Reckless conduct

Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:17:26 +0000

Whether it is treason or not is for the lawyers to determine.

However it is clear from sheer common sense logic that failing to yield to the Presidential motorcade was both morally and legally reckless conduct.  It was not a political statement but an infantile act of insolence that would have cost lives.

Fortunately it did not, but in their moment of reckless bravado both the  UPND vehicle imperiled much more than the Vehicle in which the President was travelling, because any mishap would have  wrought far reaching consequences.

All it required was for one false move to trigger a series of crashes that would have cost life, limb and property.

In Scottish Law culpable and Reckless Conduct is a Common Law offence. The offence has no specific definition but deals with acts involving a criminal degree of recklessness which creates a risk of injury.

And for purposes of criminal liability a person acts recklessly if the person is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk of dangers or of possible harmful results in so acting but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so.

In essence reckless conduct is by definition more than mere negligence. It amounts to totally unreasonable conduct that is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do. It is a rash and careless act.

As if to prove the point, the accident involving the Presidential Motorcade which happened at the weekend demonstrated the danger of close driving that is the norm for the official motorcade. A Police Officer died and others are nursing serious injuries arising from a tyre burst

It goes to show that anything could have happened in that Mongu debacle.

A slight “rash act” among the irate and exasperated Police officers who were being insulted by the UPND cadres could have created a massive pile up  as evidenced by the  video display in which one of the police cars attempted to force the HH car away from the road, resulting in serious expletives uttered from inside the car.

That is why that conduct was reckless.

There is yet another form of recklessness called aggravated reckless conduct of which a person is guilty if with terroristic intent he engages in conduct that creates substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person.

In Georgia reckless conduct is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $1000 fine, while aggravated recklessness will ultimately attract a higher sentence.

There is nothing honorable about recklessness which must be condemned for the danger it poses to limb and property. In this case it involved the head of state, the President of the Republic.

Any harm would have befallen the person of the President. It had nothing to do with politics.

If anything it had everything to do with human failing and weakness. It was a desire to be recognized. To make an impression, to appease the god of vanity.

Of course there is a danger that the act may be associated with the remarks HH made concerning his prediction regarding his anticipated entry into state house which he said was getting closer.

When all is said and done there is a danger and temptation to respond to this recklessness with equal recklessness thereby defeating the voice of reason and moderation which the Easter season preaches.