Is there the intent to kill? If the intent was merely to wound the victim, but ends up killing them instead, I’m quite certain it would just be manslaughter.
IMHO (wrong forum, I know, but that’s what the OP asked for):
It’s the intent that counts.
If you try to kill him, and it was in hot blood, it’s manslaughter.
If you try to kill him with premeditation, it’s murder.
It shouldn’t matter at all whether the attempt has been successful, in one way or another, except maybe for the degree of penalty.
If he lives a year & a day-no murder-most jurisdictions. If you shoot a guy-minor wound, but he dies because of a medical error-malpractice= murder.(2nd degree) Having a medical & law degree I am intrigued that medical malpractice is “Foreseeable,” but legal malpractice is not. Guess because lawyers make the laws/cases.
The courts already ruled: In the OP scenario, the ‘do not resuscitate’ order didn’t kill him; you did, for putting him in that state in the first place.
The DNR should play no part in it. Saying that your not responsible for his death since he had a DNR is like saying you would not be responsible because he didn’t have insurance for being shot. The minute you fired the weapon the result was decided. What other reason would you have to shot someone in this situation other than to kill them?
Attempted murder if he lived, murder if he died.
This reminds me of the legal system in John Varley’s ‘Steel Beach’ and other novels in the same future setting. Nanotechnology makes it very difficult to actually kill someone, and most people record their personalities and memories every several months so if you do get killed, you will be brought back (you just won’t remember anything that happened between the last time you were recorded and when you died). If you do manage to kill someone in this universe, you have to pay the victim 95% of your net worth for ‘Alienation of Identity’ or something like that.
Can we assume that:
- You intended to kill him.
- The heart attack was a direct result of the shooting.
- The doctor could almost certainly have saved him (once he was at the hospital) had he been allowed to.
I’m not sure. Here’s some comparable cases (intent to kill assumed in each):
You push someone off a cliff. They have the opportunity to catch a branch on the way down, but choose not to.
You push someone off a cliff. They hang from the edge. You offer to pull them back up and they refuse, eventually weakening and falling.
You push someone off a cliff. They hang from the edge. Someone else comes along and doesn’t pull them up.
As far as anything could be said to be a “direct result” or “almost certainly,” yes.
Barry
Reminds me of this thread.
What if you shoot someone who’s a member of a religious group that probits blood donations? Having a personal belief that “when my time comes, I’ll go naturally” is quite a bit different than believing that you want to kill yourself (i.e., suicide). That’s the difference between a DNR (or someone who won’t accept blood) and a “premeditated suicide,” as the OP calls it.
If you shot someone because you were just arguing with him that is an extreme act in itself. If you were physically fighting and then you shot him it would be different. Fuck it, you should fry with all the rest .
Sorry