Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/694170e2-8f8c-800d-b99b-eda956927eda
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: In U.S. === In U.S. criminal law, uncertainty about whether anyone was actually harmed shifts the case out of homicide and into “inchoate” (incomplete) crimes. Given your facts, here’s how it’s analyzed. ==== - The actor intended to kill if someone was present ==== * The actor knew there was a risk someone might be there (≈4%) * It is impossible to determine whether anyone was present * It is unknown whether death or injury occurred ==== ### ==== Because: * A death must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt * If the prosecution cannot prove someone died, homicide charges fail : ==== ### ==== Why this fits best: * Attempt crimes focus on intent + action, not outcome * The defendant: - Had specific intent to kill - Took a substantial step toward killing Crucial rule: 👉 Actual presence of a victim is NOT required Required elements for attempted murder: * Intent to kill * A substantial step toward killing * No requirement that: - Anyone was present - Anyone was injured - Anyone died Your 4% risk does NOT negate intent * Conditional intent (“if someone is there, I want them dead”) still counts * Courts routinely uphold attempted murder with: - Shooting into a house - Bombing an empty car believed occupied - Poisoning food that no one eats ===== Because: ===== * The defendant knew of a substantial risk * Acted despite that risk * Created a grave danger to human life This can be charged in addition to attempted murder. ==== ### ==== * Criminal law cares about what the defendant chose to do * Not how lucky they were * A 4% chance is still a known risk of killing a human ===== - “No one ended up there” does not excuse: - Shooting - Bombing - Poisoning ===== * If the defendant believed someone might be there, attempt liability applies ==== - ❌ Not criminal negligence (intent is too high) ==== * ❌ Not manslaughter (no proven death) * ❌ Not a defense just because the chance was “small” ==== : ==== If you want, I can also: * Walk through jury instructions * Explain how conditional intent is treated * Compare attempted murder vs depraved indifference murder * Show real appellate cases with similar facts Just say which angle you want.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)