Would drug intoxication be considered a &quot;pre-existing condition&quot; for the thin skull rule The Thin Skull Rule, also known as Eggshell Skull Doctrine states that the unexpected vulnerability of an injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them. In the Derek Chauvin trial regarding the death of George Floyd, the defense argues that the levels of fentanyl in George Floyd's blood contributed to the hypoxia of which he died. If it is true that the fentanyl was a contributing factor, would this be a valid argument, or would the drug intoxication be considered a pre-existing condition, therefore applying the Thin Skull Rule?
The Thin Skull Rule is a doctrine of tort law in a lawsuit to recover damages. The Derek Chauvin trial regarding the death of George Floyd is a criminal trial, and so the Thin Skull Rule is not applicable. The issues are causation and intent within the meaning of the relevant state criminal statute.
The relevant (criminal) defence is Sec 11(b)(3) [the Civil defence in Sec 11(a)(iii) is an easier one]: (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall be a defence to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species. I would say that the defendant could easily demonstrate a "good faith belief that he was acting to ... any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species." Even if there were other ways to rescue the child other than lethal force to the gorilla they all would have necessitated exposing the child to a longer period of danger, exposing another person to danger or may have had less predictable outcomes (e.g. tranquilisers have an onset time) all of which would be unconscionable.
How does the victim know that there is water in the bottle? And not some strong acid? I think there will be a difference between someone cleaning their windows and spraying someone with the same bottle they used for cleaning the windows, and some woman's jeaulous ex-boyfriend sneaking up on her in the night and spraying her in the face with fluid from an unknown container. In UK law: "An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force." So spraying water out of container labelled "acid" would be assault. Spraying water on a person after threatening them with an acid attack would most definitely be assault. If the victim expects to be injured then it is assault. Even if the victim fully expects that the fluid is water, I could imagine that you would be charged with assault if a bride to be just spent two hours getting her hair and makeup done, and you destroy the work just before the wedding by spraying her with water.
Ah, but destroying the insulin is not "tantamount to to murdering the victim". Any pharmacy or hospital can supply more. Once the villain is secured, or the cop and victim are away from the villain, additional supplies can be obtained. That does not justify deadly force. (And since the T J Hooker series was set in a large US city, such supplies would have been readily available, 24/7. If the setting was far away from any such supplies, the case would be different.) However, if the cop has plausible reason to fear that the villain will attack him or the victim, and pose a serious threat of injury or death, the cop can use as much force as is reasonably required to defend himself or the victim, including deadly force if that is needed. He may not use more force than is reasonably required, but in practice once it is established that there was a valid threat, or reasonable grounds to believe that there was a threat, the cop's judgement on how much force was needed will only be overruled in a really egregious case. Under current law, the cop may not use deadly force simply to stop the suspect from escaping, unless there is some unusual factor involved. I think the law may have been interpreted differently on that point when the TV show was made, in the early 1980s.
For the record, factual impossibility is rarely a defense to a crime. In United States v. Thomas the court decided that men who believed they were raping a drunken unconscious women were guilty of attempted rape, even though the woman was dead at the time. In this case there is no facts that made the offense impossible to commit. The suspect clearly submitted a false prescription and obtained the drugs he or she wished to obtain. There is no impossibility. Instead the police officer, as the saying goes, has the suspect "dead to rights". This is not legal advice. Consult an attorney for that.
The fuller statement is reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. The reckless disregard for truth element in defamation claims requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant had serious doubts about the accuracy of the material. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968). A summary of the holding of this U.S. Supreme Court case explains its holding: Recklessness requires a higher level of proof than ordinary negligence, so the reasonable-care standard is not appropriate. The defendant cannot avoid liability by testifying that he had a subjective belief that the statements were true. Instead, the jury must find through its consideration of all of the relevant evidence that the statements had been made in good faith. There was no evidence in this situation that St. Amant had entertained serious doubts about the veracity of Albin's accusations. The absence of an effort to check their facts did not rise to the level of actionable conduct. This decision clarified the requirement of malice in defamation lawsuits regarding matters of public concern. It does not mean ill will but rather knowledge of the information's falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. This means that if you just make something negative up without having any idea whether it is true or not, you can be guilty of defamation if it turns out to be false under U.S. law. But, reliance on a third-party whom you believe to have a basis for their allegations and republishing the third-party's claim is not reckless disregard for the truth if you have any reason to believe that the third-party is credible. One doesn't have to have personal knowledge of the facts. One can also have a reasonable factual basis for having a belief without knowing for sure that something is true from evidence that would be admissible in court or would definitely prove the allegation. For example, if the chess player's moves were atypical of that chess player's previous plays and showed insights that player had not shown before, that would provide a basis for the statement that would overcome a reckless disregard claim.
Yes, it’s legal Homeopathic “medicines” contain no active ingredients so they are effectively placebos. Placebo work for some patients some of the time but they don’t work if the patient knows what they are. For them to be effective they have to be kept secret. Most doctors from time-to-time and for various reasons prescribe placebos. The ethics of this practice is debatable but the legality isn’t - it’s totally legal.
This is interesting because things get extremely different on state and federal levels. Quoting this, Under modern U.S. law, suicide is no longer a crime. Some states, however, classify attempted suicide as a criminal act, but prosecutions are rare, especially when the offender is terminally ill. The &quot;some states&quot; part is much more important than was emphasized there, however. A case that reached the Virginia Supreme Court, Wackwitz v. Roy (referred to in Wikipedia) pivoted about the legality of suicide. From the decision: We are aware of only one legislative enactment that addresses suicide as a crime. Code § 55-4 provides that &quot;[n]o suicide ... shall work a corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.&quot; Thus, although the General Assembly has rescinded the punishment for suicide, it has not decriminalized the act. Suicide, therefore, remains a common law crime in Virginia as it does in a number of other common-law states. See, e.g., Southern Life &amp; Health Ins. Co. v. Wynn, 29 Ala.App. 207, 194 So. 421 (1940); Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422 (1877); State v. Willis, 255 N.C. 473, 121 S.E.2d 854 (1961); State v. Carney, 69 N.J.L. 478, 55 A. 44 (1903); State v. Levelle, 34 S.C. 120, 13 S.E. 319 (1891), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 406 S.E.2d 315 (S.C.1991). To constitute suicide at common law, however, a person who takes his own life &quot;must be of years of discretion, and in his *865 senses.&quot; 5 William Blackstone, Commentaries *189; accord Plunkett v. Supreme Conclave, 105 Va. 643, 646, 55 S.E. 9, 10 (1906) (&quot;`To constitute suicide at common law the person must be of years of discretion and of sound mind.'&quot;). This common law rule comports with a contemporary definition of suicide. Suicide is defined as &quot;the deliberate and intentional destruction of his own life by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.&quot; Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2286 (1981). I believe that the &quot;only one legislative enactment&quot; refers merely to Virginia state law, not nation-wide law. Thus, in Virginia, and other states, suicide could be treated as a common-law crime. However, in United States v. Hudson, it was ruled that such common-law convictions are not allowed at the federal level. I'm not always a fan of Google Answers, but the last one here provides a fairly well-documented section on common-law rulings about suicide. Note that in many states, this is not enforced, as common-law rulings are increasingly rare.