Turn on thread page Beta

Accidental Shooting, was the verdict right? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    But what if the schizophrenic was negligent in failing to take his/her prescribed medication?
    to what extent is a presciption a legally binding duty?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    to what extent is a presciption a legally binding duty?
    It's not. But, based on the legal idea of common duty of care if as a schizophrenic I fail to take my medication knowing that this ommission will result in me becoming violent then I have breached that duty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It's not. But, based on the legal idea of common duty of care if as a schizophrenic I fail to take my medication knowing that this ommission will result in me becoming violent then I have breached that duty.
    ah ok, with people who mentally unstable surely there are also "careers" - family or friends or institutions which also take on a part of the burden for the care. If the schizophrenic is unable to disguinst between right and wrong in the case of murder surely they might not be able to disgunist the consequences of taking their medication?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    ah ok, with people who mentally unstable surely there are also "careers" - family or friends or institutions which also take on a part of the burden for the care. If the schizophrenic is unable to disguinst between right and wrong in the case of murder surely they might not be able to disgunist the consequences of taking their medication?
    You're entering into a very murky and complicated world here and I'm not expert enough to give you a thorough answer. I'm not a pshchologist, doctor or lawyer.

    Here's what I think though.

    Schizophrenia (there are a few kinds) is (if caught early enough) a treatable disease. It is treated with medication. Many schizophrenics lead normal and productive lives (my boss happens to be a paranoid schizophrenic) Those that fall into this majority are normal in all respects and know the effects of not taking medication.

    If my boss fails to take his medication, goes nuts and attacks someone then that person would certainly be able to sue for damages in tort (negligence) That's pretty clear I think.

    But would my boss (assuming he didn't know he was attacking that person) be guilty of a crime? I don't know. Difficult question. Of course one can be guilty of a crime and liable in tort for the same set of events, but I'm not sure whether it would apply here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Schizophrenia (there are a few kinds) is (if caught early enough) a treatable disease. It is treated with medication. Many schizophrenics lead normal and productive lives (my boss happens to be a paranoid schizophrenic) Those that fall into this majority are normal in all respects and know the effects of not taking medication.
    treatable is the wrong word, controlled i think is more accurate.

    (Original post by Howard)
    But would my boss (assuming he didn't know he was attacking that person) be guilty of a crime? I don't know. Difficult question. Of course one can be guilty of a crime and liable in tort for the same set of events, but I'm not sure whether it would apply here.
    hmmm...i think that's a situation in which individual circumstance must be considered, and can't be 'guidelined' by criminal law.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Imagine if I got drunk, drove home, and killed someone on the way. Could I try to defend myself by saying I was too dim to know that alcohol affected my ability to drive?

    I don't think I'd get very far pursuing that line of argument.
    This was what I was getting at with LSD. Only if you get so drunk that you actually act as an automaton (sp) things could be different.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    This was what I was getting at with LSD. Only if you get so drunk that you actually act as an automaton (sp) things could be different.
    Or, if you didn't know you were getting drunk. Suppose I am drinking orange juice all night but unbeknown to me my friend is spiking me with Vodka. That's a defence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    treatable is the wrong word, controlled i think is more accurate.
    Absolutely right.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave134)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/3602412.stm

    A man has just been cleared of causing Grievious Bodily Harm, after shooting somebody in the chest, destroying his lung, and leaving him in intensive care for 2 days.

    The victim was a wildlife journalist, out gathering data on Barn Owls, and the shooter mistook his night-vision goggles for fox-eyes, and fired 1 round hitting him in the chest.

    The prosecution argued that as he could not have determined that the eyes were definitely those of a fox, he should not have fired. He argued that he was convinced they were a fox , and emphasised how he immediately sought medical assistance for the victim.

    The victim is considering suing the shooter.

    Should the shooter be guilty of a criminal offence?
    Should the victim be eligible for compensation from the shooter?

    What does this incident say about gun-laws in the UK?
    I don't know if this man should have been founs guilty of GBH but he should have been punished for something. Just because you didn't mean to commit a crime should not mean that you are exempt from the law. For example a couple who are stuggling at the top of the stair and then one of them slips, they are not pushed they slip then I am sure that they other person would be charged with something. This case is the same. The man may not have meant to shoot the victim but he did and should be punished accordingly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    For example a couple who are stuggling at the top of the stair and then one of them slips, they are not pushed they slip then I am sure that they other person would be charged with something.
    Do you mean 2 people who are pushing/shoving a bit to get to the first up the stairs? OR do you mean a couple of old people who are struggling up the stairs and one of them slips?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    He cannot be guilty of a crime. Any crime requires (except strict liability offences of which this is not an example) requires that the prosecution establish "actus reus" (a bad act) and "mens rea" (knowledge of that bad act)

    Here we have a bad act......the guy shot someone but not mens rea.......he didn't do it knowingly with malice aforethought.

    So, there is no crime.
    But i thought there are regulations in place that state a shooter has to be able to "clearly identify" the body of an animal before shooting?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Do you mean 2 people who are pushing/shoving a bit to get to the first up the stairs? OR do you mean a couple of old people who are struggling up the stairs and one of them slips?
    Pushing and shoving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Pushing and shoving.
    If one of them slips down the stairs without being pushed that's their problem. What if I was at home on the phone to someone, not looking where I was going, and fell down the stairs? Should the caller be charged then? Of course they shouldn't, it's my own fault.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Pushing and shoving.
    Then surely it is clear cut, that person might not be proved of having malice to push the other person to the bottom of the stairs, but through his actions he does cause an accident. Which injures soemone else, and so the other person deserves compensation.

    ie If I remember correctly there was a case wehre 1 person sued the employer for something like giving him the wrong ladder for a job so that it slipped and he damaged himself.

    And the employer tried to do a "no malice" argument, but then lost.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    If one of them slips down the stairs without being pushed that's their problem. What if I was at home on the phone to someone, not looking where I was going, and fell down the stairs? Should the caller be charged then? Of course they shouldn't, it's my own fault.
    Not quite. If you fell because you were a child and your parents did not make sure it was safe they can be liable. Also what if a parents shouts vehemontly at his child to such an effect that the child falls down the stairs and is injured/killed? You will be liable here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Then surely it is clear cut, that person might not be proved of having malice to push the other person to the bottom of the stairs, but through his actions he does cause an accident. Which injures soemone else, and so the other person deserves compensation.

    ie If I remember correctly there was a case wehre 1 person sued the employer for something like giving him the wrong ladder for a job so that it slipped and he damaged himself.

    And the employer tried to do a "no malice" argument, but then lost.
    The employer scenario is a completely different issue to the one discussed. There are certain rules and regulations in place that protect employees; the outcome of the case was probably due to one of these.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I don't know if this man should have been founs guilty of GBH but he should have been punished for something. Just because you didn't mean to commit a crime should not mean that you are exempt from the law. For example a couple who are stuggling at the top of the stair and then one of them slips, they are not pushed they slip then I am sure that they other person would be charged with something. This case is the same. The man may not have meant to shoot the victim but he did and should be punished accordingly.
    There's no crime on the books he can be punished with under the circumstances. Courts can't just punish people to assuage people's anger. Nulla poena sine lege as the old maxim goes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    If one of them slips down the stairs without being pushed that's their problem. What if I was at home on the phone to someone, not looking where I was going, and fell down the stairs? Should the caller be charged then? Of course they shouldn't, it's my own fault.
    Ok but still comparable what if the person pushes the other person and they fall down the stairs. The person didn't mean to push the person down the stairs but the push still caused the injury. Surely this is the same as a man who fires the gun which causes the injury, even if he didn't mean to he still caused the injury and should have some sort of punishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Ok but still comparable what if the person pushes the other person and they fall down the stairs. The person didn't mean to push the person down the stairs but the push still caused the injury. Surely this is the same as a man who fires the gun which causes the injury, even if he didn't mean to he still caused the injury and should have some sort of punishment.
    The amount of compensation can be influenced by many factors, the type of carpet, whose house it was, the reason for the push. Not everything in civil law is this black and white.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Right so if that person is aquitted totally (ie inculding no compensation) what would have happened if he shot and KILLED that person. By accident? (Manslaughter possibility? I don't know, I want to hear some views)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.