Was It Murder?

What if he has the heart attack, falls down in a puddle, and drowns?

We might as well make it interesting.

It would be murder.

Just because he survived the shot initially doesn't mean it isn't what killed him.

As he lost blood, his heart would beat in an irregular pattern, leading to a heart attack/heart failure.

That's the plan I'd take if I was the prosecuting attorney.

How would you prove that become frightened by the near miss of the car caused his heart attack?

He would also be frightend by being shot, and physically depleted from running away from someone while bleeding.


Here's an idea.....when he runs into the street, shot, bleeding and scared....a motorist, who has always wondered what it would be like to kill someone, see's him running madly with no regard to his safety into the street.

You can write it that (a) the driver turns the wheel slightly to hit the guy....and does, and kills him.

He would actually be the murderer, but the shooter takes the blame....or does he?

Or, the driver can do the above, but still misses him, that's attempted murder.

Hmmm...I kind of like that. The plot thickens. :wink:

Actually, I got that idea from Annie Hall....remember Annie's creepy brother Duane (played by a very young Christopher Walken)




DUANE I tell you this because, as an artist,
I think you'll understand. Sometimes
when I'm driving ... on the road at night
... I see two headlights coming toward me.
Fast. I have this sudden impulse to turn
the wheel quickly, head-on into the
oncoming car. I can anticipate the
explosion. The sound of shattering glass.
The ... flames rising out of the flowing
gasoline.

ALVY
(Reacting and clearing his throat)
Right. Tsch, well, I have to-I have
t-o go now, Duane, because I-I'm due
back on the planet earth.



(later, Duane drives Alvy back to the train station in the pouring rain)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/criminal.html
Criminal activity is characterized by elements. Mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act).

The guilty mind (not just motive, it's also intent to do harm, which is actually different under the law) is certainly there. There was an intent to kill. Just because someone is a lousy shot or gives the potential victim chamomile tea instead of strichnine does not mean that intent is absent.

The guilty act is actually there as well. Deadly force was used. And the application of said deadly force led, indirectly, to the death. Was it a proximate cause of the death, though? Hard to say.

For a good discussion on Proximate Cause, read Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad, see: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1102543076693 Palsgraf is actually about tort law but it's still interesting.

To get good legal info, try Cornell Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu ) or www.law.com.

I agree.


In the case of the driver actually killing the victim by hitting him with the car, the driver would be the proximate cause of the victim's death. The shooter might be charged with attempted murder and assorted other offenses, but it's not likely that he would also be charged with murder.

If you want difficult hypotheticals, try this one:

Victor Victim announces that he will be setting out on a trek through the desert. Peter Poisoner, Victor's sworn enemy, learns of Victor's plans and secretly poisons the water in the canteen that Victor will be carrying with him into the desert, with the intention of killing Victor. Meanwhile, Derrick Drainer, another one of Victor's sworn enemies, independently learns of Victor's plans and decides that he too will take this opportunity to kill Victor. Derrick secretly drains the water from Victor's canteen, unaware that Peter had earlier poisoned the contents of that canteen. Victor then goes out into the desert, where he is later found to have died of dehydration. The coroner concludes that Victor would have survived if he had carried with him a canteen full of water.

Peter and Derrick are caught by the police and they confess. Both are charged with murder. Peter, however, defends himself by saying that Victor never drank any of the poison that Peter had put into the canteen -- after all, the canteen had been drained by Derrick before Victor went into the desert. Derrick, for his part, claims that he can't be held responsible for Victor's death, because the water that he drained from the canteen was poisoned. Indeed, Derrick argues that Victor lived longer than he would have because Derrick drained the poisoned water from the canteen.

So, who's guilty of killing Victor?

Derrick in the desert with a drained canteen.

Derrick is guilty of murder because draining the canteen was the act that killed Victor and he didn't have knowledge that it was poisoned.

I go with the "but for" theory.

The shooter is guilty of murder.
Had he not shot the guy, the wouldn't have run away, wouldn't have almost gotten hit by the car, and wouldn't have had a heart attack.

The guy wouldn't have died, but for the shooter shooting at him.

Derrick-his actions lead to Victor's death by dehydration. Since Victor didn't drink the poison, Peter's not guilty of murder, but could be charged with attempted murder. Kinda like shooting at somebody and missing.

Kind of reminds me, a little, of "A Place in the Sun". George Eastman takes his girl out on the lake to drown her but he can't go through with it. The boat tips over and the girl drowns anyway. The question is asked if there was a moment that he could have reached out and saved her but didn't.