Merged [Ed] Get involved detecting the ade 651 detector / Jim McCormick arrested

[Jack by the hedge]

They didn't just sell a box which they knew would fail to detect bombers, they also led the buyers to believe they would detect them, thereby discouraging users from trying other search methods which may well have been effective.

(Disclaimer: Just sayin' - IANAL - and I imagine any prosecution is most likely under English law anyway.)

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Not of negligent homicide, no. Of product liability, definitely, of fraud, yes. Those who died might even make successful wrongful deaths suits against the manufacturers. But you're not going to get negligent homicide. Not for failing to prevent a murder by someone else. If you disagree, feel free to walk us through the elements with relevant case law.

Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

* * *

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.

* * *
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Emphasis added.

The offense easily fits Criminally Negligent Homicide and should actually qualify for Manslaughter. The seller of the empty box is actually aware of a real risk of a substantial harm (serious harm or death).

A typical discussion (from 08-07-00299-CR Workman v. State, Unpublished, Court of Appeals, El Paso)

"[A]t the heart of reckless conduct is conscious disregard of the risk created by the actor's conduct [.]" Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). "Recklessness requires the defendant to actually foresee the risk involved and to consciously decide to ignore it." Id. Mere lack of foresight, stupidity, irresponsibility, thoughtlessness, or ordinary carelessness, regardless of the severity of the consequences, do not suffice to constitute recklessness. See Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 751. Recklessness requires the defendant to actually foresee the risk involved and to consciously decide to ignore it. Id. Such a "devil may care" or "not giving a damn" attitude toward the risk distinguishes the culpable mental state of criminal recklessness from that of criminal negligence, which assesses blame for the failure to foresee the risk that an objectively reasonable person would have foreseen. Id. at 751-52. "Those who are subjectively aware of a significant danger to life and choose, without justification, to engage in actions (or in some cases inactions) that threaten to bring about that danger have made a calculated decision to gamble with other people's lives." Id. at 752.

So, at best, we have criinal negligence -- if the seller can convince anyone they were not somehow aware of the risk of selling an empty box as a bomb detector. Otherwise, it falls into Manslaughter.

This is all Texas law; your mileage may vary.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Right, both of the Texas offenses you mentioned require that the accused "causes the death". Look up proximate cause in the law -- you'll find that these shysters didn't "cause" any deaths as the term is defined legally.
Again, if you disagree, feel free to walk through the elements of the crime; pay special attention to the causation element, and use case law that establishes that my negligence can still cause the death when someone else intentionally kills the person.

 

[LTC8K6]

Iraq: bomb-detecting wands to be kept in service
Published: 2/23/10, 7:25 AM EDT
By REBECCA SANTANA
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

Exports of the British-made bomb-hunting instruments have been banned by Britain amid concerns that they do not work. The U.S. military also says they are ineffective.

But Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement Tuesday that an Iraqi investigation has determined that most of the devices do work. The instruments are used at checkpoints to check for bombs.

He says some of the hand-held devices are broken or were not activated and will be replaced.

The instruments' effectiveness came into question after a string of major bombings in central Baghdad killed scores.

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?p...rticle&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt

 

[AvalonXQ]

Iraq: bomb-detecting wands to be kept in service
Published: 2/23/10, 7:25 AM EDT
By REBECCA SANTANA
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

Exports of the British-made bomb-hunting instruments have been banned by Britain amid concerns that they do not work. The U.S. military also says they are ineffective.

But Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement Tuesday that an Iraqi investigation has determined that most of the devices do work. The instruments are used at checkpoints to check for bombs.

He says some of the hand-held devices are broken or were not activated and will be replaced.

The instruments' effectiveness came into question after a string of major bombings in central Baghdad killed scores.

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?p...rticle&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt

...
... this is the most frustrating thing I've ever heard.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Right, both of the Texas offenses you mentioned require that the accused "causes the death". Look up proximate cause in the law -- you'll find that these shysters didn't "cause" any deaths as the term is defined legally.
Again, if you disagree, feel free to walk through the elements of the crime; pay special attention to the causation element, and use case law that establishes that my negligence can still cause the death when someone else intentionally kills the person.

I am familiar with the term proximate cause.

You have requested everyone else prove the opposite of your claim. Do you have any relevant case law or precedent you would like to cite?

Proximate cause encompases "but for" causation and that the harms be generally foreseeable. This fact pattern matches the requirements. There may be more than one proximate cause of any event.

I assume you are invoking the doctrine of intervening or superceding causes. In general terms, the intentional, criminal action of a third party will sever the foreseeability element of a proximate cause analysis in tort and sometimes in criminal law -- a "superceding" cause. However, there is a specific and well-established exception in cases where the danger being created by the original actor's negligence or recklessness is the specific harm that occurs because of the criminal third party. Example: a person who is negligent by failing to lock a locker door may be held responsible for that negligence, even though a thief intentionally commits a criminal act in stealing from the locker -- because the negligence of the first person specifically created the danger that occurred. In short, an intervening cause only allows an actor to escape liability where the intervening action is "unforeseeable." In a case where you hand a non-existent bomb detector to a person knowing he is going to go looking for bombs, the intervening event is not unforeseeable.

 

[Techowiz]

Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

Is anyone really surprised by this report? Don't forget these people have bribes and face to defend. We all saw the 'test' of these scam devices on the youtube video previously posted. They placed a grenade in full view of the 'EOD' officer and the device pointed to it. When they tried the same 'test' with The New York Times reporter, somehow it did not work The General then trotted out the well worn phrase, 'you need more training'.
No doubt they will be contacting Randi anytime soon to take the JREF challenge, don't hold your breath waiting.
regards

 

[AvalonXQ]

I assume you are invoking the doctrine of intervening or superceding causes. In general terms, the intentional, criminal action of a third party will sever the foreseeability element of a proximate cause analysis in tort and sometimes in criminal law -- a "superceding" cause. However, there is a specific and well-established exception in cases where the danger being created by the original actor's negligence or recklessness is the specific harm that occurs because of the criminal third party. Example: a person who is negligent by failing to lock a locker door may be held responsible for that negligence, even though a thief intentionally commits a criminal act in stealing from the locker -- because the negligence of the first person specifically created the danger that occurred. In short, an intervening cause only allows an actor to escape liability where the intervening action is "unforeseeable." In a case where you hand a non-existent bomb detector to a person knowing he is going to go looking for bombs, the intervening event is not unforeseeable.

You make a good point. Perhaps a negligent homicide charge has more merit than I thought.

 

[Her Dark Star]

Corporate Manslaughter would certainly be my choice as a murder charge (under UK Law) would never stick due to no intent to kill, been recommending that one for a while. Thanks for the Hedd1 info too, hadn't heard about that one. Unfortunately criminals never end, just have to keep chasing them.

 

[George 152]

Sadly I just heard that the Iraqis claim that -some- of those 'bomb detectors' were faulty and are going to replace them...
Those who make those claims should be those using the dud things.
Then we could think of it as evolution in action instead of sending brave unequipped men to their deaths

 

[Techowiz]

Sadly I just heard that the Iraqis claim that -some- of those 'bomb detectors' were faulty

How would they know, which ones were faulty and which just do not work?
regards

 

[Brian-M]

Iraq's government spokesman says Baghdad will not pull a scandal-ridden bomb detection device from service, saying an investigation has determined the wand-like instruments work.

I love the phrase "wand-like instruments". In fact, they should take it one step further, and simply call them magic-wands.

 

[Techowiz]

It seems that after the opening of the ADE651, 'detector card' by the BBC newsnight team, the Thais have at long last decided to do the same to the, GT200 'detector card'. Credit to RDX on UK skeps for finding this video. Sorry there is no surprises at the end, enjoy, follow the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2E3Gf5p-m4

regards

 

[Techowiz]

I have obtained a confidential Royal Engineer 'Test report' of the MOLE, the predecessor of the ridiculous GT200. Sadly, the Engineers give the MOLE a glowing report, which just goes to show that even the experts can get it very wrong. The report was used by Global Technical on their website, until Dubious Dick complained to the MOD and Global was instructed to remove all reference to it from the web and sales material.
I have posted the report on my blog at:
http://explosivedetectorfrauds.blogspot.com/
regards

 

[Techowiz]

Sorry to have to tell you but ATSC, the bloody makers of the useless ADE651, have like the ,mythical Phoenix risen again. They have re done their webshite,now you can even apply for a position with them, I don't think honesty and integrity are required. Don't get too excited when you see the section marked 'trials and tests' it is just the same Jim bs allegedly test have been done and documented but kept secret by those that did them.
http://www.atscltd.com/
regards

 

[Techowiz]

Apparently there are some believers on youtube who have been telling me how the ADE saves lives, check out the fun at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0mJxCF_PKQ
regards

 

[Biff Starbuck]

More police raids in UK of Scandec, Global Technical, and Grosvenor Scientific

"Offices and homes linked to three businesses suspected of selling fake bomb detectors, including one in Nottingham, have been raided by officers.

Police suspect Scandec, and the other two companies, of fraudulently selling bomb and drug detection equipment to countries worldwide, including several war zones..."

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/national-news/offices_raided_in_fake_bomb_probe_1_648868

With any luck the raids on these three companies will help stem the flow of these fraudulent detectors. I am glad the police in the UK are still going after these crooks

 

[Ladewig]

With any luck the raids on these three companies will help stem the flow of these fraudulent detectors.

I don't think luck is going to be enough to stop people from selling 75-cent products for $10,000. The greed of these criminals is simply too great.

 

[Biff Starbuck]

I don't think luck is going to be enough to stop people from selling 75-cent products for $10,000. The greed of these criminals is simply too great.

True. I still hope the fear of punishment starts to work though. But sadly, with the ideomotor effect, some of the mid-level salesmen if not the "inventors" themselves think these things work. Randi's page on this site about dowsing talks about how deeply ingrained the need to believe becomes, and that dowsers are among the hardest to get to change their minds. I think the best description I have seen is that people don't think they can successfully and unintentionally fool themselves into pointing the antenna at the sample during a demonstration of the rods. The user is certain they did not intentionally point it, so they feel there MUST be some other explanation, and the seller is happy to suggest the explanation is that his product works. As Randi says of the ideomotor effect: "The effect is very powerful with some personalities, and no amount of evidence will disabuse believers in the magical nature of the phenomenon."

After looking at one of Techowiz's links to a video, I went back and watched Randi's video about the arrest of McCormick. I think Randi misremembered the outcome of the Quadro Tracker case in the US. Some of the people in the case took plea bargains, but when the heads of the company went on trial, they were not convicted. Basically, the prosecutors did not successfully show the makers of the Quadro Tracker knew their device did not work. Ironically, Randi himself is not only the best prosecution witness about the ideomotor effect and that it is an illusion not a tool for finding things or information, but he would also be the best defense witness to call regarding whether or not most dowsers believe they can actually find things.

In Randi's encyclopedia, he says: "Dowsers are, generally speaking, very honest, sincere people, and almost always seem absolutely convinced of their abilities. That conviction is not well founded, since all properly performed, comprehensive tests of this particular claim have produced negative results."

The next question then is: Are the sellers culpable if they SHOULD have known their product was a worthless piece of junk risking people's lives. It might be easier to convict someone like McCormick of homicide, for recklessly causing the death of innocent Iraqi citizens, rather than trying to prove he knew his product did not work. Unless you have testimony, e-mail, or phone calls where he admitted it was a scam, it would be hard to prove criminal intent of defrauding people. IMHO, it is much easier to prove that countless tests have been done on dowsing and it never works significantly better than random guessing, so the seller was reckless or at least negligent for selling what is an utterly defective product.

I found another article about the new searches by police at the other companies.

Inquiry into sale of fake bomb detectors expanded

Police raids expand bomb detector probe

 

[Techowiz]

Dam it all Biff you beat me to it, see what happens you go out for a drink in the evening and when you wake up, all this happens.
So pleased about all this couldn't have happened to a nastier bunch.
regards