Should he be charged with murder?

[PrincessBabyCat]

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)

Intent is important when finding someone guilty of murder

But is that intent to cause death, or intent to harm (which then leads to death)?

If I push someone on a grassy field, I can't reasonably be accused of murder if they fall over, bang their head and later die of a head injury. Yet it could be argued that I intended to cause them harm (common battery, according to Petrasmumma)?

What of the shooter intended to cause harm but could have, by any reasonable standard, not intended to cause death (because the shooter knew that medical treatment was available that would prevent death)? Is it key that one cannot rely on the wider context (e.g. availability of medical care) to mitigate the effects of your intended harm?

PrincessBabyCat There are a very narrow group of exemptions which are covered by the nature of the activity.I think I mentioned one above. For example, you have to sign a consent form for surgery, without which any operation would be GBH. Stunt men injured during the course of employment are another. An actor who kills because the ammo's been swapped for live rounds did not intend or be reckless as to any harm, as long as they had no grounds to think it was anything other than a prop, so no liability.

The point of criminal law is to discourage conduct which as a society we have decided is unacceptable. We're ok with surgery and the need to make Bond movies.

Yes but someone firing a gun at someone with live bullets deliberately ie not a ricochet can't claim that they only meant to hurt them a bit. Again it's intent, you aim, take the safety off & discharge the gun at someone. Obviously in court after being charged with murder, mitigating circumstances can be raised, the jury may find not guilty of murder, or the shooter was in fear of mortal danger etc.

I'm asking because there was an incident a few years ago where a kid in college decided it would be funny to get punched in the face. So he went up to his friend and asked him to do it. The kid did and broke his nose. The police arrested him and he was charged with assault and battery even though his friend consented to being punched.

Partners involved in a domestic dispute can still be charged even if their partner doesn't want them to. Which is a good thing.

But what if it was (consensual!) rough sex that just got out of hand and now they're in the hospital with injuries? Is it still assault and battery? A domestic?

Or does any (deliberate, but not intended to be severe) injury sustained need a written contract and sanctioned by law in order for it to be legal?

Maid Intention is important but there are different forms of what the intention has to be for, for each of the assault offences.

If you intend to kill and are successful = murder
If you intend to GBH and cause death = murder
This is both a moral and a policy decision.

Why should your shooter not be held accountable for causing death? He shot him deliberately in full knowledge of what could happen as a result of his action.

Your suggestion is interesting but consider the implication: If we allowed him to escape liability for the shooting because he thought a local hospital would save his life, we would be saying to criminals - to protect yourself in the event of apprehension, make sure you shoot people near a major trauma centre so you can blame the hospital just in case your victim dies. The Hospital Carpark Defence?

The message is that it's not acceptable to shoot others, period. Any gunshot wound can be fatal and I think everyone knows that.

The Hospital Carpark Defence

Oooh, are we making new laws? Can it be named after me?

Princess You might enjoy reading R v Brown 1996 and then R v Wilson 1996. This pretty much covers what you are getting out.

But what if it was (consensual!) rough sex that just got out of hand and now they're in the hospital with injuries? Is it still assault and battery? A domestic?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown

How lovely to have a thread about law. Law is fascinating.

Is it wrong that I sniggered at Spanner Case?

Hmm.. Those are fascinating. :)

I wonder if laws will change soon with things like "50 Shades of Grey" being massively popular.

If you intend to GBH and cause death = murder

In the case I cite upthread that wasn't the result for the accused. He was convicted only of attempted murder.

Intent is important when finding someone guilty of murder

I believe that is why the Philpotts were convicted of manslaughter but Mick Philpott was given a life sentence, the same as he would have been given for murder.

Pumpkin there is a difference between the OP's scenario, in which death was not prevented by medical care and the case you cited in which the death was caused by an infection recieved under medical care. It's not clear whether the boy would have died or not without the medical care. (from a moral position I don't think there's much difference, since the stab would obviously cause him to want medical care and such care carries risk, but from a legal perspective I see a big difference).

Also, it's a Scottish case, do they have the same law for murder as England and Wales?

I have no regard for anyone who chooses to carry a loaded gun.

You make that choice you suffer the consequences.