Even Sherlock Holmes would have trouble with this one! Subject: Bizarre Death Not even Law and Order would attempt to capture this mess...This is an unbelievable twist of fate!!! At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, this killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned. "Ordinarily," Dr Mills continued, "Someone who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. In the room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr. Opus. When one intends to kill subject "A" but kills subject "B" in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject "B." When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant and both said that they thought the shotgun was not loaded. The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, assuming the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus. Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical Examiner closed the case as a suicide. A true story from Associated Press
Very, very bugged out, to say the least... However, i disagree with one thing... Loading a gun doesn't make you a murderer, firing it does... Loading it for someone else, knowing that someone else will kill use it to kill someone makes you a murderer... Opus never wanted anyone to die accept his mother (at the time he loaded the gun), so he can't be guilty for loading a gun... i load a gun and someone else takes it a few weeks later and kills someone with it, how can i be guilty... Other than that, if the story is true, it's VERY bugged out...
This is a slight variation of a story that has been circulating on the NET for years; Law School exam question having to do the the crime of "transfered intent", i.e. you intend to kill A but kill B by accident. The intent to kill A is then considered transfered to B, and thus the crime is still considered one of intent even though the intended victim survives and a unintended 3rd party is killed. When the old man shoots at his wife ("I thought it was unloaded" won't cut it in the real world) but misses, and kills subject B who is *still alive at the time the shot was fired* the intent to kill his wife is transfered to B falling past his window. That 'B' was alive at the time of the shooting is what matters, not the fact that he may be dead anyway from an unrelated act in moments. B was dead before hitting the ground (if not net in place) as a direct result of the old man's actions. Jury may opt for manslaughter if they buy the old man's story about the shotgun, civil liability may attach to Opus for loading the gun, but criminal charges might be a bit tougher.
moral of the story, dont point a gun at someone unless you are going to shoot them...... part 2 ( edit ) practice with said firearm to make sure you dont miss!!( how the hell do you miss with a SHOTGUN anyway). even though it is a manufactured scenario, it sure makes ya think!
