Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Should he be charged with murder?

64 replies

PrincessBabyCat · 23/05/2014 04:18

A man randomly shoots a guy.

The guy is rushed to the hospital. During his stay he dies from the gun wound.

However, during the hospital stay protocol wasn't followed and the doctors didn't give him the right medication. This medication would have saved the guy's life. (no "he may not have lived", it would save him).

The autopsy shows that the cause of death is from the bullet.

Should the man still be charged with murder since the guy technically died from a gun wound? Or not because if the doctors did their job correctly, he'd still be alive?

(I was thinking about this after being reminded of an article where gun shot victims with no insurance are more likely to die of infections at the hospital)

OP posts:
HolidayCriminal · 23/05/2014 04:20

are you asking our private opinions or how to interpret different legal codes?

Original poster
PrincessBabyCat · 23/05/2014 04:21

are you asking our private opinions or how to interpret different legal codes?

Both, DH and I have been talking about this. I'll tell you our stance after a few answers. I'm curious what other people have to say.

OP posts:
JoandMax · 23/05/2014 04:21

Yes, as he started the chain of events that lead to the mans death. If he hadn't of shot him he would never have been in the position of needing life saving medications so he is ultimately responsible and should face appropriate consequences

HolidayCriminal · 23/05/2014 04:24

In most legal codes he'd be guilty of murder or manslaughter, regardless of the doctor's additional mistakes. However, the victim's family might be able to sue the doctor as well (civil negligence).

steff13 · 23/05/2014 04:34

I think here in Ohio, he would be guilty of murder.

The victim's family may have a civil case against the doctor for malpractice, depending on the details of the hospital's mistake, but ultimately the shooter is responsible for the man's death.

ThunderbumsMum · 23/05/2014 04:36

Is your first year essay due in?

bedraggledmumoftwo · 23/05/2014 05:02

This isn't another greys anatomy spoiler is it?

bedraggledmumoftwo · 23/05/2014 05:07

I think he is definitely guilty of murder- you cant assume medical intervention will a)be available or b) succeed. If you shoot someone and they die it is murder, unless it was accidental. Had he survived it would be attempted murder, surely?

HarpyFishwifeTwat · 23/05/2014 05:21

What medication cures a bullet wound?

GreatAuntDinah · 23/05/2014 05:30

There was a case like this a few years back where someone died of an entirely treatable head injury after a fight because the doctors at A annd E didn't treat him and just sent him home. I think the guy who'd punched him was in prison for murder, i read about it in Private Eye.

Hairylegs47 · 23/05/2014 05:39

Yes, he caused the chain of events that lead to the guy's death.

HicDraconis · 23/05/2014 05:39

The person firing the shot should be charged with manslaughter (if it's truly a random event, I believe murder has to have evidence of premeditation). They initiated the chain of events resulting in death.

The doctor / hospital systems should undergo a full root cause analysis to see why guidelines were not adhered to. Should this demonstrate a clear lack of duty of care, then prosecution for negligence may be a consequence. The management (CEO probably) of the trust should also be charged with manslaughter if systems failures for which they were responsible had a direct contributing cause to the death.

There is no drug or medical management that I am aware of which would cure a gunshot wound. They require surgery to assess and repair internal damage, remove the bullet if still in situ and stop any bleeding. Therefore this entire scenario is flawed.

MrsTerryPratchett · 23/05/2014 05:43

If he 'randomly' chooses to shoot at the air and someone gets killed, manslaughter. If he decides to shoot someone and picks that person randomly, murder.

lougle · 23/05/2014 07:16

Well there was a news article about a woman who is now quadriplegic because a drunken/stoned man feel off a balcony onto her. He is serving a prison sentence for GBH. On that basis I'd say murder.

Icelollycraving · 23/05/2014 07:21

lougle I know her,she now raises awareness tirelessly for her charity. Horrific.

meditrina · 23/05/2014 07:22

I'd expect a charge of murder or manslaughter (depending on his intent: if random meant 'with good reason did not expect anyone to be there' then it could well be a lesser charge).

Your legal guilt is not related to whether your actions were successful or not. So if you stabbed someone 100 times but doctors miraculously pulled them through, you don't benefit in legal terms - the charge would be 'attempted murder' and the available sentences the same if convicted.

Whether charge is murder or attempted murder depends on where the victim lives or dies, not on subsequent actions of Good Samaritans or doctors.

wowfudge · 23/05/2014 07:22

Murder or manslaughter, depending on exact circumstances: but for the bullet, the person would still be alive.

MrsDarylDixon · 23/05/2014 07:25

You have to prove intent to charge with murder in uk and from what little info you've posted that would be problematic.

I'd say he'd probably be charged with manslaughter.

Funny, but I've got an essay due on a very similar subject... Hmm

Petrasmumma · 23/05/2014 07:27

If this sounds like the sort of thing given to A2 students or a first year law school tutorial problem. If you are writing a UK assignment, there are 2 aspects you need to explore. Elements of liability for homicide by the shooter and gross negligence manslaughter by the hospital.

This is essentially a causation problem. It's useful to ask yourself: had there been no hospital in the vicinity, would the victim have died as a result of the incident?

Homicide in almost all of its variations is legally straightforward, gross neg m/s however is more complex. You'd need to prove that the chain of causation (the series of events from the first through to the outcome) from the shooter was broken by the hospital treatment. There is criteria for this and it's a very tough sell. Hospitals are not under a legal duty to save your life and you mention he died of the gunshot anyway, chain not broken.

Think about this if you're struggling: is it acceptable that someone who fired a gunshot that resulted in a death could escape liability by blaming someone else, claiming failure to save? There would be public uproar :(

mousmous · 23/05/2014 07:34

murder.
if someone shoots another person the charge should always be murder, no matter the intention.
firearms were invented to kill, that's their sole use imo.
what the hospital did or didn't do is a different case alltogether. I assume the shot person would have died anyway if for some reason they would not have been able to get medical treatment.

BoomBoomsCousin · 23/05/2014 07:35

Murder would be the correct charge (assuming other aspects of the murder charge are met). The lack of competent medical care shouldn't change the charge. If the victim had been given the right medicine and lived the correct charge would be attempted murder . What happened after the shooting only changes the outcome of the crime, not the mens rea or the actions of the criminal.

We don't get a free pass to behave in particular ways because modern science might be able to mitigate the affects of our actions. If the outcomes are motogated we are lucky, it's not a right.

Pumpkinpositive · 23/05/2014 07:38

There was a case in Glasgow about 15 years ago, teen gang violence, one group of boys against another. In the course of the fracas, Boy A stabs Boy B. The knife perforates Boy B's chest causing (eventually?) collapsed lung. Boy B is sufficiently compos mentis to call his own ambulance from the scene.

Two weeks later Boy B dies in hospital. In the subsequent trial it was accepted his medical care had been woefully inadequate. I think he died from infected. Had he been taken to another hospital and given adequate care, he would likely not have died.

Boy A and an accomplice were acquitted of murder and convicted of a lesser charge.

Pumpkinpositive · 23/05/2014 07:41

Just googled. Boy A was convicted of attempted murder of the deceased, not actual murder (presumably due to the hospital's contributory negligence).

SnowinBerlin · 23/05/2014 07:43

If you are writing an essay you need to contrast R v Jordan [1956] (medical negligence sufficient to break the chain of causation as victim was on the mend when the hospital killed him) with R v Cheshire [1991] (medical negligence not sufficient to break chain of causation. Medical negligence contributed but the fact he was in hospital was a result of being shot).

Generally you are held responsible for the murder. Supervening acts which make things worse such as a helpful but incompetent first-aider making things worse, do not absolve you of liability.

MrsKCastle · 23/05/2014 07:43

Murder or manslaughter depending on the exact circumstances of the shooting.

The actions at the hospital don't affect or change the shooter's actions. A thousand other things could have happened to save his life, or prevent it from being saved. But it was the gunshot that killed him.

Now if he had been shot in the foot- with intent to wound but not kill- and then died because of an infection which wasn't treated properly, that wouldn't be murder.

Swipe left for the next trending thread