Girl charged for throwing gum at state trooper.

**The Unknown 1087** · October 12th, 2009, 10:26 PM

Not sure where this goes.

I just found this.

Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Oct 12, 2009 17:19 EST

Correction — A state police trooper who was struck by a piece of gum allegedly thrown or spit by a 16-year-old girl off the Landis Valley Road bridge over Route 222 was not driving his car at the time, according to police. He was parked along Route 222.

Talk about a one-in-a-million shot.

A 16-year-old Lancaster girl launched a piece of chewing gum off a Manheim Township overpass Thursday evening — striking a state police trooper driving his marked car on the highway below, police said.

State police Trooper Christopher J. Cope said the girl either spit or threw her gum off the Landis Valley Road bridge over Route 222 at the state police car around 5:51 p.m.

Cope said in a news release that the piece of gum struck the trooper inside the car.

State police caught up with the girl, who is not being identified because she is a minor, and charged her with disorderly conduct.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/243339

wonder if she really tried to do it.

**unclejumbo** · October 12th, 2009, 10:38 PM

She's lucky, she could have been charged with 'Propulsion of missiles'.

§ 2707. Propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle or onto
a roadway.
(a) Occupied vehicles.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots
or propels a rock, stone, brick, or piece of iron, steel or
other like metal, or any deadly or dangerous missile, or fire
bomb, into a vehicle or instrumentality of public transportation
that is occupied by one or more persons commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.
(b) Roadways.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots, drops
or causes to be propelled any solid object, from an overpass or
any other location adjacent to or on a roadway, onto or toward
said roadway shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second
degree.

**The Unknown 1087** · October 12th, 2009, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by unclejumbo

She's lucky, she could have been charged with 'Propulsion of missiles'.

§ 2707. Propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle or onto
a roadway.
(a) Occupied vehicles.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots
or propels a rock, stone, brick, or piece of iron, steel or
other like metal, or any deadly or dangerous missile, or fire
bomb, into a vehicle or instrumentality of public transportation
that is occupied by one or more persons commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.
(b) Roadways.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots, drops
or causes to be propelled any solid object, from an overpass or
any other location adjacent to or on a roadway, onto or toward
said roadway shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second
degree.

It says intentionally though, what if it wasnt meant. I wanna know how they got her, it's not easy to get from that part of the road to the over pass at that location.

**unclejumbo** · October 12th, 2009, 11:36 PM

Unless she sneezed and it shot out of her mouth, I would say intentionally applies. It just says you have to launch it toward the road, it doesn't say you have to hit something.

**blinkbcrbass** · October 12th, 2009, 11:49 PM

Surprised she didn't get charged for littering too

**ksig1869** · October 13th, 2009, 04:00 AM

Come on they are charging her for spitting out a piece of gum? I would understand if it was a rock or something but gum?

**schmol** · October 13th, 2009, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by blinkbcrbass

Surprised she didn't get charged for littering too

she can't be charged for littering as the gum landing in his car and ever touched the ground.

**TaePo** · October 13th, 2009, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by unclejumbo

Unless she sneezed and it shot out of her mouth, I would say intentionally applies. It just says you have to launch it toward the road, it doesn't say you have to hit something.

Devil's advocate here...

But wouldn't the prosecution have to prove her intention to do so and that it was not a 'sneeze'?

Unless the trooper saw her actually propel it by hand or they scare her into confessing or pleading...

IANAL and have not hung out at courtrooms so I do not know the practical implications of proving intent. But offhand, I would say in some cases such as this, it would be difficult without eyewitnesses.

Someone in the car, say, stating that the girl said, "Watch, I am going to throw this out the window."