Animal liability

mitchconnor16

Can I be charged for murder if I release a dangerous animal on a person and that person dies?

ted1

http://m.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/news/dog-set-on-gardai-after-attempt-to-search-house-34436866.html



http://www.mayonews.ie/news/27155-jail-for-man-who-threatened-gardai-with-dog

JamboMac

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Can I be charged for murder if I release a dangerous animal on a person and that person dies?

WTF

Yes

GM228

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

Can I be charged for murder if I release a dangerous animal on a person and that person dies?

If you intended to use the animal to kill or seriously injure the person then yes of course you can be charged with murder, using an animal would be no different to say using a knife, what is important is the intention of your act, not the means of your act. In this case the animal is simply your weapon.

If you didn't intend to seriously injure or kill, say your intention was simply to scare the person but they died then manslaughter could apply.

And if they didn't die there could potentially be other criminal charges starting with control of dogs offences if a dig was the animal for example right up to attempted murder no doubt.

And of course there would also be civil liability issues in any actions of tort.

NUTLEY BOY

GM228 wrote: »

If you intended to use the animal to kill or seriously injure the person then yes of course you can be charged with murder, using an animal would be no different to say using a knife, what is important is the intention of your act, not the means of your act. In this case the animal is simply your weapon.

If you didn't intend to seriously injure or kill, say your intention was simply to scare the person but they died then manslaughter could apply.

And if they didn't die there could potentially be other criminal charges starting with control of dogs offences if a dig was the animal for example right up to attempted murder no doubt.

And of course there would also be civil liability issues in any actions of tort.

How might you prove actus reus to the required standard ?

If I stab my intended victim with a knife in front of witnesses that would be reasonably conclusive evidence of the wrongful act.

However, how would you prove that a dangerous dog was definitely a mechanism to perpetrate the wrongful act ? Is there any risk that a prosecution could fall on that element so that you could end up with mens rea proven but actus reus not established ?

Peregrinus

It's going to depend on the facts and the evidence, isn't it? If I have an explanation for locking you into a room with an angry hungry tiger that doesn't involve me intending your death or serious injury, the jury may acquit - but only if it's a very good explanation. On the other hand, if I turn a bull loose in a field and it's plausible that I didn't know you were in the field, and I have a credible explanation of why I let the bull into the field, my chances of acquittal are probably quite good.

Carawaystick

What about an Aedes aegypti, or Anopholes Mosquito?

Or a Bee is released to someone with an anaphalyxis allergy?

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

How might you prove actus reus to the required standard ?

If I stab my intended victim with a knife in front of witnesses that would be reasonably conclusive evidence of the wrongful act.

However, how would you prove that a dangerous dog was definitely a mechanism to perpetrate the wrongful act ? Is there any risk that a prosecution could fall on that element so that you could end up with mens rea proven but actus reus not established ?

As Peregrinis has said it would depend on the nature of case and any evidence such as any admission/statement by the accused, survivors evidence etc.

Unusual but not impossible, there have been cases I've read about in the past where animal owners have been charged with murder or manslaughter over the actions of their animals.

EDIT: Here's two examples from the US

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-man-charged-with-murder-says-he-didnt-know-his-dogs-could-kill-20140827-story.html

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-charged-murder-after-dogs-6972364.amp?client=safari

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

What about an Aedes aegypti, or Anopholes Mosquito?

Or a Bee is released to someone with an anaphalyxis allergy?

Unleashing a potentially dangerous animal which you may have control over vs an insect which you don't really control of or have any idea of propensity, don't think you can really compare such in fairness.

Carawaystick

Anopheles Mosquitoes have killed more humans than any other animal. That makes them dangerous animals in my book.

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

Anopheles Mosquitoes have killed more humans than any other animal. That makes them dangerous animals in my book.

That may be so, but when it comes to criminal liability you would probably find such statistics to be irrelevant.

ohnonotgmail

Carawaystick wrote: »

Anopheles Mosquitoes have killed more humans than any other animal. That makes them dangerous animals in my book.

but a person would have no control over their actions so how could that person be responsible for what they do? also, a mosquito bite does not immediately lead to death until ,say, an attack by a dog. i dont think the use of a mosquito, if one can even be said to use a mosquito, is analogous to what is asked in the op.

Peregrinus

The question is not really what control you have over their actions. The question is what you intended by releasing them.

We're not a thousand miles away from an analogy with biological warfare or germ warfare. If I release pathogens into the environment near to enemy forces, I have no control over where those pathogens will go, or who will inhale them or come into contact with them or wherever, but there's no doubt that I am intending death or serious injury, and in the ensuing war crimes trial I wouldn't exepct to succeed with a defence that relied on the fact that, after I had released the pathogens, I had no control over them, and if events had unfolded differently - if the wind had changed, say - nobody might have died. I had control over whether to release them, and my intention in releasing them was to injure and kill. That's enough.

Same here, I think. If in fact you are killed by an animal that I released, whether I am guilty of murder or manslaughter or neither will depend on my intention in releasing the animals. Issues like how foreseeable or likely your death was are relevant only in regard to the light they cast on my intention.