Can’t remember the (fictional) show, but two lawyers were talking about a hypothetical situation they’d had thrown at them in law school. A guy is in his office in a 100 storey building when a man falls past his window. With commendable speed and accuracy he whips out a piece and shoots the man on his way down. What is he guilty of (other than perhaps illegally discharging a firearm)? They never resolved it in the show, if resolution there be.
IANAL, so I’ll WAG:
If it can be proven that the gunshot killed the jumper BEFORE he hit the ground, the shooter COULD be charged with murder. Just because the jumper was going to go splat doesn’t justify shooting him on the way down.
IANAL either, but I know that people are responsible for actions commited while they were living even after death. We still blame Hitler for the holocaust, don’t we?
For example, let’s say I have a gun and I shoot you with it. After you’re dead, I turn the gun on myself. Murder-suicide, no? I believe that that same scenerio would apply to your example as well.
I guess he would be guilty of murder, illegal discharge of a firearm, and suicide (I think suicide is illegal - check your local laws…). If they really wanted to throw the book at him, they could possibly toss in littering (his body/spent shell on the ground), loitering (not moving), and vandalism (blood, etc). Probably some more as well, if they really had the urge to pursue a dead guy.
Eh, Marky - it’s not the jumper who does the shooting, but the guy in the building…
I am a lawyer, and Mr. Blue Sky is correct, depending on why the shooter shot the jumper. If he did it intentionally, then it would be murder, even if the fall would have killed the jumper anyway. He shot him, presumably intending to kill him, therefore it is murder. If it was just the random discharge of a firearm (which doesn’t seem to fit with the OP) then it might still be murder (at least in Scotland) due to the “wicked recklessness” involved.
Everybody is going to die at some point, therefore how much or how little time you have left at the point when you are murdered
(assuming it can be measured) cannot be allowed to become relevant to the circumstances, if only for public policy reasons. The taking of a life is the taking of a life, no matter how much of it is left.
Any argument about putting the jumper out of his misery would be redundant, as the jumper would be dead in a few seconds in any event, so we can ignore that argument in this case.
In Scotland, it’s a murder. I can’t speak for other jurisdictions.
In case you want to read the tale, here is the story of Ronald Opus.
Aldi, I just want to remind you that you should NOT rely on this Message Board for legal advice. In the first place, the best you could get here would be a general opinion, and your specific case might be different. And in the second place, just because someone says they are a lawyer doesn’t mean they are. And in the third place, the laws are different in different jurisdictions. And in the fourth place, there’s – eh? What?
Oh. Nevermind.
D’oh!
Thanks for pointing out my error, Iguana Boy. I misread the question…
How embarrassing.
sigh
My legal opinion is that if one is falling outside a building, one should not shoot anyone one passes on the way down, and if one is inside a building when a person falls past on the outside, one should not shoot the falling person.
Query: was the fellow dead or alive when he began his fall prior to being shot?
Well, yeah. But your version would make a much better short story, and maybe even a kick-ass movie. So you’ve got that as consolation.
What if he fell due to a massive heart attack which would have caused death within seconds?
How could anyone determine if the man had already died?
And then there is the question of whether or not the shooter could have known the target was dead/believed the target was dead.
IAAL and I’ll be damned if I know. What I do know is that I want this guy on my trap shooting team.
Well, IAAL (ex-prosecutor), though I’ve never tested the hypo, but my recollection is:
(a) the show was Law & Order;
(b) in most jurisdictions, the OP would be murder;
© at least in California (because the answer may vary by jurisdiction), happyheathen’s scenario would be attempted murder. Here’s why…
California law (PC 664, for those playing the home game) defines “Attempt” as follows:
“every person who attempts any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished…as follows:
(a) …if the crime attempted is willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder…the person guilty of that attempt shall be punished by imprisoned for life with the possibility of parole.”
So what we’ve got in happyheathen’s hypo is (assuming the shooter meant to shoot the faller) a shooter who tried to kill the faller, but, not knowing the faller was already dead, failed in his attempt to kill the faller. At least, IIRC, that’s the law school answer.
Holden, Day, Wilson would have been the firm to use to handle the defence.
Oh, lets just let the jury decide the matter of guilt.
The original tale, cited aove, describes the “faller” as the son of the shooter (ooh! Can I call him the descendant?) who has jumped from the top of a ten story building in an attempt at suicide. As he passes the ninth floor a shotgun blast triggered by his father strikes him in the head and kills him.
The father was threatening the mother with the shotgun during a marital spat, as he was in the habit of doing - but with an unloaded gun. The descendant had secretly loaded the gun in the hope that his father would accidently kill his mother, who had recently cut off the descendant’s financial support. So the shooter believed the weapon to be non-lethal. The father was so agitated that he could not point the gun accurately, thus the blast missed mom and scored descendant.
Unknown to the descendant, a safety net for window washers was in place at the eighth floor, so his suicidal efforts would likely have been unsuccessful.
Just in case you want some details. The whole thing’s bogus, of course.
A lawyer hanging out with people with guns?
Is that wise?
.:d&r:.
Depending upon the state, the father would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter regarding the original tale. Some states use different nomenclatures. (A willful and reckless act that could reasonably have been foreseen to kill someone.)
“Whatever else it may be, it is not murder to shoot a dead body. Man dies but once.”
People v. Dlugash, 363 N.E.2d 1155 (N.Y. 1977)