I was briefly flummoxed to find that Florida actually has an attempted felony murder statute. But reading it, I have gathered that it is more like a special kind of attempted murder that happens during a felony and ensnares only the people involved in the attempted murder. So, for instance, it’s not enough that you be an accomplice to the felony to be on the hook for felony attempted murder, you actually have to commit or be an accomplice to an act amounting to attempted murder that happens during a felony:
That would be a question of fact, I would think. But the point I was making is that since attempt murder is a specific intent crime, there must be proof of internet beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not enough to prove that the accused loaded the gun and had someone in its sights. Intent also has to be proven.
For example, suppose you load a gun, go into a bank, point it at the teller and demand money. You’ve certainly committed armed robbery. Have you attempted to murder the teller?
So an armed robbery where the robber points a weapon would also be an attempted murder?
No. Read the rest of the post the quote came from. The circumstances described imply an assassination attempt.
As further discussion has revealed, there are two ways the issue is being answered, but one of them is that the described evidence would be sufficient to convict a person, if the jury did conclude that the person had the specific intent to kill, which they could infer from the evidence.
The described circumstances, however, would not be enough, if the jury did not conclude that the person had an intent to kill. If the defendant testified that he just wanted to test his scope out, and the jury believed him, or if the jury concluded that it could not tell what his intent was, then it’s not enough to convict of attempted murder.
Also, the unstated implication of that whole post is that the person was apprehended while looking through the scope. (If that was not the intention, then the discussions have been missing each other completely.) If someone does all of those things but then just packs up and leaves, it would only be attempted murder if there were some evidence that it was a trial run or something.
Just generally pointing a gun at a person during a robbery would not be sufficient, I think, to show an intent to kill by itself. One, if the person gets away and is later apprehended, it’s clear that there was not likely an intent to kill. If we’re talking about someone being apprehended while pointing the gun, then I think you’d still need more, because it’s at least equally likely that the person’s intent in pointing the gun is to communicate a threat in order to escape with the loot. The assassination hypothetical lacks any other obvious reason like that.
But, I think it can be assumed pointing the gun at someone during a robbery is a threat that the robber will kill the person unless that person complies. Isn’t that an intent to kill? Certainly it shows a willingness to kill and a direct threat of it.
Put another way, a getaway driver during a robbery can be charged with murder if one of the other robbers killed someone during that robbery. Even if it can be shown that the driver never had any intent to kill and had no direct part in killing someone they are still guilty. Why, all of a sudden, is the guy carrying the gun and threatening people with it need an intent?
Again, attempt requires specific intent. That means you have to intend the result. Not just be willing to do it under certain conditions, or willing to risk it happening. You intend to actually kill the person, but you are thwarted, or you miss – some circumstance prevents you from realizing your intent.
A getaway driver can be charged with felony murder in some jurisdictions, under some circumstances. The issues are just very different from attempted murder.
This has been implied a number of times, but just to state the obvious with respect to the assassination scenario, if no other force intervenes, then either the person fires the gun or they don’t. I think the spirit of the scenario is that the attempt is interrupted or still in progress.
If the person with the gun just packs up and fucks off back home, that wasn’t an attempted murder. If they are prevented from shooting, different story.
The robbery, in that light, is more like the situation where the person just packs up and goes home. Once in a position to shoot to kill, if they didn’t do it, that’s pretty clear evidence about what they intended.
Yes, exactly.
Our Court has gone with a stricter standard: have to prove a foreseeable likelihood of death on the facts of each case, not just in relation to particular offences in the abstract.
That is how I read it, especially as the post mentioned Dealey Plaza. So in alt-history, Lee Harvey Oswald has Kennedy in his sights but is tackled from behind before he can squeeze the trigger. That is attempted murder all day.
Also of interest to the transferred intent doctrine, Oswald was charged with the attempted murder of Gov. Connally even though he did not intend to kill Gov Connally. However because he intended to kill Kennedy, the intent was transferred to Connally. That is an interesting puzzle to sort out because he could not have been charged with both murder and attempted murder of Kennedy; those would merge upon the completed murder. But I’m scratching my head as to why Connally being hit makes it an attempt on him. Why not attempted murder of Jackie or Gov. Connally’s wife?
Well, for one we don’t know how things would have played out had Oswald lived to go on trial. Perhaps the attempted murder charge would have fallen apart. But then maybe it has to do with the legal concept that one is generally presumed to have intended the probable and foreseeable results of one’s actions. Shooting at Kennedy and hitting… just about anyone else down range with at least one shot is a probable and foreseeable outcome of the action of shooting at the President. That is, it was intended in the sense of “knowing” it would likely happen, if not in the sense of it being the purposeful design.
And that is one of the tricks about “intent” isn’t it? That sometimes it means an action taken knowingly with respect to a likely outcome (like blowing up a house with someone in it, and being indifferent as to their likely demise) versus blowing up a house with someone in it for the specific purpose of blowing that person up.
If one tries to blow up a house, knowing that someone is in it and being indifferent to their death, but fails to cause it to blow up (maybe the explosives don’t go off) is that not still attempted murder?
I agree with all of this, but why is it significant for this analysis that he hit Connally to be charged with attempted murder? Why not one count for everyone in Dealey Plaza?
ETA: Maybe I don’t agree. You must have the specific intent to kill, not just be reckless. Or maybe not. I have now confused myself.
I mean, we agree that the injury to Gov. Connally could not be important in the attempted murder analysis, right? It is no more or less an attempt if I (with specific intent to kill) fire and hit (but don’t kill) or fire and don’t hit.
Ok…but just above @eschrodinger told us that an armed robbery does not rise to attempted murder. Even if they are pointing guns at you and threatening you with death that does not count. Nevermind the probable and foreseeable outcomes of their actions.
But, pointing a rifle at President Kennedy does bring a charge of attempted murder even if the trigger is never pulled?
Where do you get this from?
I thought that Oswald was killed before charges were ever actually filed; wasn’t he on his way to court when he was shot by Ruby? A Google search tells me he was arrested for “murder with malice aforethought” of JFK and Officer Tippett. I’m not aware of any attempted murder allegation.
Or do I misunderstand you, and this was just a hypothetical?
I think that, since Oswald actually shot Connally, but did not kill him, Oswald can be charged with attempted murder under most legal standards (there may be an aggravated battery available too).
Oswald, of course, could claim that he only hit Connally on a ricochet, but that’s where the transferred intent doctrine screws him; it was a ricochet of the shot into Kennedy, so the intent to kill JFK transfers to Connally.
ETA: If a person just fires blindly into a crowded room, and never aims it at anybody in particular, that’s manslaughter - reckless conduct that you can reasonably expect to result in death, even if you never specifically intended any particular person to die.
You really cannot charge someone with murder if they fire a gun into a crowded room with the certainty that it is bound to hit someone? That is extremely counterintuitive, and very hard to reconcile ethically with the concept of transferred intent, where you can be charged with the murder of someone you did not specifically intend to kill.
I think the idea is that the probable and foreseeable outcome of pointing a gun at you from my point of view is not death, not without something more , like pulling the trigger. If the police intervene and prevent me from pulling the trigger , maybe that can be charged as attempted murder but if I point the firearm and you and walk away once you’ve given me the money, it will be difficult to establish that I ever intended to kill you. At most, I may have have intended to kill you if and only if you don’t give me the money - but you did give me the money.
If I’m trying to kill you and pull the trigger, but instead kill @eschrodinger , my intent has transferred with the bullet. It’s not at all clear from my reading what happens if I’m trying to kill you and pull the trigger, but instead hit @eschrodinger, causing a non-fatal injury, or the bullet hits you, causing a not -fatal injury and then passes through you and kills @eschrodinger. I’m not at all sure an attempted murder charge regarding Connally would have gone anywhere.
I think I’m being sloppy, and I apologize. Lacking the specific intent would usually reduce it to 2nd degree murder.
I think my problem is this:
If I say “no” and do not give you the money your intent is to kill me. You’ve told me so. You WILL kill me unless things go a certain way.
Why does that stated intent not count?
On the flip side, as mentioned above, a getaway driver who had no intent to kill anyone and had no weapon and did not pull a trigger can be held for felony murder same as if he pulled the trigger. Is that consistent?
That might depend on the state- Second degree murder in New York includes
- Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person
ETA - in NY first degree murder applies only to certain murders with particular victims or circumstances - if I kill my neighbor because he won’t stop his dog from barking it wouldn’t be first degree murder. If kill the witness who is set to testify against me , it would be first degree.
I’m still struggling a bit with the idea that firing a gun with the certainty that will kill someone in a group of people is a lesser crime than firing a gun with the intent to kill a specific person.