4 ms·

You sound like someone who's never had a gun pointed at your face.

dragonwriter 8y ago
If cooperating with the aggressor leaves you alive, and not as an accident, it wasn't attempted murder. It might be violent, immoral, terrifying, and any number of other things, but if the intent wasn't that you end up dead (even if there was a serious risk of that happening), it's not attempted murder.
- zepto 8y ago
  In other words, if you don’t get shot, it wasn’t attempted murder.
- CapitalistCartr 8y ago
  You're using 20-20 hindsight. That if you lead with is a big if.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > You're using 20-20 hindsight. No, I’m not. Obviously, the victim won't often be able to tell with any certainty (except with some idea after the fact) whether it was attempted murder. That the difference may be hard to perceive from a particular viewer's perspective doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.
    - presscast 8y ago
      You're talking about intent, but the parent poster is talking about reasonable belief. In US courts, the latter is (generally) what matters for self-defense claims. Courts don't expect victims to have perfect knowledge of a situation. So in a certain sense, US courts recognize that things like armed carjackings should be treated as attempted murders.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > You're talking about intent, but the parent poster is talking about reasonable belief. I'm talking about “attempted murder”, which is a crime defined by intent, and is entirely irrelevant to self defense analysis, where legality of the threats action only matters to the extent of it being unlawful, not as to what particular law is violated. > So in a certain sense, US courts recognize that things like armed carjackings should be treated as attempted murders. No, they don't, they recognize that the specific identity of the crime or other violation of the law involved on the part of the attacker is generally immaterial to self-defense analysis, which isn't “armed carjackings should be treated as attempted murders” except in the sense that it is also “simple assault should be treated the same as genocide” or “tortious, but non-criminal, battery should be treated the same as torture”.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  It's a bit more complex than that, because (in most of the United States) intent becomes irrelevant once there is an actual death. If you bring a gun to a mugging and it ends up killing someone - even if it went off accidentally - it's considered first degree murder. No matter what your intent, you willfully created the circumstance that led to someone's death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule From a purely technical legal perspective, robbing someone with a gun isn't attempted murder until they get shot, and then it was premeditated willful murder.

If cooperating with the aggressor leaves you alive, and not as an accident, it wasn't attempted murder. It might be violent, immoral, terrifying, and any number of other things, but if the intent wasn't that you end up dead (even if there was a serious risk of that happening), it's not attempted murder.

zepto 8y ago
In other words, if you don’t get shot, it wasn’t attempted murder.
CapitalistCartr 8y ago
You're using 20-20 hindsight. That if you lead with is a big if.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > You're using 20-20 hindsight. No, I’m not. Obviously, the victim won't often be able to tell with any certainty (except with some idea after the fact) whether it was attempted murder. That the difference may be hard to perceive from a particular viewer's perspective doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist.
  - presscast 8y ago
    You're talking about intent, but the parent poster is talking about reasonable belief. In US courts, the latter is (generally) what matters for self-defense claims. Courts don't expect victims to have perfect knowledge of a situation. So in a certain sense, US courts recognize that things like armed carjackings should be treated as attempted murders.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > You're talking about intent, but the parent poster is talking about reasonable belief. I'm talking about “attempted murder”, which is a crime defined by intent, and is entirely irrelevant to self defense analysis, where legality of the threats action only matters to the extent of it being unlawful, not as to what particular law is violated. > So in a certain sense, US courts recognize that things like armed carjackings should be treated as attempted murders. No, they don't, they recognize that the specific identity of the crime or other violation of the law involved on the part of the attacker is generally immaterial to self-defense analysis, which isn't “armed carjackings should be treated as attempted murders” except in the sense that it is also “simple assault should be treated the same as genocide” or “tortious, but non-criminal, battery should be treated the same as torture”.
stickfigure 8y ago
It's a bit more complex than that, because (in most of the United States) intent becomes irrelevant once there is an actual death. If you bring a gun to a mugging and it ends up killing someone - even if it went off accidentally - it's considered first degree murder. No matter what your intent, you willfully created the circumstance that led to someone's death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule From a purely technical legal perspective, robbing someone with a gun isn't attempted murder until they get shot, and then it was premeditated willful murder.