Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
With all due respect it is not correct. The law for attempted murder relates to trying to kill someone who is alive. If they are not alive you can't murder them. In this case it does not matter what the Officer thought. If the person was already dead then he can't try to kill him.
No way this conviction stands on appeal regardless of the country it is in. It is wrong. It is a jury trying to punish the Officer out of outrage. They are stretching that law beyond what it is supposed to cover.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_defense
Quote:
An Impossibility defense is a criminal defense occasionally used when a defendant is accused of a criminal attempt that failed only because the crime was factually or legally impossible to commit.[1] Factual impossibility is rarely an adequate defense at common law. In the United States, thirty-seven states have ruled out factual impossibility as a defense to the crime of attempt. This is not to be confused with a 'mistake of fact' defense, which may be a defense to a specific intent crime like larceny.[2]
I just did some investigating( link above and then other on legal sites )and it seems more of you are right than I am about this being legit to some degree. It makes NO sense to me that someone can be convicted of attempting something that is impossible to do. But, from what I am reading about "Legal Impossibility" it appears that modern era courts reject it as a defense a lot of the time( not always though )and many states have laws about it as well( but not all - I also do know this is about Canada as well ). Seems my views on this topic are like most things = antiquated and based on better days of the past when people had common sense.
Interestingly though, just yesterday, I actually talked about this with a friend of mine who is a lawyer( not criminal but he knows more than we do ). He said for someone to be charged with attempted murder the "victim" has to be a "living" person. If said victim was already dead when the "attempt" was made then that victim is legally a corpse and not a person and thus no murder or attempted murder charges can apply. He said you can't have intent to kill a dead person and he would use that as a defense unless that specific state disallowed it. As I mentioned, he said crimes of corpse desecration would apply plus he also thought other charges might possibly apply such as endangerment of those around the area( body dead = no reason for cop to shoot = unsafe for innocent people around ).
So I appear to be off base here. I still feel I am correct at least from a reason and common sense standpoint but I guess legally courts and laws have evolved to preclude this as a defense which baffles me. I think it is a very bad idea to be able to charge people and send them to jail for crimes it was impossible for them to commit. Bad precedent IMO.
When wrong you own it though and it appears I am wrong here.
