Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
VivaLeBeaver · 23/05/2014 07:46

Yes, murder charge.

One of the risks of shooting someone is that the Drs may not be able to save their life.

HecatePropylaea · 23/05/2014 07:49

Yes. But for the fact that he shot the man, he would still be alive.
he was the one who created the situation where the other man could die. He shot him, therefore intended to kill him! He is responsible.

shoppingfrenzy · 23/05/2014 07:50

Agree with Petrasmumma.

In the UK you can be charged with murder if you intended to cause GBH and the person dies. I think the case was R v Nedrick. You don't have to have intended to kill.

PickledPorcupine · 23/05/2014 07:59

Yes. It's along the same lines as the eggshell skull rule. Worth reading about if you're interested.

Petrasmumma · 23/05/2014 08:00

Thanks Shopping, it's just basic Criminal Law. (I teach.)

FrancesNiadova · 23/05/2014 08:16

The prosecution would argue that the gun guy set in motion the chain of events & quote from cases relating to this argument.

The defence would claim that the victim died from medical negligence, there was a hospital there, medical staff did intervene, & would use cases that supported this argument.

The 2 sides would thrash out a not unusual scenario in court & the jury would then retire to decide.

FidelineandFumblin · 23/05/2014 08:22

I believe the OP is in the US.

It is obviously a theoretical rather than RL case; What medication on earth is guaranteed to save a gunshot victim? Hard to think of a real world comparator either.

Original poster
PrincessBabyCat · 23/05/2014 11:30

Interesting answers! :)

No, it's not for an essay. Being a lawyer would include everything I despise combined into one career: public speaking and paperwork. It was just one of those 2:00am thoughts that was occupying head space. But it was interesting to see that there were actually cases where something along those lines happened.

DH's take on the matter was a very cynical "If he was rich and white, he might get off", and then went off a tangent on how hospitals have teams of lawyers that would be hard to take down and place liability on.

After talking in circles (if the doctor was found negligent should he get an appeal, etc) we decided yes, the man should be charged with murder, but the doctor should also be charged with malpractice and have his medical licence taken away.

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?

Point taken.

OP posts:
MaidOfStars · 23/05/2014 11:36

My opinions only, no idea if they follow the actual law....

The shooter should be charged with murder.
The victim's family may have a civil case against the medical team.
The doctor with overall responsibility for the mistake in protocol should be investigated by the GMC, on whatever protocols they have for incompetence/negligence.

An interesting slant: what if the shooter knew that the victim could be treated at a hospital where the gunshot wound would, under normal circumstances, never prove fatal. Has he endangered the victim's life? I'm thinking that we make judgement calls all the time about how "risky" an activity is and whether an action/injury could feasibly endanger a life. What if in theory, the shooter wouldn't have expected the victim to die?

Petrasmumma · 23/05/2014 12:29

Maid I liked your interesting slant. You're right, we make judgement calls about risk all the time but you were also right when you called the shot guy a "victim": he didn't consent to anything. Nor could he in law; you can't consent to GBH level assault. (The exception is surgery etc).

As for the shooter's expectation of dying, also a good question but unfortunately the courts don't look at that. All they're interested in is intention or recklessness as to causing GBH in UK. They're essentially saying if you injure someone, you are responsible for the outcome no matter what it is.

It's a practical consideration - If they allowed a shooter to claim "I didn't expect him to die" as defence, they'd be allowing him to divest himself of any responsibility for the death, opening the floodgates to defence that would see killers claiming all manner of ignorance to defeat the charge.

MaidOfStars · 23/05/2014 12:44

Forgive my lack of legal knowledge, and I am just chatting, not arguing...

They're essentially saying if you injure someone, you are responsible for the outcome no matter what it is

I get that you are held responsible for the outcome of an assault/attack, but I thought we had the means to distinguish between intent to harm or accidental harm (if that makes sense)? So if I push a person into oncoming traffic and they get squashed, I could probably be charged with murder. But if I push them on a grassy field and they fall over and happen to hit their head on a hidden rock and later die of a head injury, I don't think I'd be charged with murder then? Involuntary manslaughter or something?

Surely it might be perfectly reasonable, in the second instance, for me to defend myself with "I didn't expect the person to die"?

If they allowed a shooter to claim "I didn't expect him to die" as defence, they'd be allowing him to divest himself of any responsibility for the death, opening the floodgates to defence that would see killers claiming all manner of ignorance to defeat the charge

How does this work for children committing crimes, perhaps involving intentional death? Isn't the fact that we have an age of criminal responsibility tacit acceptance that we acknowledge some people are incapable of making the judgement call about whether someone would be expected to die? If that happens as an adult, would they be defend themselves by arguing that they aren't mentally capable (not sure what the legal term would be) to be held responsible?

ballinacup · 23/05/2014 12:45

In the UK, the shooter would be subject to the Reasonable Man test ie would a reasonable man have foreseen that shooting someone would be likely to cause grievous bodily harm (arguably yes, as bullets are designed to penetrate skin and therefore create a wound, which would fall under GBH wounding).

Assuming a reasonable man would have foreseen that consequence, then a charge of murder would be appropriate. There are defences available that may offer the option of lowering the charge to manslaughter but I can't see any in the OP.

ballinacup · 23/05/2014 12:49

Maid, a child under 10, which is the age of criminal responsibility, would never be in court to put forward the argument.

If someone had LDs, that could be a mitigating factor. If the issues of comprehension were so impaired as to render the shooter incapable of ever assessing a situation for risk of harm, a defence of insanity could be used and, although it is a total defence, the shooter would find themselves in a secure mental health until, if ever, they were deemed no longer a risk to society.

wigglesrock · 23/05/2014 12:53

It's intent. The man shooting the gun knew the bullet could have killed the victim - therefore he should be charged with murder. The shooting killed the man, what happened in the hospital could have prevented him dying but it's not the cause of death. The bullet is the cause of death.

MaidOfStars · 23/05/2014 13:04

But a lot of things we do, both accidentally and intentionally, could kill someone. If I poke someone with a rusty nail, give them tetanus/an infection which sees them hospitalised and they later die because the hospital failed to treat them appropriately, would I be as culpable as the shooter in this hypothetical?

StinkusMinkus · 23/05/2014 13:04

I had the classic man in a desert scenario at my oxford law interview:

Man walking across a desert. Unknown to him he is pursued by two enemies, independent of each other and neither aware of the others existence. Enemy A sneaks into the mans tent at night, tips out his water bottle and refills it with poison. Enemy B comes along later that evening, unaware of Enemy A's earlier actions and tips out the water bottle intending for the man to die from lack of water. Man dies of dehydration. Who, if anyone, is responsible for the man's death?

meditrina · 23/05/2014 13:27

In that scenario (and sorry if my legal terminology is slightly off) I think A would be guilty of attempted murder (he committed an act with intent to kill, and only 3rd party intervention prevented its success as man in desert would definitely have drunk from the only water source available to him) and B would be guilty of murder (acted with intent to kill and the act resulted in the death).

Petrasmumma · 23/05/2014 13:52

Maid Sorry if I used my teacher voice. Am fielding stressy student emails in another screen. :(

Keeping things light: if you push someone out in front of a car intentionally and they get squished, you "intend" serious injury, hello murder. If instead if they can prove you've been reckless or careless as to the situation, hello manslaughter instead. (In general terms.)

If you push someone over in a field causing a head injury, all the prosecution needs is you to be reckless as to the causing of "some harm" (any will do) and you're on for GBH.

When your victim dies, for this to go up a notch to a variety of homicide, several ingredients have to be present: you would looking at a form of invol manslaughter that consists of an unlawful act (the shove is common battery, so that's met) plus the act being considered as being "dangerous" (would a reasonable person foresee risk of harm? doubt it here) and it led to the death. (causation, sure). I doubt that would fly. (The stone is hidden so arguably unforeseeable.)

There are also qualified exemptions for people who are both playing a game, eg rugby. The courts are practical for the most part but there are some crazy anomalies, Ballinacup mentioned the insanity defence, which gets my vote.

MaidOfStars · 23/05/2014 14:10

Sorry if I used my teacher voice
Oh no, I didn't mean that. I was excusing what was likely to be a piss-poor attempt on my part at discussing this, by highlighting my inability to argue it formally Smile

Original poster
PrincessBabyCat · 23/05/2014 14:46

You're right, we make judgement calls about risk all the time but you were also right when you called the shot guy a "victim": he didn't consent to anything. Nor could he in law; you can't consent to GBH level assault.

What about stunt men though? They're knocked around all the time. If he was a stunt man getting shot at and the bullet proof vest failed, would it still be murder? Would the shooter still be liable?

There's been cases where in movies that someone has slipped real bullets in the guns to cause injury to the actors. There was a news story about it, luckily they caught it in time. But if they didn't catch it would the shooters who had no clue there will bullets be charged still?

OP posts:
Alisvolatpropiis · 23/05/2014 14:49

Intent is important when finding someone guilty of murder

Certainly he would be guilty in tort, chain of causation.

MaidOfStars · 23/05/2014 14:57

Wouldn't stunt people have massive waivers to say they accept any injuries as part of the job?

wigglesrock · 23/05/2014 14:59

No because the actor/shooter in the example had no intent to cause the victim harm. The person who slipped the real bullets in did.

wigglesrock · 23/05/2014 15:02

If someone went to hit me and did - that's assault, if they were batting a wasp away & hit me by mistake - that's not.