Boys Charged With Murder After Sandbag Thrown From Overpass

(CNN) — Authorities in Toledo, Ohio, have charged four boys with murder after a sandbag they allegedly dropped from an interstate overpass killed a passenger in a car.

Authorities say three 14-year-olds and a 13-year-old threw sandbags and other objects onto the southbound lanes of Interstate 75 on Dec. 19.

One of the bags crashed through the window of a car traveling below, hitting passenger Marquise Byrd on the head.

Byrd, a 22-year-old from Warren, Michigan, later died.

Source

Deserved or too harsh?

Deserved. Reminds me about Macaulay culkins The Good Son lol.

Deserved

Well that begs the question whether they would be convicted of murder. Or a lesser charge.

This is just part of the danger when you have too much free time on your hands. You are prone to get bored and end up getting involved in stupid pointless stuff. That will only get you in some sort of trouble.

Forgot about that movie. Totally sickening watching it. Still did a great job being very convincing.

What, do they deserve a trophy? No way.

I have a hard time believing these kids should be charged with murder. We’ve all done stupid shit in our younger years. Perhaps involuntary manslaughter, but murder?

They’re kids being imbeciles. Hell, their brains are still developing the distinction between action and consequences. They should no doubt be punished, but not thrown in the joint for life.

When I hear the cliche about "we've all done...." I laugh because that is patently false. What these kids did went beyond stupidity. How many people here have done something as careless and reckless as these kids? Sadly though, what these kids did is not an isolated incident.

Agreed.

This is a tragedy and those kids are stupid as hell and deserve a harsh punishment.

But it is not murder. Somehow I doubt they woke up that day planning to kill someone. Even at the time of the act, I doubt they were thinking "this is going to kill someone".

I have an overpass where I live that goes over about 8 lanes of traffic to and from Oakland, San Francisco, etc and it is always busy. As a kid, I know of at least a few people that chucked water balloons off of it (and this overpass is tall, like 50+ feet above); it got so bad they put an inwardly-curved rigid fence on all sides. So maybe not all of us have done it, but enough of us have.

When I was little, I never did anything with overpasses but we did some stupid shit. Really disrespectful, harmful-to-property stuff at times (thankfully nothing happened from it, and I came to my senses after doing it) but the point is: kids lack judgement, especially in the moment. I won't excuse what they did, and jesus h christ you'd think 14 year old almost-adults would know better, but there it is.

These kids need to spend the next four years in juvi, at least, and then I don't know after that. But I don't think their lives should be ruined, they lack the brain development and maturity (not maturity as in "grow up, kid", but maturity in the technical sense) to A.) be tried for murder, and B.) tried as adults. Save that shit for the mass murderers.

Water balloons, small crab apples, snowballs, etc.., thrown at cars? Sure. A sandbag, rocks, etc..,? No. A water balloon is hardly the same as a sandbag. Two years ago we had a similar and I'd argue more deadly example in which kids (of age to know better) tossed a rock off the over-pass, through a window and severely messed up the woman. The family was from Ohio ( I believe) and it made national headlines. Just this year the husband killed himself and I doubt it is a far stretch his decision didn't have some to do with what happened. Come to think of it, didn't something similar happen this past fall or so and the kids were denied bail recently?

haha I remember that movie!

Had young Frodo in it!

Ahhhhhhhh to be young again

I admit I'm not at all well versed in American law but are you saying that hitting someone while driving drunk and purposefully throwing heavy objects onto cars is on the same level of intent to cause harm?

Also, being an imbecile doesn't make the victim any less dead or puts the family in any less pain. The penalty should match the crime, not the criminal. Unless these "kids" get diagnosed with serious mental illness I think they should be tried as adults.

In many jurisdictions in the US you can be charged with murder for killing someone while driving drunk.

Also, only first-degree murder requires prior planning to commit murder.

I'm ok with that; it's not like you can accidentally drive drunk. My point was, though, that it can also be considered manslaughter (I think), but I hope nobody drives drunk thinking they're going to injure someone, while dropping heavy objects onto car windows can go no other way so I don't think they should be in the same category.

Agreed. The defense is going to play up that they weren't aiming for cars and just dropping items onto the road, that's the path to a manslaughter conviction. Obviously the prosecution will play the other card. If they hit multiple cars with objects the defense is going to have a difficult time.

If I were to guess I'd say these kids weren't intending to kill anyone, but create havoc on the highway in terms of a pileup where they could then stand back and marvel at the ensuing chaos. And you say that the penalty should match the crime, not the criminal, but the circumstances of the criminal can very well become mitigating factors in the penalty for the crime. These kids were 13 and 14 year olds. Stupid and dangerous, but they're also children. Charge them with manslaughter, not murder. I just do not believe they woke up intending to kill anyone.

Deserved. And I don't feel sorry for them either.

Well deserved. A life lost that may not have been because of the stupidity of others, I personally would have a hard time finding any form of justice unless they were made an example of.

@indzman: is that elijah wood?? he is putting way more effort into his performance than culkin, just saying. this is a good clip that can show actor comparison

Yup, thats Frodo Baggins. If you wish to check out Wood as a High School Teen check out Sci Fi horror The Faculty as well :)

Agree, I've done more stupid things than throwing sandbags on Overpass but at least I haven't harm any other person except my self. Is it an accident? Yes, but they've killed a human being that might have a family waiting for him.

I understand you want to feel sorry for them. I have a son myself and would hate to see him destroy his life (would also hate to see destroy someone else's life, though) but they're teenagers, not 5 year old. I'm pretty sure they knew what "chaos in the highway" would cause. I think the difference here is whether they were doing something reckless and happened to hit a car and kill someone or purposefully doing something to cause harm. Throwing water balloons at a car that scared the driver and caused him to crash probably wouldn't have been done with the intention of causing harm, just a "prank". I can't say the same of sandbags dropped from an overpass.

They deserve Juvenille or every children will go out on rampage and bailed out for being a child.Its no excuse.Death they should not getting in this case, its silly.

My problem is intent and the charge of murder. From Wiki:

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

The underlined sums up my feelings on the matter. Malice of the crime is transferred to the killing. I again do not believe all these kids awoke, got together, said "hey, let's go kill someone today!". It's an absolutely ridiculous conclusion to come to and I don't care what anyone thinks. They obviously didn't care if they hurt anyone and caused some chaos, but that is very different than having the willful intent to end one's life. Perhaps if it were one child doing this I'd be more inclined to believe he was some psycho in the making, but all four coming together and agreeing to murder? C'mon.

I'm not excusing them, nor do I not have sympathy for the victims, only the severity of the charges and the intent they're predicated upon I question. It's not like manslaughter is a minimal charge in and of itself.

@MirkoS77: Ok, I see what you mean. I'm just not sure if manslaughter also includes the desire to hurt but not kill. This is unrelated but assume I want to beat someone up and "teach them a lesson". I beat them up so badly that they end up dying; it was not my intention to kill him but I did. The beat-up was premeditated, so no "heat of the moment" so is that manslaughter or murder?

Involuntary manslaughter......

And yes, me and a group of my friends did very similar stupid things when we were bored at their age, and luckily noone got killed. And when I grew up I was completely horrified that I ever did these unnamed things. Still boggles my mind. But at that age I didn't quite get it, part of a group mentality.

I'm betting for at least a couple kids it will haunt them for life, I don't think charging them for murder is the right thing for kids that age.

I think that is excessive punishment.

@korvus: I’m no lawyer, but I would think that would also fall under the manslaughter umbrella.

How could they not be attempting to kill someone? It's common sense that a sandbag dropped from a bridge onto a person has a good chance of killing them.

So to get off intentionally killing the person they'd need to prove they're mentally retarded and unaware that large weights dropped on heads tend to kill. Being a teenager is nowhere near a good enough excuse.

Someone with a BAC over the limit that kills someone is charged with manslaughter. They didn't intend for their actions to take a life but their irresponsibility led to it. This is the same.

The difference would be that someone with a BAC over the limit didn't get behind the wheel with intent to cause harm.

While this might very well exemplify over-charging, the fact still remains how intent can be formed a millisecond (if you will) before acting. It's not as if they had to wake up with the intention of killing someone.

Our justice system is inconsistent when it comes to penalties and how we address criminal activity.

That's what I just said.

@LJS9502_basic: You said "this is the same" and I took it as you saying these kids did this without the intention to cause harm, which I don't buy. Or if you were referring to the beatdown example I gave...also intent to cause harm. Either way.

Ok, first of all, still developing the distinction between actions and consequences DOES NOT make them immune from suffering consequences. In fact, it's all the more important that these boys suffer the consequences if not just for their sake, but for other developing teenagers as illustration of what will happen if you do stupid mistakes. Sorry, but this "stupid shit" is far too severe to just be waved off with the excuse of a developing brain. Seriously, I did "stupid shit" like breaking toys I wasn't supposed to play with yet. The concept of dropping things over the interstate should be known as something you don't do well before you even hit puberty.

And obviously, they shouldn't serve life being so young, but they definitely need to serve time. Sucks they screwed up their teenage years, but somewhere out there is a family grieving the loss of their daughter/mother/sister/aunt.

In my opinion, that's actually worse. Instead of unintentionally killing one person, they're intentionally trying to cause a pile up that could potentially kill several people. There is intent to do harm here. They wanted to see someone hurt (no way can you cause a pile up and have people walk away without injuries) and so it's not hard to argue that they also had intent to kill. "Wouldn't it be cool if someone DIED?!" I would not put that past teenagers. This is a step beyond manslaughter if you ask me.

Kids needs to learn there are consequences because of their actions, too much of "kids will be kids..boys will be boys etc" Deserved! ...definitely deserved a long jail time...but not life imprisonment. :P

One has to also consider, what is the end result of locking them up for 25 years?

Maybe “Justice” would be served, but would they come out of prison as useful, functioning members of society that pose no threat to the public? I doubt it. At an enormous cost to the taxpayer no less.

Assuming these kids aren’t Sociopaths, I don’t think anything could compare to the knowledge that their actions ended someone’s life. Whatever sentence is handed down should be handed down with the highest chance of ensuring no further threat to the general public. That’s what I thought “correctional facilities” were supposed to be all about.

Pretty much my stance and why I say deserve. I guess I must be in the minority based on the responses I've seen but even at 8 years old I knew there's always consequences for my actions. At 13-14 years old, they definitely should've known better. What do you expect is gonna happen dropping solid objects onto vehicles going high rate of speed from an overpass?...

Wow. A lot of crazy people in this world...

Attempting to cause chaos that could "potentially" kill people (meaning no intent was there, only the willful disregard for another's safety) is worse than the targeted attempt to kill someone? No, that's not worse, and in fact it's not even in the same ballpark. Intent to harm is not intent to kill, and if you were arguing that in a court of law attempting to make that connection beyond all reasonable doubt you'd have your work cut out for you.

Research has shown that teenagers' brains are not fully developed in understanding the connection between action and consequence:

It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so. In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

It's very easy as adults to look back at what these kids did in a rational mindset and forget what it was like to be children who largely operate on emotion and in the moment. Also factor into this the peer effect. These are 13 and 14 year old children. At that point in their lives peer approval means the world to them, it would more than likely preclude anyone of them from speaking up in exercising what second thoughts they might have had in fear of being ostracized and viewed as uncool. And I don't care who you are, anyone that's been a teenager has understood at one point or another, the more radical or outrageous an action is committed in a group, the cooler one is.

I believe this was reckless endangerment and wanton disregard for the safety of others that ended up with the worst possible outcome, but in no way murderous intent. I just would like to note that I'm not against the possibility of children killing people with that specific intent, there's been many cases in the past, but I don't see throwing a sandbag over a freeway (especially with all four coming the the conclusion they wanted someone dead) as being a realistic conclusion to come to in this case. If they truly desired to kill someone, there are far more effective and assured ways than dropping a sandbag onto a freeway from an overpass and hoping to hit gold.

I know about the teenage brain. It's taught to us at work, since I work at a library, and we deal with teens all the time. I still dislike people using that as an excuse to lessen consequences. You say the brain doesn't stop developing until 25. So based on that, I could build a defense to get someone who committed murder off at 24 because his brain was "still developing". The thing is, these kids KNEW something would happen. They KNEW there was a possibility of someone getting hurt. They KNEW there was a possibility of someone dying. Yet, they threw the sandbag over anyway. You can't possibility convince me that the kids didn't think that something terrible could have happened. Hell, even 10 year olds know something bad could happen if you dropped a heavy object into traffic.

This reminds of that case years ago where kids were firing at passing cars with a rifle and they ended up killing someone. Their defense: "We didn't think we'd hit anyone! We didn't mean to kill anyone!" Firing a rifle into passing cars... Dropping a heavy object onto passing cars... Same thing. Murder. It's at least involuntary manslaughter, which is fourth-degree murder.

Knowing that something could happen, even resulting in death, in the committal of their action is not nearly the same as having deadly intent being the core and sole impetus driving it, which appears to be what people in here are arguing. That's the difference between life in prison and twenty years, and you can't convince me these kids had the latter in mind when they tossed that bag over the rail. I don't believe it, not only due to the imprecise and clumsy nature of their action that was in no way a guarantee to bring the outcome you are arguing for, but also due to them being in a group which would have necessitated a consensus of deadly intent. For one very disturbed child I'd be far more willing to accept that, but four? No.

Well, I'm not arguing first-degree. I'm arguing fourth, in the least. Involuntary manslaughter which is still technically murder. I can't convince you that they wanted to see a death happen just as you can't convince me otherwise. The only ones who know exactly what they wanted to see were the kids themselves. Also, teenagers HAVE conspired before to take lives. Columbine and the Slender Man murder are just two examples that come to mind. I'm not saying that it's a certainty they decided to try to kill someone that day, but the capacity to plan out such an action to see said result does exist. Regardless, their actions, clumsy and imprecise as they may be, directly resulted in the death of someone. That's the very definition of manslaughter.

The only thing that should be debated now is what kind of sentence they should receive. I'm certainly not saying they should spend 25 to life. Far too young for that. I concede to their minds being too young to really understand the impact of their actions to ruin their entire lives, but they should at least spend their teen years in juvenile correction.

@JustPlainLucas: To be fair you're both arguing the same thing. Mirko has said earlier in this thread that he's leaning towards manslaughter as well.

You don't just accidentally throw sandbags onto an interstate. They may not have been trying to kill someone, but they were definitely trying to hurt someone and that alone is warrant for a murder charge.

Attempting to hurt someone is to warrant a murder charge? Ok.

Have the kids jump off the bridge.

Or drop sandbags from 50 feet high onto their heads.

Call it even.