Sammy Vatim Shooting Verdict

[crazy canuck]

If one of the first three shots caused death, then the following six shots could not have been the cause of death.  Thus if the first three shots were justified, no murder.  If the following six shots were unjustified, still no murder assuming causing death is an element.

But from what was posted, the first 3 shots weren't determined to have caused his death.  It says that his spine was severed, but that's not necessarily fatal.  Sure, he'd be paralyzed, but paralyzed is a bit different from death.  So as I read it, if the second group of shots weren't justified, it was murder, not attempted murder.

From what I understand of the evidence, he had collapsed and was dying when the next set of three shots hit him.  The jury seems to have given the officer the benefit of the doubt as to whether the first three shots was the cause of death. 

[Barrister]

If one of the first three shots caused death, then the following six shots could not have been the cause of death.  Thus if the first three shots were justified, no murder.  If the following six shots were unjustified, still no murder assuming causing death is an element.

If you are saying the second 6 shots couldn't have killed him because the first three shots did, is it attempted murder to try to kill a dead guy?

That's a law school classic.  You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.

[Eddie Teach]

That's a law school classic.  You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.

What if you know he's dead and shoot him for emphasis?

[Barrister]

That's a law school classic.  You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.

What if you know he's dead and shoot him for emphasis?

No longer attempt murder.  It all has to do with mens rea.

[Razgovory]

What if you try to tackle a dead body?

[Eddie Teach]

You know, I wonder if Marty meant real tackling, or just tripping somebody with your foot like they do in soccer. 

[Monoriu]

I sympathise with the police officer, as he was in a difficult position.  I agree that the first three shots were justified.  The guy was not stable, he wielded a weapon and refused to obey reasonable orders.  But I also have to agree that the next volley was not justified.  The guy was down on the floor, no longer a significant threat.  There has to be other ways to disarm him other than firing a further six shots at him. 

[Malthus]

If one of the first three shots caused death, then the following six shots could not have been the cause of death.  Thus if the first three shots were justified, no murder.  If the following six shots were unjustified, still no murder assuming causing death is an element.

If you are saying the second 6 shots couldn't have killed him because the first three shots did, is it attempted murder to try to kill a dead guy?

That's a law school classic.  You pump bullets into an already dead body, believing the person is still alive - you're still guilty of attempt murder.

I guess what makes this case unusual (at least to me) is the fact that the shooter is the same person who just killed the guy. However, when you guys explain it, it makes sense.

Is the Languish verdict overall that the jury got it right?

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes what makes this case different from Dlugash or the typical hypothetical is that the person who caused the death is the same person who fired the shots into the already dead (or fatally wounded) victim, AND that the two events are very close in time.  So one could argue, e.g., that it is arbitrary to split the event into two groups of shots - rather, look at the entire event - 9 shots which resulted in death and at least some of which were unjustifiable.  However, the response to that is that the division between justified and unjustified shots is quite logical, and not arbitrary at all.

More generally, "attempt" crimes are a bit odd because you are punishing someone even though no harm may have resulted from the conduct.  But someone who shoots with intent to kill and misses is not engaging in very socially desirable behavior and therefore application of criminal sanctions can be a sensible response.   If you accept that proposition, the logic applies just as well to shooting someone who you think is alive but is in fact dead.

[Josephus]

The general consenus a day later is that it was a compromise verdict, and that the crown was very shrewd in pushing for an attempted murder verdict by splitting the nine shots into two groups, knowing there was little chance the second degree charge would hold.

In short, to summarize, the jury felt the policeman was justified in firing at him the first time. Once was was incapacitated, the second volley was unwarranted. I think the article says the victim was still alive at that point but the bullets were not fired into areas that would have killed him, and he still died of the earlier shots.

Still a strange decision.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/verdict-forcillo-guilty/article28370386/