Shooting victim taken off life support. What crime would be charged? About a week ago a girl was shot in a Maryland school. Soon after that, a police officer shot and killed the gunman. The girl was critically injured, and on life support. After a few days, the family decided to take her off life support and she died soon after. Suppose the killer didn't die. What crime would the killer be charged with? The girl has died, but technically she would probably still be alive if her parents didn't take here off life support. I think in some cases, a jury could be convinced that it would be extremely unlikely that a victim would ever regain consciousness. Many would regard this as worse than attempted murder. Do some states have a crime that is appropriate for that situation?
It would be murder (assuming the facts surrounding her getting shot would support a murder charge, of course, and it wasn't something like an accidental discharge.) The fact that she was on life support for a time is irrelevant. Under Maryland law § 2-102 it doesn't matter how much time has elapsed: A prosecution may be instituted for murder, manslaughter, or unlawful homicide, whether at common law or under this title, regardless of the time that has elapsed between the act or omission that caused the death of the victim and the victim's death. It's a Wisconsin and not a Maryland case, but according to State v. Below, 799 NW 2d 95 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2011, it doesn't even matter if life support was wrongly terminated; the defendant is still guilty: [E]ven if the Defendant can establish that the termination of Madison's life support was &quot;wrongful&quot; under Wisconsin Law, that wrongful act would not break the chain of causation between the Defendant's actions and Madison's subsequent death.
Yes, because the crimes are different instances. Let's remove the guilty plea and the fact that it is murder: can a person assault a person, be tried and imprisoned, then assault the same person later – and get off by declaring "Double jeopardy!". No, it's not the same crime. It's the same type of crime, and involves the same victim, but it is still a different crime. The same with your proposed scenario. (Incidentally, your first line is wrong: the woman wasn't murdered, she was thought to have been murdered).
I'm just asking what the legality is for parents to vaccinate their children against rabies if they were bitten by an animal. Also, would legal implications change if the animal that bit the child later tested positive for rabies or if the child insists on getting a rabies vaccine but the parent refuses? Can the parent be charged for a crime if the child develops symptomatic rabies and dies? In this circumstance, while a parent has fairly broad discretion, once the necessity of preserving a child's life comes into play and rabies can be deadly, that discretion ends and the child's life takes priority. Failing to do so could constitute child abuse and result in termination of parental rights and criminal sanctions for child abuse causing death or something similar. Simply failing to treat rabies out of good faith ignorance of the option, however, would ordinarily not be a criminal offense.
germany You have the duty to help others even if they cannot articulate that. There was a case recently where people stepped over an unconscious person to get money from an ATM, thinking it was a homeless person sleeping inside the rather warm entrance to the public bank building. Turned out it was a normal elderly customer who had a medical emergency. Three customers walked around them and did not get help. Only the fourth customer called an ambulance about 20 minutes later. The person died in hospital, doctors said the delay in treatment did not cause the death, the person would have died even if help had been available earlier. Police used the banks security cameras to prosecute all who had just ignored the person and &quot;thought it was okay, they were just sleeping&quot;. Newspaper Article: For example Der Spiegel. The actual text of the verdict: AG Essen-Borbeck, 18.09.2017 - 3 Ds - 70 Js 654/16 - 252/17, 3 Ds 252/17 In this case it was monetary fines, but if the person had actively asked for an ambulance, like in your case, and were actively denied instead of ignored, I'm pretty sure that would have made it way worse for the defendants.
This occurred in Hong Kong, so Hong Kong law applies here. Hong Kong law's definition of rape is explicitly male on female (nonconsensual male-male is covered by sodomy laws instead). It is impossible for her to be charged with rape. Assuming you were over 16 at the time, the only offence that could be possible is indecent assault. As far as I can tell, there is no statute of limitations. However, the chance of her being charged is basically zero.
The answer by @Digital fire is not always correct. Some states have passed general-purpose "duty to rescue" statutes. The one I've been trained about is Vermont's (Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 519) § 519. Emergency medical care (a) A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or herself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others. The statue goes on to provide good Samaritan protection and state the penalty for violating the statute: a fine of not more than $100. Digital Fire does refer to the Wikipedia article about a duty to act/rescue, but the lead of that article says it is referring to torts, that is, whether the person who wasn't assisted (or his/her estate) could bring a lawsuit against the person who didn't help. But the Vermont statute creates an offense with which the suspect could be charged in a criminal trial.
He would be thanked and sent on his way. We don't generally punish people for preventing murders, even if they are rogue cops or soldiers. If you wanted him to plausibly land in legal peril, he'd probably need to do more than simply save someone's life. The most obvious possibility, I think, would be if he were to continue inflicting harm on the attacker after cuffing him. At that point, there's probably no justification for a continued use of force, so he could face assault charges there. Also possible would be that the way he handled the situation -- the amount of force he used, the failure to de-escalate, failing to call for assistance -- just violates some police or military policy. I don't know if that would jam him up in the way you're looking for, though.
It is probably illegal in all of the jurisdictions in the US where a fetus is legally declared to be a person and where the murder statutes are written to not explicitly exclude abortion: that is, in no jurisdictions. No law existing or proposed for Georgia specifically addresses "travel for the purpose of getting an abortion". The underlying theory behind the claim (advocated by some Georgia attorneys) is that a person may be open to a conspiracy charge for taking a woman to another state to get an abortion, which would be a crime if committed in Georgia. If a conspiracy exists in Georgia to do something illegal (in Georgia), that is a violation of OCGA 16-4-8 ("when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy"). The substantially same law exists in Washington, and most if not all other states. The theory is apparently that "conspire to commit a crime" means something like "conspire to perform an act which would be a crime if performed in in this jurisdiction", e.g. "purchase marijuana, or take a job at certain payday loan companies". No state has successfully claimed extraterritorial jurisdiction, where a Georgia resident can be prosecuted in Georgia for a legal act carried out in another state, so this theory is a bit of a stretch.