Reckless Endangerment

[Bnjemann]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law:
New law
What law do you wish to change/add:
9.X: Reckless Endangerment
Any person(s) who’s actions put another person(s) at serious risk of harm and / or death are guilty of this offence, regardless of if the Endangered person(s) are harmed or not, or if they’re willingly participating in these actions.
Felony: Liable to 4 years imprisonment and $4000 maximum fine and asset forfeiture (vehicles, weapons, etc)

Why should this change/addition be made:
The following scenarios this law can be violated include:
Reckless driving, DUI, and other serious vehicle related crimes that could end in fatalities if the driver has passengers in their vehicle, or drove in this manner causing traffic accidents whilst either evading police, street racing, or performing another voluntary motor vehicle involved crime where other people were at high risk of being harmed.
Causing an explosion in a public, residential, or government building / area.
Throwing the suburbs baby into a road
Having people stand on your vehicle, or stand / sit inside the back of a pickup truck as you drive on the highway.
Intentionally causing a firework to explode in public on the ground.
Attempting to shoot a prop off of your friends head
Causing the injury of an LEO unwillingly, by putting the LEO in a position where they can fall, get struck by a car, etc. (Running on foot down the highway / on the monorail tracks attempting to avoid the LEO)
Hosting a fight club
Leaving someone on the highway, as civilian, LEO, and government employee, if they got out of your vehicle.


Currently reckless endangerment would be better than the officers who used to enforce “attempted manslaughter” as an actual possibility.

What is the aim of this change/addition:
To criminalise endangerment further allowing police officers to maintain and keep the peace further.

​

 

[CensoredExe]

I think many laws probably cover this, however they are quite minor like discharging a firearm and whatnot. Though, many of these "reckless" behaviors, if not done properly would endanger the public. I think while currently 99% of the time when you do this youre breaking another law anyway, they can often be quite small sentences, when a larger sentence may be better deserving if you fired in a crowded are for example, being able to charge them with this instead of discharging a firearm might be a better idea?

 

[travis]

The law idea is really good but its really broad and overlaps with other laws- this can cause confusion for many officers. I think what would be better is to slightly alter existing laws to encompass the little loopholes you mentioned and many more.

 

[Bnjemann]

Just like how traffic offences overlap with 12.12 or 12.11?

 

[travis]

I personally don't like overlapping laws but its inevitable. Preventing it as much as possible is whats best.

 

[Alliat]

9.3 Threat of Physical Harm
Any person who causes another person to be in fear of physical assault as defined under article 9.1 by verbal, physical, emotional or other forms of intimidation acts unlawfully.


Felony - liable to 3 years maximum imprisonment and $2,500 maximum fine.



This not good enough?

 

[Bnjemann]

threatening to harm someone and recklessly endangering someone are 2 completely different things.

 

[Alliat]

Well technically you can still charge them for endangering someone. As long as the victim is distressed. And otherwise the traffic laws will cover it.

 

[Bnjemann]

Threatening someone is telling them you are going to harm them. An example of this would be saying “I’m going to kill you” to someone. Another example of this would be pointing a gun at someone threatening to blow their foot off.

Reckless endangerment is putting someones life and wellbeing at risk through general stupidity. An example of this would be drink driving or evading cops in a vehicle, performing dangerous risky manoeuvres with a passenger(s) in the car.

To sum it up for you, Reckless endangerment is manslaughter but without anyone dying.

 

[Bnjemann]

@Alliat please don’t tell me that as a sergeant, you’re arresting people for 9.3 for offences listed above...

 

[Alliat]

So I have have placed the laws that cover the points you make in the post. From what I can see all points you are trying to make are already included in the current version of the law we use today.

Why should this change/addition be made:
The following scenarios this law can be violated include:

12.12 Reckless driving, 12.13 DUI, and other serious vehicle related crimes that could end in fatalities if the driver has passengers in their vehicle, or drove in this manner causing traffic accidents 6.9 whilst either evading police, street racing, 12.12 or performing another voluntary motor vehicle involved crime where other people were at high risk of being harmed.
7.8 Causing an explosion in a public, residential, or government building / area.
Throwing the suburbs baby into a road
12.12 Having people stand on your vehicle, or stand / sit inside the back of a pickup truck as you drive on the highway.
7.1 Intentionally causing a firework to explode in public on the ground.


Currently reckless endangerment would be better than the officers who used to enforce “attempted manslaughter” as an actual possibility.

What is the aim of this change/addition:
To criminalise endangerment further allowing police officers to maintain and keep the peace further.

​

 

[Bnjemann]

“7.8 Causing an explosion in a public, residential, or government building / area.” This is false as you don’t need an outlawed explosive device to cause an explosion.

7.1 only outlaws the act of lighting one off in urban areas, stupid That you can avoid jail time if your firework causes issues.

standing In the back of a car whilst its driving is only 12.12 by definition if you stretch the definition.

More situations have been added explaining more acts of reckless endangerment.

Reckless endangerment, being a felony charge as well, would mean people would be able to be handled via a warrant in the event of committing this crime, as most offences you listed are simply misdemeanours.

The aim of this addition is to outlaw the act of putting someone’s life at risk of immediate harm or death and enforce it as a felony. Currently, people do not receive additional charges for reckless driving whilst carrying a passenger.

 

[Alliat]

"Currently, people do not receive additional charges for speeding and reckless driving whilst carrying a passenger." Even if this law gets added you can't stack charges. Maybe I don't fully understand what you mean. Can you explain?

 

[Alliat]

@BigBenji never encounterd a senario in whitch it was nessasary.

 

[Bnjemann]

@Alliat right, but reckless endangerment would take its place as the primary charge in this situation, resulting in dangerous idiots being given a felony charge rather than a misdemeanour after they almost killed someone?

 

[Bnjemann]

@Alliat right but don’t tell me that you genuinely would have given that charge for that offence

 

[Alliat]

@BigBenji if it would meet these terms: "Any person who causes another person to be in fear of physical assault as defined under article 9.1" I would.

 

[Alliat]

@BigBenji Let me put it like this. I have never (in the scenarios you are bringing up) encountered a situation in which I was not capable of changing the suspect for the crimes they commited. That's why I personally don't see the need. But I understand your felony argument and I guess it might be easier for newer cops if this law gets implemented.

But I am afraid that this law would render a lot of laws useless.

 

[Murtsley]

@Alliat is right on this one, all the acts that you mention can be charged under the existing provisions of the penal code (Elaboration below), to boil a broad law such as this is bound to cause unforeseen confusion among junior officers rather than to keep them uniform. Adding new laws which do the same thing as old laws result in its inappropriate application, and if you don't believe it will happen, it's happened every time a new piece of criminal legislation is released.

HOWEVER​

That does not mean I disagree with this law in its entirety. The provision shouldn't be able to handle all of these eventualities (as that would require far too broad terminology which would render it obsolete as a piece of law), but two of the ones you mentioned are quite appropriate to have as a 'manifestation of a dangerous situation'. Most notably:

• Attempting to shoot a prop off of your friend's head;
• Hosting a fight club.

From these, this could become a good idea, but the other scenarios are either inappropriate for criminalisation or are capable of being adequately remedied with existing legislation. The wording, however, would need changing immediately.

Spoiler: Here's that deeper analysis

• Reckless driving, DUI, and other serious vehicle-related crimes that could end in fatalities if the driver has passengers in their vehicle, or drove in this manner causing traffic accidents whilst either evading police, street racing, or performing another voluntary motor vehicle involved crime where other people were at high risk of being harmed.
  • Reckless driving, driving in excess, your bread and butter traffic laws would cover these. In the event that an offender has risked passengers' lives, applying unlawful detainment would be a solution as that covers the fear element, if they're unfearful for their lives, leave them to it, this law won't deter anything.
• Causing an explosion in a public, residential, or government building/area.
  • 7.8 is sufficient, you at present cannot stack offences, so just slapping this one with a 6k-fine and 6-year sentence is your best bet.
• Throwing the suburbs baby into a road
• Having people stand on your vehicle, or stand/sit inside the back of a pickup truck as you drive on the highway.
  • People sat in the back of the car (pickups) can also be put under reckless driving because it constitutes a willful ignorance of the risks associated with driving with persons in the back of your pickup truck, if they argue, simply state that they would fall over if the car went in excess of 30 MPH, it's a game-mechanic and therefore should be a genuine consideration by the player.
• Intentionally causing a firework to explode in public on the ground.
  • 7.8 does not mention the incendiary is illegal in nature, therefore it's detonation could amount to being an incendiary as the firework's use is outside of what it was prescribed for use.
• Attempting to shoot a prop off of your friends head
  • This is a good one that needs looking into.
• Causing the injury of an LEO unwillingly, by putting the LEO in a position where they can fall, get struck by a car, etc. (Running on foot down the highway / on the monorail tracks attempting to avoid the LEO)
  • This is a dangerous suggestion, what this implies is that through the incompetence of the officer has decided to take certain precautions which are dangerous but have wilfully ignored the potential consequences, another person is liable for this incompetence. The officer should use their head to radio to request pickup at any of these positions rather than risk their life, another person should not be liable for your acts and/or ommissions should they not be an agent.
• Hosting a fight club
  • This is a good one that needs looking into.
• Leaving someone on the highway, as civilian, LEO, and government employee, if they got out of your vehicle.
  • Same as the one above (injury of LEO) they have made a decision to do something, they are accountable to those actions, including any effects that come from it.

 

[Collier]

Selected for voting