Contractor charged with murder after Philadelphia building collapse

[mgookin]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/us/philadelphia-building-collapse/

"(CNN) -- A contractor connected with a fatal building collapse in Philadelphia now faces murder charges.

Authorities say Griffin Campbell, 49, was overseeing a building demolition in June when a four-story wall collapsed onto an adjacent Salvation Army thrift store, killing six people and injuring 13.

Now Campbell is charged with six counts of third-degree murder and six counts of involuntary manslaughter, the Philadelphia District Attorney announced on Monday...."

It's very rare to see criminal charges in construction contracting.

 

[renosteinke]

Don't hold your breath ....

Using 'standard' definitions (they DO vary by State), the appropriate charges would be involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or reckless endangerment. There might also bee an opening for fraud. I can't think of any place where a "murder" charge would be appropriate- unless the contractor deliberately rigged the building for the specific purpose of killing a specific person. Not likely.

That's the news media for you.

 

[iwire]

Don't hold your breath ....

Using 'standard' definitions (they DO vary by State), the appropriate charges would be involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or reckless endangerment. There might also bee an opening for fraud. I can't think of any place where a "murder" charge would be appropriate- unless the contractor deliberately rigged the building for the specific purpose of killing a specific person. Not likely.

That's the news media for you.

:lol:

That's an electrician for you, watches a few court shows on TV and knows more about the law than the district attorney.

Now Campbell is charged with six counts of third-degree murder and six counts of involuntary manslaughter, the Philadelphia District Attorney announced on Monday.

 

[GoldDigger]

:lol:

That's an electrician for you, watches a few court shows on TV and knows more about the law than the district attorney.

In some jurisdictions, reckless indifference to the existence of a known hazard to life is enough to satisfy the elements for a murder charge. The element of premeditation is there in that case.

 

[GUNNING]

Don't hold your breath ....

Using 'standard' definitions (they DO vary by State), the appropriate charges would be involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or reckless endangerment. There might also bee an opening for fraud. I can't think of any place where a "murder" charge would be appropriate- unless the contractor deliberately rigged the building for the specific purpose of killing a specific person. Not likely.

That's the news media for you.

They over reach on purpose. It is the beginning of negotiated settlements. This guy is going to be miserable for a long time.

 

[iwire]

In some jurisdictions, reckless indifference to the existence of a known hazard to life is enough to satisfy the elements for a murder charge. The element of premeditation is there in that case.

:lol::lol:

 

[GoldDigger]

:lol::lol:

For an Aussie example, see http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/murder.html

The initiating act (in the case in this thread, conducting the demolition with insufficient shoring and protection) has to be deliberate, but it does not have to be done with the intent of killing someone. Malice in the form of reckless indifference is sufficient.
I remember a great episode of Law and Order in which a (very) young gang tool went to the wrong address and killed a person who was not involved in any way. After admitting it, the boy asked if he could go home now since "...it was just an accident, I wasn't planning to kill that person."

It will still have to be proven that the defendant(s) knew that what they were doing was unsafe.

 

[iwire]

:lol::lol:

It just gets better.

I bet you are Law & Order trained.

 

[John120/240]

How close to one another are the two buildings ? Would a reasonable person surmise that occupants in one building would be in danger from demolition in the other building ? A demolition permit would be required here to prevent such an accident.

 

[GoldDigger]

The two buildings were adjacent, either with touching walls or a less that 6' gap.
There was a demolition permit, but that does not mean that the ongoing work was inspected.
I cannot say whether any specific qualifications are required of the general contractor to do large scale demolition.
Supposedly the thrift store operators had complained previously about the way the demo was being done.



Tapatalk...

 

[K8MHZ]

For an Aussie example, see http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/murder.html

The initiating act (in the case in this thread, conducting the demolition with insufficient shoring and protection) has to be deliberate, but it does not have to be done with the intent of killing someone. Malice in the form of reckless indifference is sufficient.
I remember a great episode of Law and Order in which a (very) young gang tool went to the wrong address and killed a person who was not involved in any way. After admitting it, the boy asked if he could go home now since "...it was just an accident, I wasn't planning to kill that person."

It will still have to be proven that the defendant(s) knew that what they were doing was unsafe.

From the article in the OP.

A day before the collapse, Campbell removed bricks and braces that had supported the wall, even though an architect warned him not to, the statement said.

Campbell promised to build scaffolding to support the wall and said he would reduce its height to the roofline of the Salvation Army building, the District Attorney's Office said.
"In reality, however," the statement said, "Campbell was unwilling to pay for enough labor to perform the task."

 

[cowboyjwc]

I believe that this is the same incident that a building inspector committed suicide over, and they found that he had done nothing wrong.

 

[iwire]

I believe that this is the same incident that a building inspector committed suicide over, and they found that he had done nothing wrong.

I believe so.

 

[JDBrown]

Don't hold your breath ....

Using 'standard' definitions (they DO vary by State), the appropriate charges would be involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or reckless endangerment. There might also bee an opening for fraud. I can't think of any place where a "murder" charge would be appropriate- unless the contractor deliberately rigged the building for the specific purpose of killing a specific person. Not likely.

That's the news media for you.

Surprisingly (or maybe not), Pennsylvania's definition of 3rd degree murder, which is the murder charge in this case, is a catch-all. According to PA Title 18, 1st degree murder is when it's an intentional killing, second degree is when the killing happens while the defendant was committing a felony, and third degree is:

? 2502. Murder.
...
(c) Murder of the third degree.--All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

There are also other (non-murder) charges that can be brought when a person is killed. Voluntary Manslaughter is when the defendant killed someone because of a "sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation" (incidentally, until I looked it up, I always thought this was 2nd degree murder). This Contractor was not charged with Voluntary Manslaughter, nor should he have been.

But he was charged with Involuntary Manslaughter:

? 2504. Involuntary manslaughter.
(a) General rule.--A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.

This seems to fit the crime in question quite well, but it's a misdemeanor charge. No doubt that's why the catch-all of 3rd degree murder exists in the first place -- so they can throw in a felony charge when the DA feels that it's appropriate.

It goes without saying that I am not a lawyer, but I'll say it anyway. I am not a lawyer. I was just curious about what the different charges actually meant, and I thought I'd share my findings with you all.

And, as I constantly have to remind myself, we only have one side of the story -- it's important to remember that more information could easily change all of our opinions about the guilt or innocence of this Contractor.

As a final note, did anyone else find it odd that the crane operator (who was also charged, though not with murder) was identified in the article as "Kary R. Roberts -- also known as Sean Benschop"? Why the alias?

 

[renosteinke]

Well, here is the definition of 'murder' from Black's Law Dictionary:

"The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally ?insane?) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided that death results from the injury Inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction"

I see nothing in the account to support malice aforethought, or a deliberate purpose. Absent a State-specific definition of "murder,' I would submit that in this instance the DA needs to ask if his law school gives refunds. It looks like this mere electrician called it correctly.

Of course, the media report might have it all wrong. After all, these are the same folks who introduced us to President Dewey.

DA's have been known to let politics influence their actions- just ask George Zimmerman.

Then again, we are in unusual times. Only in this twilight zone can a man shoot up an Army base, while loudly proclaiming his allegiance to the enemy, and the incident judged to be nothing more than 'workplace violence'.

 

[JDBrown]

All I can say is that, after what little I've read of PA's laws while trying to make sense of this, the NEC looks angelically consistent in comparison. And once again, I'm glad I decided against law school. The law defines "criminal homicide" and says that a criminal homicide may be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. But in the specific sections on murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, only 1st and 2nd degree murder mention "criminal homicide" in their definitions.

On top of that, as I said in my earlier post, the definition of 3rd degree murder is written as a catch-all. But it doesn't say, "All other kinds of criminal homicide shall be murder of the third degree;" it says, "All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree" (emphasis added). The trouble is, the term "murder" isn't defined anywhere. And, as we all know, when the Code is ambiguous or unclear, the AHJ (the DA in this case) gets to interpret it however he wants. That doesn't mean the judge and jury have to agree, of course.

By the way, renosteinke, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just trying reeeeeeeally hard to stick to being factual and informative and stay away from politics.

 

[stevenje]

I believe that this is the same incident that a building inspector committed suicide over, and they found that he had done nothing wrong.

That is truly sad. Another unintentional victim.

 

[bullheimer]

just saw the post and had to respond that if it was a bank that collapsed, there would be no criminal charges of any kind....much like an oil drilling platform collapsing. funny how big business gets away with murder.

 

[jaylectricity]

:lol:

That's an electrician for you, watches a few court shows on TV and knows more about the law than the district attorney.

*cracks knuckles* I'll give this a try.

It can't be murder without a motive. Was there anything to indicate that the builder wanted or needed any of the victims dead?

 

[GoldDigger]

*cracks knuckles* I'll give this a try.

It can't be murder without a motive. Was there anything to indicate that the builder wanted or needed any of the victims dead?

Most US states have a "felony murder" rule. The effect is that if a death occurs during the commission of a felony, the felon can be guilty of murder even if no killing was intended.
This has on occasion, been used to convict a criminal whose accomplice was killed either by the intended victim or even the police.
The intent required is just the intent to commit the felony.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk