Woman blows off fingers after mistaking stick of dynamite for candle

[phands]

Awwww....this is awful. But why the hell would someone leave dynamite in their basement???

Woman blows off fingers after mistaking stick of dynamite for candle: Report originally appeared on abcnews.go.com​

A woman in Connecticut blew her fingers off after mistaking a stick of dynamite for a candle, ABC New York station WABC reported.
The woman's home -- on Lindley Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut — had lost power after a thunderstorm Thursday night, and the family came back from a trip to Home Depot empty-handed, since the store was closed, WABC reported, citing the Bridgeport Fire Marshal's Office.
(MORE: 'She didn't deserve this,' says mother of 22-year-old woman who lost both of her legs in a tour boat explosion in the Bahamas)
The family then remembered that there was a box of what they believed to be candles in the basement that had been left by the previous resident, fire officials said.

​

The victim lit a quarter-stick of dynamite and suffered serious injuries to her face and loss multiple fingers in her hands.
The woman, in her 30s and the mother of two children, was transported to a local hospital after the accident.

​

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/woman-blo...te-candle-020800955--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[fast]

According to the link:

Although it is illegal to possess dynamite, fireworks or firecrackers in Connecticut, charges are not expected to be file since the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices.

I don't want to appear as it might as I say what I do, but there is something about the internal workings of the law that puzzles me. Is this a case of prosecutorial discretion?

 

[DBT]

The 'punishment' for possession has already been severe, especially if, as the quote says, the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices

 

[Derec]

Getting almost killed by a comedy plot device...

 

[fast]

The 'punishment' for possession has already been severe, especially if, as the quote says, the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices

I wasn't talking about 'punishment' but rather punishment. If you're trying to suggest her injuries were punishment enough, then maybe she needs to sue for cruel and unusual punishment, but if you're speaking of 'punishment' as to consequences to actions not carried out by law, then she (nor her family) have been held accountable for their actions.

Perhaps the consequences of what happened factors into this prosecutorial discretion I parrot from what I've heard before, but is it that, state-sanctioned latitude? Somehow I doubt the law specifically allows ignorance as an exception.

 

[DBT]

The 'punishment' for possession has already been severe, especially if, as the quote says, the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices

I wasn't talking about 'punishment' but rather punishment. If you're trying to suggest her injuries were punishment enough, then maybe she needs to sue for cruel and unusual punishment, but if you're speaking of 'punishment' as to consequences to actions not carried out by law, then she (nor her family) have been held accountable for their actions.

Perhaps the consequences of what happened factors into this prosecutorial discretion I parrot from what I've heard before, but is it that, state-sanctioned latitude? Somehow I doubt the law specifically allows ignorance as an exception.

Of course I meant consequences in lieu formal charges and punishment, whether there are exceptions that allow ignorance may be up to the discretion of the police. I'm sure it happens from time to time.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The family then remembered that there was a box of what they believed to be candles in the basement that had been left by the previous resident, fire officials said.

Although it is illegal to possess dynamite, fireworks or firecrackers in Connecticut, charges are not expected to be file since the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices.

So, if I say committed a murder in a house, then sold the house, and then the body was found, it would not be me but the current resident of the house that would be charged with that murder, or charges would not be brought. I would expect that if it was illegal to possess the explosives that the prior resident would be charged (especially considering the consequences).
The woman did make a big mistake, and it is strange the family hadn't already checked the supposed candles.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There should definitely be criminal charges against the former owner of the house who left a box of frigging dynamite in the basement without telling the new owners. Whatever the equivalent of negligent homicide is when the victim is only injured.

Also, the civil suit against him should take everything he owns. Except if he own more boxes of dynamite, of course. He shouldn't be sending anymore of those over to her, because that would just be kind of dickish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to the link:

Although it is illegal to possess dynamite, fireworks or firecrackers in Connecticut, charges are not expected to be file since the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices.

I don't want to appear as it might as I say what I do, but there is something about the internal workings of the law that puzzles me. Is this a case of prosecutorial discretion?

Almost all crimes require intent. You have to intend to do the act (whether you know the act is illegal is irrelevant.) They had no intent to possess explosives, and thus could not be convicted of it.

- - - Updated - - -

There should definitely be criminal charges against the former owner of the house who left a box of frigging dynamite in the basement without telling the new owners. Whatever the equivalent of negligent homicide is when the victim is only injured.

Unfortunately, there generally isn't a law against negligent wounding. All they could get them on was the possession of explosives--and given that they didn't take it they might not have known themselves. The actual evildoer might be farther removed.

 

[skepticalbip]

I gotta wonder if the reporter actually got the facts right. I have never heard of anyone who deals with explosives who would have stored dynomite with the detonator cap inserted. Normal practice is to insert the detonator only when the dynomite is to be used to blast something. However cartoons generally show dynomite stored with a fuse already poking out of one end.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Unfortunately, there generally isn't a law against negligent wounding. All they could get them on was the possession of explosives--and given that they didn't take it they might not have known themselves. The actual evildoer might be farther removed.

Ya, there is. It's called criminal negligence causing bodily harm. It's punishable by up to 10 years in jail. The guy left fucking explosives in a house and didn't tell anybody and then someone got injured by those explosives. That's a pretty clear cut case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I gotta wonder if the reporter actually got the facts right. I have never heard of anyone who deals with explosives who would have stored dynomite with the detonator cap inserted. Normal practice is to insert the detonator only when the dynomite is to be used to blast something. However cartoons generally show dynomite stored with a fuse already poking out of one end.

Yeah, you store the sensitive stuff separate from the big booms until you have to combine them.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Unfortunately, there generally isn't a law against negligent wounding. All they could get them on was the possession of explosives--and given that they didn't take it they might not have known themselves. The actual evildoer might be farther removed.

Ya, there is. It's called criminal negligence causing bodily harm. It's punishable by up to 10 years in jail. The guy left fucking explosives in a house and didn't tell anybody and then someone got injured by those explosives. That's a pretty clear cut case.

If the box was labeled ‘Acme’, it’s her own fault.

 

[bilby]

Unfortunately, there generally isn't a law against negligent wounding. All they could get them on was the possession of explosives--and given that they didn't take it they might not have known themselves. The actual evildoer might be farther removed.

Ya, there is. It's called criminal negligence causing bodily harm. It's punishable by up to 10 years in jail. The guy left fucking explosives in a house and didn't tell anybody and then someone got injured by those explosives. That's a pretty clear cut case.

If the box was labeled ‘Acme’, it’s her own fault.

Yup. Everyone knows you shouldn't buy a house from a coyote.

 

[WAB]

Though this is certainly tragic, it's not unprecedented:



..not to be insensitive. Just a little comic relief...

 

[Elixir]

I thought dynamite was better than that. Some fingers, face wounds ... kinda the same wound pattern I used to hear about with kids handling firecrackers. Movies educated me to believe that if you were holding a whole stick of dynamite when it went off, you'd be blown to smithereens.

 

[bilby]

I thought dynamite was better than that. Some fingers, face wounds ... kinda the same wound pattern I used to hear about with kids handling firecrackers. Movies educated me to believe that if you were holding a whole stick of dynamite when it went off, you'd be blown to smithereens.

Explosives are all about containment. If the blast can take an easier route than breaking through a solid object, then most of it will.

You need to concentrate the explosion by putting a hard shell around it for it to be really nasty, unless you have a lot of explosive. That's why bombs have thick casings.

It's also why materials that detonate (eg dynamite) make more powerful bangs than those that deflagrate (eg gunpowder) - in a detonation, the combustion front moves faster than the blast wave, and so the blast is effectively concentrated by that effect.

A hand grenade likely contains less explosive than a stick of dynamite, but it has a metal casing, so is far more deadly. Dynamite is intended to be used in mining, where the rock you are blasting acts to contain and amplify the effect of the explosives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thought dynamite was better than that. Some fingers, face wounds ... kinda the same wound pattern I used to hear about with kids handling firecrackers. Movies educated me to believe that if you were holding a whole stick of dynamite when it went off, you'd be blown to smithereens.

Explosives are all about containment. If the blast can take an easier route than breaking through a solid object, then most of it will.

You need to concentrate the explosion by putting a hard shell around it for it to be really nasty, unless you have a lot of explosive. That's why bombs have thick casings.

It's also why materials that detonate (eg dynamite) make more powerful bangs than those that deflagrate (eg gunpowder) - in a detonation, the combustion front moves faster than the blast wave, and so the blast is effectively concentrated by that effect.

A hand grenade likely contains less explosive than a stick of dynamite, but it has a metal casing, so is far more deadly. Dynamite is intended to be used in mining, where the rock you are blasting acts to contain and amplify the effect of the explosives.

Yup. That's why the Truthers that think the twin towers were brought down by explosives are full of it. Buildings are blown down by placing the charges inside the concrete, or, when dealing with steel beams instead they use special cutting charges--which are very short ranged. Lay a charge against a wall, doesn't do much to the wall. Lay a cutting charge against the wall over a steel beam, doesn't do much to the beam.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to the link:

Although it is illegal to possess dynamite, fireworks or firecrackers in Connecticut, charges are not expected to be file since the family had no prior knowledge that they were in the possession of explosive devices.

I don't want to appear as it might as I say what I do, but there is something about the internal workings of the law that puzzles me. Is this a case of prosecutorial discretion?

No mens rea.

 

[ZiprHead]

I thought dynamite was better than that. Some fingers, face wounds ... kinda the same wound pattern I used to hear about with kids handling firecrackers. Movies educated me to believe that if you were holding a whole stick of dynamite when it went off, you'd be blown to smithereens.

The OP said it was a quarter stick. I believe M80s are equivalent to an eighth stick.