I was watching an episode of CSI in which a person aggravated by people playing “mailbox baseball” (i.e. drive-by mailbox destruction) filled up his mailbox with concrete. The next time someone tries to hit it, they end up spinning off the road and hitting a tree and dying. The police end up charging the homeowner with “negligent homicide”.
I know that things depicted in CSI bear very little relation to reality. Thus my question: would that happen in the real world? I mean, as far as I can see there’s nothing “negligent” about filling your mailbox with concrete; and I can’t imagine that a property owner has any duty of care towards random people driving by on the street. And, in any case, the accident only happened because the mailbox-baseball-players were attempting to commit a crime in the first place.
I recall a recent thread in which leaving poisoned food and drink around the house in case of burglars was discussed, but I think there’s a significant difference: one can reasonably expect that it will be safe to eat food (even if one is a burglar) but I don’t think one can reasonably expect that it will be safe to hit a mailbox with a baseball bat while driving by.
I can’t help thinking that a property owner would be legally entitled to, for example, use a mailbox made out of Super-Hard Unobtainium, even if it would cause the same unfortunate effects to someone trying to hit it. So why should filling it up with concrete be any different?
For the purpose of hypothesis, let’s say (since this was originally from CSI) that we’re talking about the law as it stands in the State of Nevada.
A friend of mine had his mailbox smashed a couple of times and made one out of 1/4 steel. He said that should be the last one they take a swing at:eek:. I thought he was setting himself up for problems. He did talk to the postal service about it and they saw no problem.
I am no expert on Nevada Law, it appears that their penal code contains no entry for “negligent homicide.” CSI one again shows off its masterful legal research skillz! You can see the penal code here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec010
They have something called “excusable homicide by misadventure” NRS 200.180… but that means the when the defendant meets his burden of proving an excuse, the crime must be fully excused by the jury.
NRS 200.190
Justifiable or excusable homicide not punishable. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted shall, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.
NRS 200.180
Excusable homicide by misadventure occurs when:
(a) A person is doing a lawful act, without any intention of killing, yet unfortunately kills another, as where a man is at work with an ax and the head flies off and kills a bystander; or
(omitted)
Would this mean that if the guy filled his mailbox with concrete with only the intention of, say, breaking the miscreants arm, but not actually killing him, then he’s OK?
What if filling your mailbox with concrete is actually not a lawful act? (I’m thinking maybe it’s prohibited by some kind of federal postal legislation - obstructing the mails or something.) What would happen then?
There is an argument that when a person fills his mailbox with concrete in order to “teach a lesson” to mailbox baseballers, that he is acting with intent to cause serious bodily harm.
It appears that if the lawful act would be reasonably expected to result in death, or the act was unlawful, you’d have “involuntary manslaughter”
NRS 200.070 “Involuntary manslaughter” defined.
1. Except under the circumstances provided in NRS 484.348 and 484.377, involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being, without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act which probably might produce such a consequence in an unlawful manner, but where the involuntary killing occurs in the commission of an unlawful act, which, in its consequences, naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being, or is committed in the prosecution of a felonious intent, the offense is murder.
That would be a matter for the Postal Inspector. It has nothing to do with local law.
When I saw the episode I called bullshit on it too. It seemed to me that death was not a foreseeable or even logical consequence of his actions. Of course laws vary from state to state.
IANAL,
seems to me that the situation described by the OP could well result in charges.
The point, as I understand it, is that a mailbox full of concrete cannot serve it’s intended purpose, a heavy steel mailbox can. filling a mailbox with concrete is similar to setting up a lethal boobytrap in your store to stop burglars when you aren’t there.
A friend of mine tells a story when he was still living at home kids would ride in the back of a pickup down the block late at night and whack metal trashcans on the curb with a baseball bat. His dad put out a trashcan filled with water. Clang, Clang, Thunck. They found a kid crumpled up on the street with a concussion, a broken arm and multiple scrapes. They called the cops and the ambulance (of course the pickup had fled the scene). The cop came in to talk to the dad. He was going to get cited for something until my friend commented that it had rained the previous night. That gave the cop enough of an excuse to skip the case. Of course it hadn’t rained 3 feet the previous night so the cop was just trying to find an excuse, but the point is that there is no intended use for a trashcan full of water on the curb. It’s only purpose was a trap.
Quite right, of course. I was musing about the case in general. I did read on the postal site that local regulations (as well as DOT regs) sometimes concern mailboxes.
So what if instead of a concrete filled mailbox the homeowner had placed a indestructiblemailbox (check the picture in the second link) atop a steel I beam sunk into a concrete footing?
Normal postal approved mailbox atop a sturdy mount.
I think in the CSI episode, the guy switched out the mailbox after the postal carrier delivered the mail each day. (Those who play mailbox baseball usually do this at night, so it would be simple to make the switch twice a day.)
I think this is relevant. Many consequences short of a violent car accident leading to death are possible from posting a concrete-filled mailbox. To obtain a conviction for negligent homicide (or similar) prosecutors would have the burden of proving that this was a common sort of outcome that a reasonable person ought to expect. Defense would probably counter with the argument that the fatal outcome was principally the result of the (illegal) actions of the deceased combined with some very bad driving.
An uncle of mine used to live in rural Texas. His mailbox was a good three hundred yards from his front door, so a set of neighborhood kids delighted in running over it with their pickup truck at night - it was so far away that they were never seen doing it.
Well, fine. My uncle took a new, very thick wooden post and hollowed it out, then jammed it full of re-bar, filled it with cement, and then sunk the whole thing in two more feet of cement. He then placed the mailbox on top and waited for night to fall.
That evening, he heard a faraway “woohoo!” followed very shortly thereafter by a crashing sound. He drove on up to the mailbox to find a truck with the front end split in half down to the engine and the radiator destroyed. Good times.
I was once told (in South Carolina, if it matters) that one could not put up a steel mailbox (or one enclosed in brick, which was the case in question at the time) because you were not allowed to put a “non-breakaway structure in the right of way”. Basically anything within 6 feet (I think) of the road had to be such that a vehicle hitting it would just knock it over. This was supposedly a vehicle safety issue.
And I know, anecdote is not the singular of data, but it may be a traffic safety regulation, not a postal service regulation involved here.
That is a little ridiculous unless they go around cutting down every tree near a road. From responding to many accidents I can say that I would much rather hit a brick mailbox structure than a tree. It is surprising how small a tree can be and still win a knock out in a car vs. tree fight.