If I shoot a man falling to his death?

Procrastastudy

http://memebase.com/2012/04/27/internet-memes-tldr-the-most-interesting-story/

I have no idea if it's true - or indeed new but thought I'd share.

ResearchWill

Not true, but an interesting story.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/opus.asp

Milk & Honey

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

http://memebase.com/2012/04/27/internet-memes-tldr-the-most-interesting-story/

I have no idea if it's true - or indeed new but thought I'd share.

If you cant recognise an exam question when you see one, it is time to start swotting.

Tom Young

Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.

Kaitamaki v R.;
R. v Thabo Meli; and
Dullaghan v Hillen & Stone.

jblack

Watch the start of Magnolia.

hession.law

If your shot killed him before he fit the floor, you would be liable

Procrastastudy

Did you read the article hession? He supposidly loaded the gun.

Incidently no criminal exam for me until next year. I can only hope the questions are this imaginative!

hession.law

From what I remember, the fact that he would have inevitably died does not absolve the person who delivers the killing blow; intent follows the bullet, and as it was the husband who fired the gun at his wife he is guilty of manslaughter on the grounds on deprived indifference. Although the son indirectly put the loaded gun in his hands, he would have been guilty of attempted murder on the life of his mother; I don't believe the son procured his own suicide by loading the gun, had they been out hunting and the son loaded the gun for the father and the father accidentally shot dead the son, would this also be classed as suicide, according to this article?

Victor

So, what happens if, late at night, I drive along the motorway so fast that I can't stop within the distance that I can see to be clear and run over two people lying on the motorway?

jasonpat

I do not about this story but if its happen in real life, If the bullet touch the person before falling on to the ground, or the person is died due to the bullet then its your fault and you will be prosecuted and in other case the person is dead and you shot him this will also call as a crime.

Reg'stoy

Victor wrote: »

So, what happens if, late at night, I drive along the motorway so fast that I can't stop within the distance that I can see to be clear and run over two people lying on the motorway?

I suppose I would, having learned your profession (change my opinion), ignore certain facts, amend others to suit my now predetermined assumption of your guilt (having learned your profession); because your profession makes you guilty of everything on the interweb.

hession.law

Victor wrote: »

So, what happens if, late at night, I drive along the motorway so fast that I can't stop within the distance that I can see to be clear and run over two people lying on the motorway?

Well I would have thought given the above facts a person would be found guilty of vehicular mansluaghter, but in a recent case a person only got a slap on the wrists for similar facts. Had the driver exercised the expected precautions the condition demanded then maybe there would be no fault

ResearchWill

hession.law wrote: »

Well I would have thought given the above facts a person would be found guilty of vehicular mansluaghter, but in a recent case a person only got a slap on the wrists for similar facts. Had the driver exercised the expected precautions the condition demanded then maybe there would be no fault

There is no such charge in Irish law. The correct charge would be dangerous driving causing death, in all respects the same charge as dangerous except for a harsher sentence as it resulted in a death.

rab!dmonkey

With regards to the motorway question, this case may be of interest.

The second defendant is a motorist who was driving at night on the motorway with dipped headlights. She struck the plaintiff who was walking, drunk, on the carriageway. Even though the stopping distance at motorway speeds is greater than the distance illuminated by dipped headlights, the Judge found that she was not negligent in her actions.

Victor

I think the judge's main point is that the plaintiff was much more drunk than he made out to be and it was predominantly his fault.

I think the judge came to the wrong conclusion regarding distance seen to be clear - what if there was a deer on the road or a crashed or broken down vehicle that was unlit?