You are pushed off a building and someone shoots you on the way down.....

[SlowwHand]

What if the pusher tricked the shooter?
He pushed a dummy off and the sniper, thinking it was a person, shot it with intent to murder?
Yeah. What then for the shooter?

[GePap]

Ah, all that happens then is that a dummy is shot.

[Darius871]

What happens when you stab a sleeping homeless guy in the chest on the subway for a thrill, only to find out he'd already died of a heart attack a few hours earlier?

I just want my legal bases covered before trying it.

[SlowwHand]

Corpse mutilation is probably illegal.

[Darius871]

So my intent to murder wouldn't be held accountable? Cool!

*saunters over to subway station*

[GePap]

mere intent is generally not a crime - intent informs an action. The "dummy" scenerio is a poor one when asking about intent issues because in the end it never was a human being in jeopardy.

As for the scenerio you posed, the question is whether you knew the person was dead when you stabbed them - if you did not, and you stabbed a human body, then you can certainly be charged with attepted assault and attempted murder and a good persecutor might win the case.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Darius871
I don't think it was a remake of anything, I just mean if the stories are identical as you say, the writers totally ripped off Don Harper Mills.

My implication was that I wasn't present at the scene of Mr. Opus' tragic accident/murder/suicide in March of 1994 (the "original").

[snoopy369]

In the quoted "Opus" case above, the father is guilty of reckless homicide, or whatever that jurisdiction calls it (Involuntary manslaughter often). He killed someone through his doing something that he was aware had some chance of killing someone (even a gun thought unloaded, if intentionally or recklessly fired and causing a death, would be homicide because you should be aware guns sometimes are loaded even when you think they aren't).

The father killed the son, regardless of the other elements here. Therefore he is guilty of reckless homicide/involuntary manslaughter. He fulfilled all of the elements of the crime (which vary by jurisdiction but ultimately are: man dies as a result of an action taken without due consideration for life or limb by another).

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap
mere intent is generally not a crime - intent informs an action.

If you solicit murder, you'll go to jail. It's intent.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by snoopy369
In the quoted "Opus" case above, the father is guilty of reckless homicide, or whatever that jurisdiction calls it (Involuntary manslaughter often). He killed someone through his doing something that he was aware had some chance of killing someone (even a gun thought unloaded, if intentionally or recklessly fired and causing a death, would be homicide because you should be aware guns sometimes are loaded even when you think they aren't).

The father killed the son, regardless of the other elements here. Therefore he is guilty of reckless homicide/involuntary manslaughter. He fulfilled all of the elements of the crime (which vary by jurisdiction but ultimately are: man dies as a result of an action taken without due consideration for life or limb by another).

Well to get technical, for one to be "reckless" it must be shown that he/she was aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk and chose to take it anyway. The father here was only "negligent" in that he was unaware of the risk but any reasonable person ought to have been aware. Of course, negligent homicide is still available as a charge.