Superman follow-up
Ben Fleigel (my college roommate) gave a really good summary of what would likely happen concerning attempted murder charges to someone firing a gun at Superman. (And, just so you know, he's currently in law school. So it's not just some schmuck with access to Wikipedia giving this opinion.)
I was just going paraphrase it but I think it'll just quote it. It's easier on the brain (for me) and Ben does a good job of summing up the point.
"If you fired a gun at Clark Kent, unaware of the attendant circumstances that he was Superman, you could be convicted for attempted murder, even though you could never have killed him.
If on the otherhand you shot a weapon at superman, in full regalia, with full knowledge that you couldn't kill him, you probably would not be charged with attempted murder. You would lack the culpability that the law is trying to punish. If there is little liklihood of harm, of actual murder, than you couldn't very well say that you tried to kill him, because you believed that it wouldn't work.
How it would work in reality however, lets say you shot at superman, thinking that it wouldnt kill him, but he happened to be holding kryptonite and it hurt him, you could be charged with attempted murder. The jury then would have to decide whether or not you believed that there would be no harm in your firing a gun at superman.
Few jurors would buy the argument that you fired a gun believing that it wouldn't harm him. Esepecially because the prosecution will ask why you were even firing the gun, and will posit that even though you thought it wouldn't work, you fired the gun believing that this one time, it might work. If the jury believed that, you'ld be in the slammer."
He makes a good point at the end. If you didn't think you could harm him, why'd you fire the gun in the first place? It's a fairly decent point in any attempted murder case, Superman or otherwise. So, thanks for the explaination, Ben.
I was just going paraphrase it but I think it'll just quote it. It's easier on the brain (for me) and Ben does a good job of summing up the point.
"If you fired a gun at Clark Kent, unaware of the attendant circumstances that he was Superman, you could be convicted for attempted murder, even though you could never have killed him.
If on the otherhand you shot a weapon at superman, in full regalia, with full knowledge that you couldn't kill him, you probably would not be charged with attempted murder. You would lack the culpability that the law is trying to punish. If there is little liklihood of harm, of actual murder, than you couldn't very well say that you tried to kill him, because you believed that it wouldn't work.
How it would work in reality however, lets say you shot at superman, thinking that it wouldnt kill him, but he happened to be holding kryptonite and it hurt him, you could be charged with attempted murder. The jury then would have to decide whether or not you believed that there would be no harm in your firing a gun at superman.
Few jurors would buy the argument that you fired a gun believing that it wouldn't harm him. Esepecially because the prosecution will ask why you were even firing the gun, and will posit that even though you thought it wouldn't work, you fired the gun believing that this one time, it might work. If the jury believed that, you'ld be in the slammer."
He makes a good point at the end. If you didn't think you could harm him, why'd you fire the gun in the first place? It's a fairly decent point in any attempted murder case, Superman or otherwise. So, thanks for the explaination, Ben.
posted by Chris "Krang" Yang | 4:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home