, but I did something that I should have know would kill someone if I didn’t check to see if anyone was in there. THAT is second degree murder.
“You are of course the one who always takes the mounties’ side no matter how crooked — when it’s biker gangs at stake.”
Wondered when your support for murdering pimping drug-running pedophile biker gangs would surface!
“This depends on state statutes and really doesn’t deal with the issues here. “
DUDE! You should really look up the Kansas statute before you say his post doesn’t deal with the issues here!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bible has a rudimentary requirement for safety precautions in the command to the Israelites that the owner of a home is liable for the death of one falling off a roof that had no guard wall. But, the homeowner is still not stoned.
Now the Pharisees rush in and endlessly quibble about the guard wall.
Something worked right almost all the time. How much is good enough? I am concerned about the dangers of lawyering ourselves into rubber rooms.
You broke your promise a second time :-)
DUDE! I did!
http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch21/021_052_0002.html
Exactly what part of those definitions apply here?
Well I hope that overreacting doesn’t kill things like this — only brings them under better vigilance. If there was a one in ten thousand chance I might die on a ride, I still might choose it. I don’t know if motorcycles are that good. Yet I rode one for many years and several spills and I am here to tell the tale.
“Exactly what part of those definitions apply here?”
Pick any ...
(b) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) Intentionally;
(2) knowingly;
(3) recklessly
I fear in the end that it’s political. I’m not convinced that Schooley wasn’t talking about chances envisioned in the millionths. That’s what a good designer would do even if the danger approached that of dying the day of the ride for some other reason.
A dummy also isn’t always a good model of a rider, as it is passive — it cannot “ride” in any active sense. I would not rate the safety of horse back riding by putting dummies on horses.
You therefore equate them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.