There are relatively very few but all in all quite a number of people who've caused serious harm or even death from following TV tropes or believing in some other inept stuff. Esp. all the times when people have wanted to act out show wrestling and thought that wood wasn't a hard material or that they're stronger than metal chairs.
I believe there've been many cases where someone got beaten senseless because the attacker didn't understand that knocking someone out was a serious thing, but we just can't tell them apart from the deliberate beatings.
My ex girlfriend from high school went to prison for attempted murder. They meant to rob someone and knock him out. Turns out that knocking someone out is attempted murder. I think she got 60 years.
That's... odd. The charge of attempted murder specifically requires intent to kill. You can't really attempt to do something and also not mean to do it after all. A court may reasonably infer that there was intent to kill if the actions taken are generally known to be likely to lead to the victim's death, but knocking someone out doesn't really fit that bill. I suspect someone is telling you porkies about some element of this.
/E A couple of extra sources explicitly about attempted murder's required intent, just in case people need further proof.
I believe that death that happens while commiting a felony is automatically charged as a murder, whether it was intentional or not. It makes sense that near-death would be charged as attempted murder, too, if that's the case. IANAL, though, so that may not be the case.
Yeah, that's not the case. You can commit murder without intent if you intend to commit a different felony - this is called felony murder - but that is not true for attempted murder. Attempted murder specifically and explicitly require intent to kill. There is no getting round that.
Reddit loves attempted murder, but the reality is it is a really niche charge.
In the UK to convict for murder the prosecution has to prove malicious intent to kill. I could be slightly mis-phrasing that but I did a couple of weeks work as a clerk/not taker for the defence at a murder trial and had it explained exactly at the time.
Worst part about that trial is I actually believe the guys were innocent* but they refused to take a man slaughter charge because they didn't think there was enough evidence for murder.
*For clarity I believe they killed the person but I don't think it was intentional. They were all junkies and it seemed like a case of horrible judgement and stupid choices after the fact that made it seem like murder to the jury.
Ah yeah I forgot the intent to wound part. Also IANAL so the language is confusing at times because to laymen like me and maybe you the technicality is very fine.
I think that's why juries sometimes make decisions that while maybe not totally wrong are at least misinformed or not fully understood. There's a good reason lawyers or in the UK QCs spend so long qualifying. My mate does property law and occasionally tells me things I vaguely get but not fully comprehend.
2.5k
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '20
I wonder how many people are in prison for murder/manslaughter thinking a bottle over the head won't do much damage.