The Criminal Acts - Essay Example

?A The criminal acts performed by Andrew and Bob the night they shook a latter and made Carol fall from the latter and fracture her skull are that their defense of being too drunk could never excuse them from being liable. When someone intentionally causes harm to another person regardless of the state of mind the perpetrator is in the person is legally liable for causing the harm. This may have been a case of criminal negligence, but the two brothers would still need to be held liable for the actions they have taken. The actions they have taken were to shake a latter, and cause Carol to fall. Carol fractured her skull, and this caused her physical harm. Because, the brothers were drunk the brothers do not think they should be held liable for causing the bodily harm to Carol. Even though Andrew and Bob are trying to pass off that they would have never committed this crime if they had not been drunk. The two of them still knew what they were doing despite being drunk. The crime against a person is that they were attempting to abuse, and scare Carol, but Carol ended up injured. When Carol ended up injured there was a criminal act committed. The criminal act was negligence on behalf of Andrew and Bob, but it was still a criminal act. Andrew and Bob can both be prosecuted on charges of criminal negligence. Because, Andrew and Bob were drunk they were negligent and caused harm to carol. If Andrew and Bob would not have been so childish to move the latter then Carol would not have fallen. Just because Andrew and Bob were drunk does not give them an excuse to shake the latter, and to move it off of the wall. This is the only reason Carol fell from the latter. Neither of the brothers made an attempt to catch Carol as she fell backward from the latter. So, Carol was seriously injured with a fractured skull. If Andrew, or Bob would have attempted to catch Carol as she fell from the latter, Andrew and Bob might not be facing criminal charges. However, neither brother attempted to catch Carol, so both Andrew and Bob will be brought up on criminal charges of negligently causing bodily harm to someone. The charge is negligently because they were not in their right states of mind. If Andrew and Bob had not been drinking, Andrew and Bob would not have moved the latter away from the wall, or at least attempted to catch Carol as she fell from the latter. B.) The criminal liability the brothers will face for the attack on Dennis is that they attacked a police officer. When a citizen attacks a police officer it is a criminal offense. Police officers are protected from the average citizen harming the police officer. When the two brothers attacked Dennis the two brothers infringed upon the protections offered to police officers. Dennis can criminally charge the two brothers for an offense against a police officer. Andrew and Bob are also resisting arrest by kicking and cutting Dennis. If Andrew and Bob would have surrendered to the police officer then Andrew and Bob would not be in so much trouble. But Andrew and Bob were resisting the attempts of Dennis to arrest the brothers the brothers assaulted Dennis by kicking, and cutting him. The brothers then proceeded to run. When the brothers ran the officer could charge the brothers with resisting arrest. Then the brothers were also charged with the criminal offense of assaulting a police officer. This is of course on top of the charges for the criminal negligence on the assault of Carol. Now the brothers face more charges than they did prior to the officer coming to the home. Now the brothers have to consider what to do when they are arrested and brought up on more charges than the original charges. This could add more time on to the sentence Andrew and Bob faced for the criminal negligence in the attack on Carol. When Andrew and Bob negligently assaulted Carol the police allowed them to return home on bail. Then the police came back to arrest Andrew and Bob, but Andrew and Bob did not want to get arrested. If they would have just allowed themselves to be taken down to the police station for official processing of the charges of negligently assaulting Carol they would not be in as much trouble. But now the brothers have more trouble because they assaulted the police officer and resisted their arrest. Andrew and Bob can face more time in jail now than they originally would have faced if they would have allowed the officer to arrest them without assaulting the officer, and without resisting arrest. The brothers were eventually arrested despite how they resisted, and face more problems now. So, it would have been in the best interest of Andrew and Bob to allow the officer to make the arrests without an incident, instead of assaulting the officer, then fleeing to avoid arrest. This makes them look guilty of the assault of Carol. C.) Frank should be considered legally liable for a criminal offense of aggravated assault against Edna. Edna is a religious person who might have been trying to persuade the young students that there is a God, and try to get them to see religion. The assault against Edna should have never happened to begin with. When Frank assaulted Edna, he did not mean her any bodily harm, however, that does not excuse the fact that bodily harm occurred. If Frank would have stayed in the pub then Edna would not have been injured. Frank was upset with Edna because Frank was religious, and Frank though Edna was religious as well. Then Frank heard the conversations between Edna and the college students, and became confused. Frank became enraged at Edna during the course of the argument, and pushed her back. Frank did not mean to cause harm to Edna, but this is not a liable defense. Edna was still injured in the attack, and Frank is liable for a crime. Frank is liable for the crime of involuntarily causing bodily harm to another person. Frank will need to face charges on the crime. Frank will probably need to pay a fine, and make restitution to Edna. Involuntarily harming another person is not as much of a crime as when someone voluntarily injures someone, however, it is still a crime and the person who injured the other can still be brought up on charges. Frank wanted to merely push Edna backward. Edna fell into the rocky, dried up river and became injured. This is when it became a crime for Frank. If Edna would have merely fallen back and not been injured, Frank would not be brought up on any criminal charges. However, Edna was injured, and Edna will have medical bills to pay from her injuries. Edna can bring a civil suit against Frank and ask Frank to pay for her medical bills. The courts might decide that Frank is liable for Edna’s medical bills. This is especially true if Frank is found guilty of involuntarily causing bodily harm to Edna. Frank might offer to make a plea of guilty, and might settle out of court for the civil suit. Edna might not need assistance from Frank about paying the medical bills. If Frank makes a plea of guilty Frank will be found legally liable to pay for Edna’s injuries. D.) Edna would be guilty of assaulting Frank with the rock. Edna cannot claim that she was drunk when she hit Frank with the rock. Frank could not use any defense against Edna hitting him with the rock. Therefore since Frank had no defense he could use to help against the attack by Edna, Edna cannot use self-defense in her own defense regarding the attack on Frank. Edna made the choice to pick up a rock and begin to beat Frank with the rock. Edna was scared yes, but this is no excuse for hitting Frank with the rock. Edna did not need to know what Frank was going to do. Frank will specify in court that he was going to cut Edna loose from the brush she was trapped in. Edna will try to say that she was scared of Frank but will lose the case because Frank was not going to harm Edna with the knife. If Frank would have had the intent to harm Edna with the knife, Edna would have been able to specify that it was a crime of defense. However, this crime of defense, defense will not hold up, Frank had no intentions of harming Edna to begin with and was only attempting to help Edna. Edna will be brought up on assault charges. Edna made a choice to harm Frank with the rock. The decision to harm Frank with the rock was a conscious decision. Edna did not scream at Frank, and try to make it clear that Frank was intending to harm her further. Edna just assumed that Frank was attempting to harm her further. However, she did not get clarification that Frank was intending to harm her further. Edna needed to have a clear understanding that Frank was intending to harm her further. Otherwise, Edna cannot make a claim that she was going to be harmed further by Frank, and that she harmed Frank with the rock because he was going to harm her. If Frank would have given Edna clarification that he intended to harm her further, Edna would have had a valid claim that she harmed Frank with the rock because he was going to harm her. E.) Glenda intended to harm the deceased. Glenda had no prior knowledge that Bob was dead from a stroke. Glenda intended to kill, or at least cause serious harm to Bob when Glenda shot Bob. Because Glenda attempted the harm she should not be excused from criminal prosecution against the attack on Bob. Attacking a corpse is after all a crime in itself. For Glenda to take it upon herself and go to attack Andrew and Bob, because Andrew and Bob were out on bail once again is a crime in itself. Glenda should not have attempted to harm either of the brothers just because she was upset they were out on bail again. Glenda should have not tried to take the law into her own hands. This is what Glenda went to Andrew and Bob’s for. Glenda was upset that Andrew and Bob were out on bail instead of in jail for harming her sister Carol. Glenda should not have been at Andrew and Bob’s to begin with, however, Glenda saw an opportunity to shoot Bob. Bob was already dead. If Bob had not been dead already then it would be obvious that Glenda should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon because she shot Bob. Glenda shot a dead man but should still be brought up on charges of criminal offense. Her intention was to assault the man with a fire arm. Because she shot him when he was already dead does not make it any less a crime. The crime is that Glenda tried to take the law into her own hands and assault Bob, because Bob assaulted Carol and did not receive any punishment for it. Glenda shot a man who was already dead, but the intention was to assault him, and she thought he was alive when she shot him. She should be brought up on charges of assault with a deadly weapon. The charges are to be brought up against her even though the man she assaulted was already dead. The assault is the same either way. She shot a dead man in the knee. She only intended to assault him this is why she shot him in the knee. But she is guilty regardless of assault because she intended to assault him, and thought he was alive when she took the shot. Read More