# A legal question



## Feo Takahari (Sep 9, 2012)

A and B are running from a wild animal. A trips B in the hopes that the animal will stop to attack B, and A will be able to escape. I believe that if B died, this would be considered murder (specifically, second-degree murder under U.S. law.) But what crime would it be if B survived with crippling injuries?


----------



## Ireth (Sep 9, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> A and B are running from a wild animal. A trips B in the hopes that the animal will stop to attack B, and A will be able to escape. I believe that if B died, this would be considered murder (specifically, second-degree murder under U.S. law.) But what crime would it be if B survived with crippling injuries?



Attempted murder?


----------



## J.D. Hallowell (Sep 9, 2012)

It would really depend on the jurisdiction. Most crimes of these sorts fall under state, not Federal law. It might get tricky if it happened in a national park. The most common crimes that I could see person A being charged with under these circumstances would be attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and felony battery.


----------



## Subcreator (Sep 9, 2012)

Is there malice involved in the attack? Was there intent to kill?



> The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.


Manslaughter



> In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove:
> 
> First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]


Attempted Murder


----------



## gavintonks (Sep 9, 2012)

if you have oj lawyers B would have to get a job to pay A so it depends if it was a criminal or civil case, and of course if the lawyers prove the trip was accidental


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 9, 2012)

As far as the UK is concerned - Intent to kill


> For the principal defendant,  the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily  harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which  the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. _R v Woollin_ [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL).


Homicide; Murder and Manslaughter: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
So I think that tripping someone in front of a dangerous beast qualifies...


----------



## FireBird (Sep 9, 2012)

I highly doubt A would be charged with murder in the case that B died. The only way A could be convicted in the first place is if he confessed since you did not indicate any witnesses. Even if he did confess the animal is the one who killed B. I'm guessing a lesser form of manslaughter would be the charge. This is coming from a person with minimal legal experience mind you.

In the case that B lived it would become a huge he said/she said battle. Once again unless A confesses, A is only likely to recieve minimal jail time since the wild animal is the one who did the crippling. Both of these situations depend on whether A tells the truth or not.


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 10, 2012)

If no one saw it and the victim died, it would be looked at as the poor victim tripped while fleeing, no crime.

If the person lived, doubt might be offered that the person did not intend to trip, but stumbled causing the other person to fall.

If the trip was observed or admitted by the offender, I don't think it would be murder in the US, manslaughter most probable, reason: the split second decision resulted in the death or severe injury of the victim. If the deadly situation had not happened the offender probably would never had considered harming anyone.

One question, if attacked by an angry animal, or a hungry one, the animal will attack until it tires or stops attack, most likely unless someone or something stops it, the victim would most likely be dead.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Sep 10, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> One question, if attacked by an angry animal, or a hungry one, the animal will attack until it tires or stops attack, most likely unless someone or something stops it, the victim would most likely be dead.



Oh, it kept attacking until B was reduced to stripped bones, but remember, this is a fantasy story. Death is relative.

(To be specific, the worms that ate her take on the memories of whatever they eat. They'd never eaten humans before, and they didn't expect just how powerful human memories are. Since the worms arguably _are_ B now, B arguably isn't really dead, and therefore arguably wasn't murdered.)


----------



## Zander (Sep 13, 2012)

Now I know where to come for legal advice if I committ manslaughter


----------

