Earthing a water pipe??

[JohnW2]

What about an armed bank robber who soots and kills someone but did not 'intend' to do it?

You'd need to ask a lawyer.

I would suspect that the mere fact that a bank robber took a firearm loaded with live bullets with him/her might be taken as an indication that they 'intended' ('if necessary') to do serious harm to someone (if the intention were merely to 'frighten', without firing the weapon, it would not need to be loaded), and that view would be reinforced if they actually discharged the weapon in the presence of people.

I suppose they could try arguing that their intention had been to 'miss' (and frighten) but they were such a bad shot that they actually hit someone '#by mistake', but I don't see how they could try to 'prove' that.

Don't forget that, in our days of capital punishment, killing someone in the course of a bank robbery was not only automatically murder, but actually 'capital murder'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Plus the same for accomplices?

They might not have had any intent to kill.

 

[JohnD]

did he intend to carry the gun? Did he intend to load it? Did he intend to take it out of his pocket and wave it about or point it at people?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know. That's what is being asked.

He may say no, but he killed someone in a skirmish.

 

[stillp]

did he intend to carry the gun? Did he intend to load it? Did he intend to take it out of his pocket and wave it about or point it at people?

Was it an extraneous conductive part?

 

[JohnW2]

Plus the same for accomplices? They might not have had any intent to kill.

You're getting deeper and deeper into "you need to ask a lawyer territory". Suffice it to say that I don't know the answer.

There was, of course, the (in)famous case of Craig and Bentley in the 50s, when the one (Bentley) who was unarmed and didn't fire the gun was hanged for the murder of a policeman (the one who fired the gun having been too young). From what I recall, the case centred on the fact that Bentley said to Craig "Let him have it" - the prosecution interpreted this as meaning 'shoot him', whilst the defence interpreted it as meaning 'give the gun to the policeman'. If the prosecution were right, I suppose that Bentley 'had intent', even though he didn't pull the trigger, so I suppose that is different from what you're asking.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

It is widely considered now that Bentley (who appears to have been a mental defective with the intelligence of a child, and was in police custody when the shot was fired) was only hanged because Craig was too young and the legal system wanted revenge.

Craig subsequently said (after his release) that he had no doubt that Bentley meant "hand over the gun."

Bentley's "confession" appears to have been composed by the police.

Bentley's conviction was subsequently quashed, although as he was dead, this was no help to him, and brought no comfort to his parents and sister, who were also dead by then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case#Posthumous_pardon

Interestingly, the judge who passed the death sentence was a notorious man, and it is said that his court servant always kept a clean pair of trousers for him to change into, due to bodily fluids staining the trousers he was wearing when he pronounced the death sentence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bear in mind that (presumably in order to avoid grey areas), even using a replica/fake/toy gun makes it armed robbery.

Bear in mind that the police can shoot and kill people carrying chair legs if they can convince an institutionally biased judiciary that, "honest guv, I thought it was a gun".

Bear in mind that in no other field of civil human endeavour (in this country) can people get away with deliberately killing others on the basis of "whoops - I must have made a mistake".

 

[JohnW2]

Bear in mind that in no other field of civil human endeavour (in this country) can people get away with deliberately killing others on the basis of "whoops - I must have made a mistake".

I'm not sure that I get that one - perhaps it's getting late! ...

If the killing were 'deliberate', what sort of 'mistake' can the perpetrator claim to have made?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

"I shot him because I didn't know he was an electrician on his way to work, I was told he was a suspicious character who might be a danger to the public (and he looked rather swarthy)"

 

[JohnW2]

"I shot him because I didn't know he was an electrician on his way to work, I was told he was a suspicious character who might be a danger to the public (and he looked rather swarthy)"

Well, yes, there could be a mistake of the 'mistaken identity' sort - but if the perpetrator deliberately killed a person, I don't see much mileage to be had of the defence that he/she had meant to kill someone different!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It depends who fired the shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

 

[JohnW2]

It depends who fired the shot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Fair enough, but you've now drifted from 'the general' onto a highly specific situation in which, had a mistake not been made, the killing would not only have not been murder, but would not even have been unlawful. That is an extremely rare situation in civilian life, although common in warfare. So, yes, there are exceptional circumstances in which 'killing with intent' can be lawful, so it is possible that someone (usually in law enforcement or military) can be mistaken in thinking that it is a situation in which they can kill lawfully.

When such a mistake is made, you really do need a lawyer, since there is a spectrum of possibilities with a big grey area in the middle. At one extreme, it presumably could be considered that it was an 'understandable mistake', such that the killing would probably not be regarded as unlawful, let alone murder (despite the 'intent to kill'). At the other extreme, it could be decided that the mistake was unacceptable ('incompetent', 'dereliction of duty' or whatever) for a person with the degree of training/'qualification' in question. Even then, I doubt it could be murder (again, despite the 'intent to kill'), but presumably could be manslaughter (or the military law equivalent).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It depends who fired the shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

And just to make sure, the coroner prevented the inquest jury from returning a verdict of unlawful killing.

 

[securespark]

Gone a little bit off topic, no?