I dont think you are going to get any serious or direct answers to this, the threads years ago didnt either.
This is not the same as a terminally ill or incurable person etc, so cites to things of that nature are pointless.
The OP has posed the issue…
You come across a person trapped and unfreeable
A fire has started and the trapped person is going to burn alive.
Would it be murder to shoot them and prevent them from having to suffer burning alive?
The law may and probably does consider it murder.
This is why there are human beings as well as the printed law, because not all situations are easily addressed by the printed word and need the aid of human beings
to ensure that the actual spirit of the law is being served.
Unfortunately the OP does not specify “Is this murder in the letter of the law” as opposed to “Would this be considered murder by a group of fellow human beings”
Myself personally, in the face of all rescue attempts being futile at the very best.
And possessing the means to end the unimaginable suffering that burning to death is going to cause, I would say that i would find allowing the person to suffer that rather than anger the letter of the law to be a far worse crime.
As a juror, I would say that you could just as easily used your gun to shoot out a window in the car, and thus help the person to escape. So I’d vote for guilty.
This is excellent, well worth a read.
If a dog drives into a tree in the forest and nobody shoots it, is it still a bad dog?
Damnit! I keep telling people not to believe their dogs when they say they know how to drive. Don’t leave your keys around where dogs can get them. And they’re always running into things because they’re sticking their heads out the window instead of watching where they are going.
the scenario I was going for was there was no way to extract the person. Trapped by folded metal, dashboard, etc. The victim will burn to death. If it was me burning I’d hope someone would put one in my melon rather than let me burn to death.
Sadly, the friend I spoke of they died in the accident, we heard that there were people there, but when it became clear he couldn’t be saved they started filming with their cell phones. Disgusting.
I’m sorry about your friend.
Considering this as just a hypothetical, would it be possible to give the person the gun?
The OP made it perfectly clear that extraction had become an impossibility.
Previous thread about a similar situation taken from the movie Alive.
Caution: Many theological hijacks lurk within.
I’ve made a little list…
Prosecutorial Distractions; or, The Court of Public Opinion:
Why would the prosecutor take the case? To prove a point about how holy the last few agonizing hours of life are, when all hope is gone? To make a stand on a case that, while deeply unpopular, nevertheless serves absolutely no purpose in protecting society? There is something called prosecutorial discretion, and there’s no reason it shouldn’t be used to publicly not prosecute this case.
Voir Deary Me; or, Jury Selection Pressure:
There are entire demographics which would refuse to convict, and would be quite open about that at the jury selection phase. This might be a factor in the discretion I mentioned above: Even if the prosecutor would be willing to take the case, they could well be canny enough to realize that they don’t have the right mix of… well, “people” will have to do… to have any chance at getting a conviction.
Null Where Exhibited By Law; or, Conscientious Rejection:
Yes, jury nullification. It could keep Klansmen from being convicted, it could keep a legitimate mercy killer from being convicted.
Those are high bars to clear. Deliberately high, perhaps, created by people who were not going to make it easy to secure a conviction.