A different story!!!
-
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President, Dr. Ron Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a fictional bizarre death Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the descendent were aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned. "Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr.Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor, whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by a elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr Opus. When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the exactation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son, for the death of Ronald Opus. Now comes t
-
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President, Dr. Ron Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a fictional bizarre death Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the descendent were aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned. "Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr.Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor, whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by a elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr Opus. When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the exactation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son, for the death of Ronald Opus. Now comes t
-
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Source?
Google has it!. . It's a fiction[^] You can find it here as well![^]
-
-
He got it on HP.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
-
The OP said it's fictional.
-
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President, Dr. Ron Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a fictional bizarre death Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the descendent were aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned. "Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr.Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor, whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by a elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr Opus. When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the exactation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son, for the death of Ronald Opus. Now comes t
One of my university interview questions was along the lines of this. Person A and person B have an argument over the telephone in which person A threatens to kill person B. Person A goes to his gun cabinet and takes an unloaded shotgun and a box of cartridges and puts them in the boot of the car (trunk for those inflicted with American English ;)) and drives to Person B house. Whilst driving along a small child steps in the road and Person A swerves to avoid them, resulting in crashing into an on-coming car. The driver of the other car is killed instantly. Should Person A be charged with any crime and if so what a) if the driver of the other car was Person C b) if the driver of the other car was Person B
-
Brown.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
One of my university interview questions was along the lines of this. Person A and person B have an argument over the telephone in which person A threatens to kill person B. Person A goes to his gun cabinet and takes an unloaded shotgun and a box of cartridges and puts them in the boot of the car (trunk for those inflicted with American English ;)) and drives to Person B house. Whilst driving along a small child steps in the road and Person A swerves to avoid them, resulting in crashing into an on-coming car. The driver of the other car is killed instantly. Should Person A be charged with any crime and if so what a) if the driver of the other car was Person C b) if the driver of the other car was Person B
Reiss wrote:
One of my university interview questions was along the lines of this. Person A and person B have an argument over the telephone in which person A threatens to kill person B. Person A goes to his gun cabinet and takes an unloaded shotgun and a box of cartridges and puts them in the boot of the car (trunk for those inflicted with American English ;) ) and drives to Person B house. Whilst driving along a small child steps in the road and Person A swerves to avoid them, resulting in crashing into an on-coming car. The driver of the other car is killed instantly. Should Person A be charged with any crime and if so what a) if the driver of the other car was Person C b) if the driver of the other car was Person B
Waitaminit - who the hell is Person C and why is he/she/it driving person B's car?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
He got it on HP.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
I hope the interest wasn't too high - it didn't raise any here...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
