We changed our privacy policy. Read more.

New answers tagged

4

Also in English Law, the rule is, if you intended serious harm to a person, and a person dies because of it, that's murder. This definition means that: You didnt need to intend their death. Its enough to prove you intended to do them serious harm, and they died as a result of what you did. That's murder. It doesnt have to be the same person. If you ...


2

Also applies to injuries and in tort law. See the eggshell skull rule. Which says that if you intend to do a harm, "the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them." So even if you manage to escape the murder charge, O.J. Simpson style, the victim's family gets another bite at the ...


4

What you describe could be construed as felony murder in it is a death that happened during the committing of a felony. You were in the process of assaulting the victim and then he slipped and hit his head against a rock and died from that. In some states felony murder carries the death penalty like Nevada for instance. Intentions are pretty clear, you don't ...


8

This will depend upon the legality of your actions so far, and how closely they are related to the death. For instance, if you were chasing that person with the intent to kidnap them, torture and then kill them, it’s going to be murder because you are committing a crime and they die because of that. If instead, you called and invited them to your house with ...


16

england You're describing a murder In English Law, the act of running from an attacker would be entirely within the realms of 'causation' (e.g. the attack caused them to escape) and is explicitly called out in case law as one of the things that an attacker would expect their victim to do in self-defence, hence remaining part of the attacker's responsibility. ...


30

california You intended to kill them, you killed them, that's murder California Penal Code Section 187(a): Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. California Penal Code Section 188(a)(1): Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature. ...


16

That’s murder new-south-wales Crimes Act 1900 s18: Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to ...


4

Your question is honestly pretty long and complex. For the first part, i.e. why were the §242 charges dropped... (without 2nd guessing the prosecution here), that's actually (by far) the most common outcome, statically speaking. Here are some (nation-wide) stats; basically §242 charges are only pursued in about 3% of the cases referred to the DOJ (by the FBI)...


16

This reflects a typical division of labor. Normally, the Department of Justice investigates civil rights violations, which it has a division set up to do, while local authorities handle ordinary homicide charges arising (in this case) under the D.C. Code (as another answer notes, this instance didn't obviously fall under Congressionally enacted federal ...


4

The investigation did not focus on homicide, because that is a cause of death, not a criminal offense. As you noted, the fact that Ms. Babbit's death was a homicide has already been established. DOJ cannot invoke the manslaughter statute (nor the murder statute at 18 USC 1111) because those statutes only apply to offenses committed in the "special ...


Top 50 recent answers are included