NationStates Jolt Archive

your comment on murdering a corpse reminded me of an old argument.

if a person jumped off a 20 story roof,and as they passed by your 10th floor window,you bust a cap in them (shoot them)(assuming head shot)
are you guilty of murder?


i didn't want to seem to hijack your thread, so i figured i would start a new thread.but it did remind me of this ethical question,and i thought it may be good for a debate on semantics at the least.

i say no,because they are going to die anyway,but i believe there is case law,will try to dig it up,were you can be charged with at the minimum,aggravated assault or attempted murder.

Would it have to be established at some point that the fellow died of the gunshot before striking the ground?

Frankly, I think if you were established to be in mens rea, you'd be boned.

Would it have to be established at some point that the fellow died of the gunshot before striking the ground?

Frankly, I think if you were established to be in mens rea, you'd be boned.

i am not an attorny,but i would find it hard to prove someone died from a gunshot wound milliseconds before their death from striking the ground.

i suppose i could see an aggravated assault charge,as you did assault said person on his way to his/her demise.

if you could be so kind...what does mens rea mean,i have heard it before in my unfortunately many trips before the court.

i am not an attorny,but i would find it hard to prove someone died from a gunshot wound milliseconds before their death from striking the ground.

i suppose i could see an aggravated assault charge,as you did assault said person on his way to his/her demise.

if you could be so kind...what does mens rea mean,i have heard it before in my unfortunately many trips before the court.
I agree, a twenty story fall probabl wouldn't be all that forgiving I would think.

You'd have to prove that the shooter intended to kill the person falling past his window at that precise moment, wouldn't you? Part of murder is intent, I believe. Even manslaughter might be a stretch in that case.

i am not an attorny,but i would find it hard to prove someone died from a gunshot wound milliseconds before their death from striking the ground.

i suppose i could see an aggravated assault charge,as you did assault said person on his way to his/her demise.

if you could be so kind...what does mens rea mean,i have heard it before in my unfortunately many trips before the court.

Ah, my apologies. If I understand correctly, mens rea is a state of mind indicating culpability, sort of like a "guilty mindset".

So, if you were shooting at a robber as permitted by the "use of force" laws of your locality, and you missed him and hit the jumper by accident, you wouldn't have a "guilty mindset" of murder.

Also, I have to admit that even the most skilled coroner may have some difficulty analyzing the impact of the round in any but the most speculative manner...

Ah, my apologies. If I understand correctly, mens rea is a state of mind indicating culpability, sort of like a "guilty mindset".

So, if you were shooting at a robber as permitted by the "use of force" laws of your locality, and you missed him and hit the jumper by accident, you wouldn't have a "guilty mindset" of murder.

Also, I have to admit that even the most skilled coroner may have some difficulty analyzing the impact of the round in any but the most speculative manner...

thanks,i kinda thought mens rea was along those lines but i wasnt sure,makes sense.

You'd have to prove that the shooter intended to kill the person falling past his window at that precise moment, wouldn't you? Part of murder is intent, I believe. Even manslaughter might be a stretch in that case.

interesting,but could one not argue if the fall didnt kill them,the bullet did,in other words,if he survived the fall,and died from the gunshot,you would at the least be guilty of manslaughter.

it is one of those laws which under scrutiny can be interpeted many ways,yet on it's face value seems rather ludicrous,charging someone with shooting a person pretty obviously falling to their death.

your right though,they would have to prove intent to prove murder.

Of course, there was that whole "guy INTENDED to commit suicide, was accidentally shot to death on the way down by his father who was brandishing a gun the guy had secretly loaded in hopes of having his father shoot his mother (Pop was in the habit of threatening her with the gun) and the guy was suicidal in the first place because Pop had not yet shot Mom. Also, he would have survived the suicide attempt because there was an awning below that broke his fall, but he was dead from the gunshot wound" but that was a hypothetical case proposed by (I believe) a law professor.

Of course you are, don't be so stupid.

Of course, there was that whole "guy INTENDED to commit suicide, was accidentally shot to death on the way down by his father who was brandishing a gun the guy had secretly loaded in hopes of having his father shoot his mother (Pop was in the habit of threatening her with the gun) and the guy was suicidal in the first place because Pop had not yet shot Mom. Also, he would have survived the suicide attempt because there was an awning below that broke his fall, but he was dead from the gunshot wound" but that was a hypothetical case proposed by (I believe) a law professor.

i had some trouble understanding your post..no offence..but i get your drift i think.
i dont know about the law professor,i forget where i heard the argument.

if it could be proven the fall could have been survived,and he only died from the gunshot,then i think you would be charged with something.

just ironic to be charged with killing someone that was in the process of killing themself.

Maybe he was base jumping?

I'd jail the shooter.

Maybe he was base jumping?

I'd jail the shooter.

or free baseing!

or free baseing!
:D

or free baseing!

Or face-planting! (Matrix-style!)

i had some trouble understanding your post..no offence..but i get your drift i think.
i dont know about the law professor,i forget where i heard the argument.

if it could be proven the fall could have been survived,and he only died from the gunshot,then i think you would be charged with something.

just ironic to be charged with killing someone that was in the process of killing themself.

I am sorry, I wrote the post in shorthand... if you saw the movie Magnolia, this case was used in that story, which may be where you heard of it.

I would think that, since the jumper loaded the gun, it would still be suicide... since he INTENDED both the murder of his mother and suicide, but only accomplished one of those two. The father was unaware that the gun was loaded, and in fact expected it NOT to be, so his actions should be regarded as accidental.

Or face-planting! (Matrix-style!)
Or face painting Clown Style!http://forums.rebelalliance.ws/images/smiles/dancing_pickle.gif

I am sorry, I wrote the post in shorthand... if you saw the movie Magnolia, this case was used in that story, which may be where you heard of it.

I would think that, since the jumper loaded the gun, it would still be suicide... since he INTENDED both the murder of his mother and suicide, but only accomplished one of those two. The father was unaware that the gun was loaded, and in fact expected it NOT to be, so his actions should be regarded as accidental.

thanks,i did not see that movie,but i understand your point now.i also agree to an extent,the man who thought the gun was not loaded would not be culpable of murder,due to the fact that it was an accidental discharge and he had no intent.
he would be certainly guilty of negligent homicide i would think.

p.s. as an aside,there are slews of laws dealing with misdemeanor discharging of firearms,but thats not really what i was looking into,only felony type motives and the contradiction involved in assigning guilt to a third party when the intent of the victim was to die.

i say no,because they are going to die anyway
I disagree. Every single one of us is going to die. It doesn't matter if it's going to happen after 2 seconds or 2 decades.

I disagree. Every single one of us is going to die. It doesn't matter if it's going to happen after 2 seconds or 2 decades.

Exactly.

If you commit all the elements of murder (which you have when you intentionally shoot someone in the head and it kills them), it matters not that they may have been dying already.

If you commit all the elements of a crime, you are guilty of that crime. If you don't commit all the elements of a crime, you are not guilty. It is that simple.

http://www.law.ua.edu/colquitt/crimmain/crimmisc/jurymur.htm

Exactly.

If you commit all the elements of murder (which you have when you intentionally shoot someone in the head and it kills them), it matters not that they may have been dying already.

If you commit all the elements of a crime, you are guilty of that crime. If you don't commit all the elements of a crime, you are not guilty. It is that simple.

http://www.law.ua.edu/colquitt/crimmain/crimmisc/jurymur.htm

great point!

you won me over.

your comment on murdering a corpse reminded me of an old argument.

if a person jumped off a 20 story roof,and as they passed by your 10th floor window,you bust a cap in them (shoot them)(assuming head shot)
are you guilty of murder?


i didn't want to seem to hijack your thread, so i figured i would start a new thread.but it did remind me of this ethical question,and i thought it may be good for a debate on semantics at the least.

i say no,because they are going to die anyway,but i believe there is case law,will try to dig it up,were you can be charged with at the minimum,aggravated assault or attempted murder.

If a ninja kills someone seven times before he hits the ground, is he guilty of seven murders?

If a ninja kills someone seven times before he hits the ground, is he guilty of seven murders?

lol.....

but only chuck norris can do that!:)