Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rethinking deadly threats

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Carbonator, Dec 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Carbonator

    Carbonator Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    TX
    Here's a situation:

    Bad guy attacks an innocent civilian, leaving the victim with an injury that is not normally considered life threatening. The injury could be an ugly scar, missing tooth, deviated septum, or similar problem that most people would eventually get fixed. The victim waits a few months to see a doctor, possibly because he had to save money or had to schedule an appointment. During the procedure he has a reaction to the operation or anesthesia and dies on the operating table. Is the bad guy guilty of murder?

    :scrutiny:
     
  2. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    You want the American answer or the Sicilian answer?
     
  3. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    My 2 cents worth - :)) and that's about all it's worth)

    IMO a really good DA could make a case for murder 2. In reality an average DA could very easily make a case for manslaughter since the BG's actions indirectly caused the death of the victim. I'm not sure but I believe there are time limits on this type of situation - i.e. if the victim waited 20 years and then died on the table instead of a few months.
     
  4. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I'd say "No" since it was non emergency or cosmetic surgery long after the injury occured. The operation is what killed him and not necessarily the injury. It would be hard to prove no fault on the hospital as well.

    Also left out is whether or not the agressor recieved a criminal charge as part of the initial incident. That would also have some bearing on the case.


    Now a civil suit is a different story.

    Good Shooting
    Red
     
  5. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Carb, it depends.:D

    Carb, the non-MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over--happens when people read El Tejon posts or to the young and nubile when El Tejon is talking to them) is likely no. Most states hold that one is culpable for the "natural and probable" consequences of ones act(s). The surgery, in most states, would be an intrevening cause stopping liability from attaching to the Defendant.

    Depends on how one's state's Supreme Court defines causation. Think of "causation" as the bridge between criminal intent and criminal act. Some courts hold that if the intrevening cause is not unforeseen then one can be criminally liable. As well, some states' legislatures have statutes imposing criminal liability for intrevening causes, e.g. firefighters responding to an arson or medical treatment to the firemen.

    Need to know a state's positive law (the written statutes) and how that state's Supreme Court defines causation. HTH. If not, let me know.

    Remember, that's an answer at law; there always remains the questions of fact. IOW, a jury must still convict on such evidence. There's is still the burden of proof upon the prosecution and it matters a great deal on who sits on the jury. Just because a jury may convict, does not mean they will.
     
  6. Carbonator

    Carbonator Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    TX
    Thanks. Responses sounds reasonable, even the Sicilian one. Especially the Sicilian one. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page