Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hypothetical Legal Questions

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?
Am I culpable for the deaths of the EMTs?

Let's say instead of a punch, I shot you in the leg.
Same questions?

Let's say in either scenario, it was a semi's brakes that failed, but a drunk driver running a stop light (or, even if he isn't drunk).
Same questions?

Also, please tell me how sure you are about this.
If you are guessing, say so. If you are a lawyer and know for certain, say so.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:39:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not a lawyer, but old enough and well read enough to get the gist of legal burdens.

In these sorts of things, the burden of guilt is shared according to the level of responsibility and damage done. For example, if you rear end someone in your car, you are responsible for that. If the person you hit rear ends the person in front of him, that person, not you, is responsible for that.

In your first example, you would be on the hook for assault and battery, but not the other damages done. If negligence can be found in the maintenance of the semi's brakes, then the responsible parties are on the hook for that. And so on...

Also, there is the distinction between civil suits and criminal cases as far as burden of proof and potential penalties. Civil suits do not have near the burden of proof, nor can they send a person to jail.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 2:02:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

No. Guilty of assault probably, given that your scenario paints you as initiating the assault without cause.

Am I culpable for the deaths of the EMTs?

No.

Let's say instead of a punch, I shot you in the leg.
Same questions?

No and no, although you'd be guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in this case. I believe this is a felony as opposed to the above.

Let's say in either scenario, it was a semi's brakes that failed, but a drunk driver running a stop light (or, even if he isn't drunk).
Same questions?

No and no. The drunk driver however would probably be guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Not sure about a sober person running a light, although in principle it's the same...negligent driving conduct causing vehicular death. I would imagine this would become an issue of degree of severity, and given how we treat drunk driving, I'd think the drunk driver would face a much tougher time in court.

Also, please tell me how sure you are about this.

Very sure, but I don't have an expert legal opinion.

If you are guessing, say so. If you are a lawyer and know for certain, say so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there. Likewise, if you shoot someone in the chest and the doctor fvcks up the surgery to save them, that's still murder.

Am I culpable for the deaths of the EMTs?

Not legally no. You're a but for cause but not a "proximate cause" of their deaths, so you can't be found responsible for them.


Let's say instead of a punch, I shot you in the leg.
Same questions?

Doesn't really change the fact pattern.


Let's say in either scenario, it was a semi's brakes that failed, but a drunk driver running a stop light (or, even if he isn't drunk).
Same questions?

None of these change the fact pattern. The ambulance coming to save someone you shot does not mean you caused the accident, whether it was a complete accident or a drunk driver.


Also, please tell me how sure you are about this.
If you are guessing, say so. If you are a lawyer and know for certain, say so.

I don't like where this is going. It doesn't seem hypothetical. For ethical purposes, I have to tell you I'm not a lawyer (law student). And this doesn't not constitute legal advice nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 2:39:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there. Likewise, if you shoot someone in the chest and the doctor fvcks up the surgery to save them, that's still murder.

I'm fairly certain this is not true. If the doctor commits malpractice that, had it not occurred, would have resulted in a healthy patient, then the doctor is to blame for allowing a patient to die on his/her operating table and would face relevant civil/criminal statutes.

KM would still probably be guilty of assault, but not manslaughter.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 3:15:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 2:39:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there. Likewise, if you shoot someone in the chest and the doctor fvcks up the surgery to save them, that's still murder.

I'm fairly certain this is not true. If the doctor commits malpractice that, had it not occurred, would have resulted in a healthy patient, then the doctor is to blame for allowing a patient to die on his/her operating table and would face relevant civil/criminal statutes.

KM would still probably be guilty of assault, but not manslaughter.

It depends how far gone the person was when you shot him. A tiny scratch on his arm, leading to some weird staph infection and he dies = different than you shot him in the heart and a really skilled surgeon might have saved him, but the surgery resident screwed up.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 3:20:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 3:15:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:39:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there. Likewise, if you shoot someone in the chest and the doctor fvcks up the surgery to save them, that's still murder.

I'm fairly certain this is not true. If the doctor commits malpractice that, had it not occurred, would have resulted in a healthy patient, then the doctor is to blame for allowing a patient to die on his/her operating table and would face relevant civil/criminal statutes.

KM would still probably be guilty of assault, but not manslaughter.

It depends how far gone the person was when you shot him. A tiny scratch on his arm, leading to some weird staph infection and he dies = different than you shot him in the heart and a really skilled surgeon might have saved him, but the surgery resident screwed up.

In both of KM's examples, you have someone who required emergency care and probably major surgery as a result of KM's actions. If that patient dies on the operating table and it was demonstrated that with proper medical care the patient would have fully recovered or at the very least survived, yeah, that just screams malpractice, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 4:43:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 3:20:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:15:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:39:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there. Likewise, if you shoot someone in the chest and the doctor fvcks up the surgery to save them, that's still murder.

I'm fairly certain this is not true. If the doctor commits malpractice that, had it not occurred, would have resulted in a healthy patient, then the doctor is to blame for allowing a patient to die on his/her operating table and would face relevant civil/criminal statutes.

KM would still probably be guilty of assault, but not manslaughter.

It depends how far gone the person was when you shot him. A tiny scratch on his arm, leading to some weird staph infection and he dies = different than you shot him in the heart and a really skilled surgeon might have saved him, but the surgery resident screwed up.

In both of KM's examples, you have someone who required emergency care and probably major surgery as a result of KM's actions. If that patient dies on the operating table and it was demonstrated that with proper medical care the patient would have fully recovered or at the very least survived, yeah, that just screams malpractice, IMHO.

You can have both a malpractice claim against the doctor and a homicide charge against the person who shot him for putting him in that life threatening situation. Murder includes causing "grievous bodily injury" that ultimately leads to death. If you put someone in a coma, and they maybe could have recovered, but their family can't afford the medical bill and has to pull the plug, it also becomes murder when the person dies. If you shoot someone in the heart, and he manages to live two days, then succumbs to his injuries, that's still murder.

There's still a proximate causation issue: if your shooting the person was not the proximate cause of his death, then it's not murder. So if you only cause a flesh wound and the doctor botches the surgery so bad the person dies, that's not murder. Proximate cause is an issue for the jury, so no one can say definitively what would happen in close cases, but if you shoot someone and *seriously* injure them, and they succumb to those injuries, that's murder, even if there was a chance they could recover but the surgeon messed up really badly.

You can keep arguing against me, but you'd be arguing about what you think the law *should* be, not what the law actually is.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 8:42:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Also, please tell me how sure you are about this.
If you are guessing, say so. If you are a lawyer and know for certain, say so.

I don't like where this is going. It doesn't seem hypothetical. For ethical purposes, I have to tell you I'm not a lawyer (law student). And this doesn't not constitute legal advice nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship.

I think you misunderstood my OP.
The ambulance drivers pick up the victim, and die en route to the hospital via the car crash, not en route to my house. So, my victim ultimately dies due to the car crash, not my action, as the injury suffered is likely non-fatal.
This is the crux of my concern. I am not concerned about assault charges or wrongful death lawsuits. I am concerned only with the criminal culpability (different than civil responsibility, right?) of the deaths.
Also, in your response to wrichlw, this would not be murder, as there is no intent (mens rea) to kill; it would be manslaughter. I thought that was the fundamental difference between the two - intent to kill vs. intent to act, which led to death.

Lastly, I assure you, this is not for any personal legal advice.
It is purely hypothetical but it is not some random curious question. I am trying to draw a parallel with this question and a news story, but it is not any sort of practical legal advice.
My work here is, finally, done.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 8:42:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Lastly, I assure you, this is not for any personal legal advice.

Sure it's not...

I'm guessin you already paid the guy who's going to be driving the semi.
And now you're just making sure you covered all your bases.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:52:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Not manslaughter, but you are liable for the injury to the person who you punched in the face for damages in a civil suit. Most jurisdictions hold tortfeasors liable for injury incurred in the ordinary rendering of medical services.

Am I culpable for the deaths of the EMTs?

No.

Let's say instead of a punch, I shot you in the leg.

Same outcome as before, with the exception that you might be charged with attempted murder in criminal court.

Same questions?

Let's say in either scenario, it was a semi's brakes that failed, but a drunk driver running a stop light (or, even if he isn't drunk).
Same questions?

No. But the person who was killed could probably sue the owner of the truck for negligence.

Also, please tell me how sure you are about this.

haha you can figure it out for yourself.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:56:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What Bluesteel is saying about proximate cause is right.

What wrichirw is saying about... well... most of what he's saying is totally off the mark.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:58:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I have treated these questions as hypothetical scenarios, and only hypothetical scenarios. I am not a lawyer, and this is not the rendering of legal advice. In that I am not a lawyer, nothing I say within the context of this discussion is not the rendering of legal services in any way.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:08:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 4:43:09 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:20:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:15:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:39:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there. Likewise, if you shoot someone in the chest and the doctor fvcks up the surgery to save them, that's still murder.

I'm fairly certain this is not true. If the doctor commits malpractice that, had it not occurred, would have resulted in a healthy patient, then the doctor is to blame for allowing a patient to die on his/her operating table and would face relevant civil/criminal statutes.

KM would still probably be guilty of assault, but not manslaughter.

It depends how far gone the person was when you shot him. A tiny scratch on his arm, leading to some weird staph infection and he dies = different than you shot him in the heart and a really skilled surgeon might have saved him, but the surgery resident screwed up.

In both of KM's examples, you have someone who required emergency care and probably major surgery as a result of KM's actions. If that patient dies on the operating table and it was demonstrated that with proper medical care the patient would have fully recovered or at the very least survived, yeah, that just screams malpractice, IMHO.

You can have both a malpractice claim against the doctor and a homicide charge against the person who shot him for putting him in that life threatening situation. Murder includes causing "grievous bodily injury" that ultimately leads to death. If you put someone in a coma, and they maybe could have recovered, but their family can't afford the medical bill and has to pull the plug, it also becomes murder when the person dies.

I found this scenario particularly interesting. So you have someone facing murder/manslaughter charges from a family that couldn't even afford the medical care to take care of the victim. Sounds like that family isn't going to get a murder/manslaughter conviction either if you lawyer up.

If you shoot someone in the heart, and he manages to live two days, then succumbs to his injuries, that's still murder.

There's still a proximate causation issue: if your shooting the person was not the proximate cause of his death, then it's not murder. So if you only cause a flesh wound and the doctor botches the surgery so bad the person dies, that's not murder. Proximate cause is an issue for the jury, so no one can say definitively what would happen in close cases, but if you shoot someone and *seriously* injure them, and they succumb to those injuries, that's murder, even if there was a chance they could recover but the surgeon messed up really badly.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose what you're saying is that what matters is if the patient would have lived without any medical attention, i.e. the proximate cause of death would not be KM at all. Makes sense.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:10:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 10:58:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I have treated these questions as hypothetical scenarios, and only hypothetical scenarios. I am not a lawyer, and this is not the rendering of legal advice. In that I am not a lawyer, nothing I say within the context of this discussion is not the rendering of legal services in any way.

Such legal-ise, LOL

So, your contention is that criminally speaking only, I would only be charged for the assault/aggrevated assault (I don't see how it's an attmept in my hypothetical, but whatever), but NOT for any homicide - murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

Civil suit I am not concerned with for these questions.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:14:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 3:15:31 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:39:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 2:21:33 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Did the person you punched die? If yes, then yes, even though it's not your fault the ambulance took so long to get there.

I think you interpreted "in route" to mean the ambulance is en route to the patient instead of en route to the hospital. I think we're in agreement that if the ambulance was en route to the hospital with the patient inside, KM would not be guilty of manslaughter or murder.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:18:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 10:56:30 AM, YYW wrote:
What Bluesteel is saying about proximate cause is right.

What wrichirw is saying about... well... most of what he's saying is totally off the mark.

Even though we are actually in 100% agreement. If you say so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:23:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 11:10:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 10:58:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I have treated these questions as hypothetical scenarios, and only hypothetical scenarios. I am not a lawyer, and this is not the rendering of legal advice. In that I am not a lawyer, nothing I say within the context of this discussion is not the rendering of legal services in any way.

Such legal-ise, LOL

So, your contention is that criminally speaking only, I would only be charged for the assault/aggrevated assault (I don't see how it's an attmept in my hypothetical, but whatever), but NOT for any homicide - murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

Ehh...

Civil suit I am not concerned with for these questions.

lol... well you should be because the civil suit is probably going to hurt you more than the criminal one.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:30:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 11:23:45 AM, YYW wrote:

Ehh...
Such confidence LOL

Civil suit I am not concerned with for these questions.

lol... well you should be because the civil suit is probably going to hurt you more than the criminal one.

You do know what hypothetical means, right?
I am exploring an issue, and do not need to concern myself with irrelevant things like a civil suit, since I am concerned only with the criminal culpability of the death - not the civil suit, nor the assault charge.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:34:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 11:30:24 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:23:45 AM, YYW wrote:

Ehh...
Such confidence LOL

Civil suit I am not concerned with for these questions.

lol... well you should be because the civil suit is probably going to hurt you more than the criminal one.

You do know what hypothetical means, right?
I am exploring an issue, and do not need to concern myself with irrelevant things like a civil suit, since I am concerned only with the criminal culpability of the death - not the civil suit, nor the assault charge.

lol
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 10:52:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:03:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Let's say I punch you in the face and you fall backward and crack your head on the sidewalk. You are not dead, but an ambulance comes to take you to the hospital. In route, a semi's brakes fail and crashes into the ambulance, killing everyone in the ambulance immediately.

Am I guilty of manslaughter?

Not manslaughter, but you are liable for the injury to the person who you punched in the face for damages in a civil suit. Most jurisdictions hold tortfeasors liable for injury incurred in the ordinary rendering of medical services.

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

The reason I said "not manslaughter" is because manslaughter exists really in two kinds: voluntary and involuntary.

Vol. manslaughter is basically when someone is seriously provoked in such a way that might provoke a reasonable person under like circumstances to kill someone and as a result of that provocation you actually kill someone. No indication of provocation, so this might not apply.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I mean, you might plead down to involuntary manslaughter... but you're likely to be charged with second degree murder.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:23:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM, YYW wrote:

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I'm fairly certain this is off. Punching someone is a volitional act, but it does not infer any intent to kill. Second degree murder infers non-premeditated intent to kill. That the punch resulted in someone dying is reckless, so had the person died from cracking his skull, involuntary manslaughter would befit the crime.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:32:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 6:23:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM, YYW wrote:

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I'm fairly certain this is off. Punching someone is a volitional act, but it does not infer any intent to kill.

Imply is the word you're looking for, and that depends on the nature of the punch. In making that statement, you're assuming stuff about the punch that you don't know (like, the guy who made the punch didn't know his own strength, or something), and that assumption is in conflict with the evidence (what the punch actually resulted in).

Second degree murder infers non-premeditated intent to kill. That the punch resulted in someone dying is reckless, so had the person died from cracking his skull, involuntary manslaughter would befit the crime.

It might be reckless; might not be. That would depend on the nature of the punch....

A punch in the shoulder obviously is not the intent to kill; but a punch that is sufficient to result in death might be. The "kind" or "type" of punch is relevant to determining that aspect of the charge.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 6:32:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:23:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM, YYW wrote:

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I'm fairly certain this is off. Punching someone is a volitional act, but it does not infer any intent to kill.

Imply is the word you're looking for

Meaning is the same.

and that depends on the nature of the punch. In making that statement, you're assuming stuff about the punch that you don't know (like, the guy who made the punch didn't know his own strength, or something), and that assumption is in conflict with the evidence (what the punch actually resulted in).

You're inferring the punch was meant to kill. That's nowhere in the scenario.

Second degree murder infers non-premeditated intent to kill. That the punch resulted in someone dying is reckless, so had the person died from cracking his skull, involuntary manslaughter would befit the crime.

It might be reckless; might not be. That would depend on the nature of the punch....

A punch in the shoulder obviously is not the intent to kill; but a punch that is sufficient to result in death might be. The "kind" or "type" of punch is relevant to determining that aspect of the charge.

The punch did not result in death. Assuming that the hitting of the head on the concrete eventually resulted in death, it's an instance of recklessness because it seems fairly obvious KM did not intend for the punch to have the consequences it had. If KM intended to kill the guy, he would have continued to punch the guy until he was dead...KM is clear the guy is alive when the ambulance is called.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:02:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 6:37:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:32:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:23:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM, YYW wrote:

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I'm fairly certain this is off. Punching someone is a volitional act, but it does not infer any intent to kill.

Imply is the word you're looking for

Meaning is the same.

and that depends on the nature of the punch. In making that statement, you're assuming stuff about the punch that you don't know (like, the guy who made the punch didn't know his own strength, or something), and that assumption is in conflict with the evidence (what the punch actually resulted in).

You're inferring the punch was meant to kill. That's nowhere in the scenario.

Yeah, because there is evidence to plausibly suggest that. Really, there are not enough facts to say beyond what (1) Kahos would likely be charged with and (2) what he could plead it down to. I've said that; beyond that it would be for a jury to decide. That's why I said what I did, and qualified it in the way that I did.

Second degree murder infers non-premeditated intent to kill. That the punch resulted in someone dying is reckless, so had the person died from cracking his skull, involuntary manslaughter would befit the crime.

It might be reckless; might not be. That would depend on the nature of the punch....

A punch in the shoulder obviously is not the intent to kill; but a punch that is sufficient to result in death might be. The "kind" or "type" of punch is relevant to determining that aspect of the charge.

The punch did not result in death.

The punch caused the fall which plausibly caused death. Again, beyond that, it's for a jury to decide -which is basically what I said.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:26:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:02:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:37:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:32:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:23:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM, YYW wrote:

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I'm fairly certain this is off. Punching someone is a volitional act, but it does not infer any intent to kill.

Imply is the word you're looking for

Meaning is the same.

and that depends on the nature of the punch. In making that statement, you're assuming stuff about the punch that you don't know (like, the guy who made the punch didn't know his own strength, or something), and that assumption is in conflict with the evidence (what the punch actually resulted in).

You're inferring the punch was meant to kill. That's nowhere in the scenario.

Yeah, because there is evidence to plausibly suggest that. Really, there are not enough facts to say beyond what (1) Kahos would likely be charged with and (2) what he could plead it down to. I've said that; beyond that it would be for a jury to decide. That's why I said what I did, and qualified it in the way that I did.

You're saying that he can't get it down to involuntary manslaughter. That's where we disagree...in fact, given KM's description, I would think that's the most likely charge. Else, the ambulance wouldn't be called in until after the victim was already a corpse.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:31:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am not a lawyer, but if I could write the law myself, I would make it so that you can be charged with manslaughter, as the person you punched would not be in that situation if you hadn't assaulted them. To me, it's analogous to if you punch him and he crashes through a faulty railing and falls off a bridge to his death. You may not have intended to kill him, and perhaps the railing should have been stronger, but the fact remains that had you not punched him, he wouldn't have lost his life in that way.

I would however not make you liable for the deaths of the ambulance personnel. You didnt cause the accident, thus it is not your fault. That is the drivers fault, drunk or sober.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:57:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:26:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:02:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:37:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:32:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:23:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:23:31 PM, YYW wrote:

I should specify here that if the person died, you're not necessarily guilty of manslaughter, but you are going to very likely in some way be criminally liable for my death.

Invol. manslaughter is basically conduct that is criminally negligent or reckless. The problem is that punching someone is a volitional act, so this doesn't apply. Even though you didn't intend to kill me, in that case, because you were committing a crime, if I die as a result of that crime, you're probably going to be charged with second degree murder.

I'm fairly certain this is off. Punching someone is a volitional act, but it does not infer any intent to kill.

Imply is the word you're looking for

Meaning is the same.

and that depends on the nature of the punch. In making that statement, you're assuming stuff about the punch that you don't know (like, the guy who made the punch didn't know his own strength, or something), and that assumption is in conflict with the evidence (what the punch actually resulted in).

You're inferring the punch was meant to kill. That's nowhere in the scenario.

Yeah, because there is evidence to plausibly suggest that. Really, there are not enough facts to say beyond what (1) Kahos would likely be charged with and (2) what he could plead it down to. I've said that; beyond that it would be for a jury to decide. That's why I said what I did, and qualified it in the way that I did.

You're saying that he can't get it down to involuntary manslaughter. That's where we disagree...in fact, given KM's description, I would think that's the most likely charge. Else, the ambulance wouldn't be called in until after the victim was already a corpse.

I'm saying that he could get it down to involuntary manslaughter as a plea, maybe, but that's not what he'd be charged with.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 12:02:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:31:25 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but if I could write the law myself, I would make it so that you can be charged with manslaughter, as the person you punched would not be in that situation if you hadn't assaulted them. To me, it's analogous to if you punch him and he crashes through a faulty railing and falls off a bridge to his death.

What if the guy is walking on the sidewalk. You punch him on the face and he falls out of the sidewalk. He's lying there for about five mins. A guy is speeding at 80kmh when the limit says 60. He doesn't notice the bump in the road and drives over the the guys, torso.

Are you responsible for the internal bleeding and his cracked ribs.. Or just the broken jaw?

You may not have intended to kill him, and perhaps the railing should have been stronger, but the fact remains that had you not punched him, he wouldn't have lost his life in that way.

I would however not make you liable for the deaths of the ambulance personnel. You didnt cause the accident, thus it is not your fault. That is the drivers fault, drunk or sober.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 12:03:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/8/2014 12:02:44 AM, fazz wrote:

Are you responsible for the internal bleeding and his cracked ribs.. Or just the broken jaw?

^Let's just assume that he's about bleed to death.