[BigBobdd]

Both. Though the shot killed, the target wouldn't be there if not pushed.

[allemnendup]

Shooter - homicide
Pusher -- attempted homicide

[Konservir]

If you're driving a car without a license and someone runs a light and t-bones you, guess who is at fault?
You. If you weren't there, there would have been no accident. This is fact.
Following that same logic, the pusher is certainly chargeable as an accomplice at a minimum.
The shooter is up for lots of charges. Discharge of a firearm in town, for instance, could be added.

[ZIDouglas]

Wasn't this scenario in a game or TV series plot?

[emupsMaispubs]

I never saw Magnolia, but I know I saw this in CSI or a game not too long ago. Maybe they were referencing Magnolia or vice versa.

[beenBinybelia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If you're driving a car without a license and someone runs a light and t-bones you, guess who is at fault?
You. If you weren't there, there would have been no accident. This is fact. Using that logic, your mother is also to blame. If she hadn't given birth to you, you wouldn't have been there.

[AlbrtJhnsqw]

Originally posted by Wezil
It is a classic law school question. Variants of this have been around for awhile. That's good to know.

[PrettyFifa12]

Could I land on someone asking a stupid question?

[famosetroie]

Nice summary of all (un)related issues Winston.

[c-cialis]

In Virginia only one person can receive the maximum penalty for murder. If this went to a Virginia court the court would have to determine which injury, the fall or the gunshot wound was the ultimate cause of death. Presumably if you were shot through the heart, the brain, or a critical blood vessel like the aorta or one of the carotids then the shooter would receive the highest penalty. If you were shot somewhere not likely to be immediately fatal, like the stomach, lung or liver and there were injuries from the fall likely to be fatal then the person who pushed you off of the building would be held the more responsible.

A number of states, particularily in the South, have similar laws. The motivation for these laws stem from the Scottsdale incident. A southern woman was allegedly raped and murdered by several black men. Little effort was made to distinguish which one actually killed her and several of the men were executed. In response there was an outcry that this one person's life was not worth so many in exchange (not to mention that the state's primary evidence was testimony violently coerced from the men), and several southern states passed laws prohibiting the execution of more than one person for the murder of one victim.

Unfortunately this law works both ways. About ten years ago two drunken white men attacked a drunken black man. They beat him unconcious, then one of them put a tire soaked in kerosene around his neck and set it on fire. When the fire died out the second man cut the black man's head off. The court was unable to determine which injury killed the victim, so it was unable to ask for capital punishment for either.

[giturbewan]

I'd also like a link or something to the incident and its aftermath because it sounds like a pile o BS to me.

[Wsjltrhe]

Why would you thin I was talking about the OP when Dr. S's example is much more interesting?

[robstamps]

What truly matters is intentions.

The pusher is guilty of murder.
The shooter, may or may not be.

He probably isn't, since I'd say it'd be pretty hard to deliberately shoot someone who is falling, meaning it's probably one of those bizarre accidents where he tries to shoot his wife, misses, and the bullet flies out the window and hits the falling person (of course in that case shooter is still guilty of bad intentions anyway...).

If it was deliberate and planned and involving excellent markmanship, the question is one of motivations.
He may have been motivated to inflict extra pain on the victim.
Or he may have been motivated to save the victim from pain. I doubt that actually hitting the ground at terminal velocity is more painful than being shot dead and the victim may have decided to enjoy his final moments in freefall rather than spend it in abject panic, I doubt the shooter could have made an informed decision on which was the case.
He could even have been motivated to try and give the pusher a little nudge into a window of the building - but I doubt that's possible (bullets just don't impart that much momentum).

So I question if the shooter could have justified good motivation, I mean sure he could RATIONALIZE it, but that rationalization may not actually be applicable to the victim.

If there was any conceivable chance that the victim could have survived, then the shooter is definitely guilty of murder also - by malice or delusion.

Pusher - definitely guilty.
Shooter - possibly guilty, definitely highly unusual and unreasonable behavior.

The actions of the shooter do not change the karmic dues of the pusher, at least if the pusher is ignorant of the shooter. The pusher may get some new karmic dues if he looks down and sees the victim get shot and is like "Awww! I wanted him to die by falling! Now I have to find someone else to push!". But the Karmic dues of the original shove are the same regardless of the shooter's actions.
The actions of the shooter do also have karmic dues, for he has strange intents and motivations, the nature of these karmic dues depends largely on whether the shooter thinks himself a murderer or not and he may have some shared Karma with the Pusher (ie Pusher might decide "Dammit! I'm going to find shooter and push him off too!")

What the law decides, is part of the karmic dues.

[khjhkfggt]

Intention matters in both cases.

Given that the person died of a gunshot, you could charge the shooter with murder some form of homicide, and the pushed with attempted homicide.

If anyone is hurt or killed when the body hits the ground that is on the pusher.

now the shooter may use some affirmative defense, but I see none for the pusher.

[Hetgvwic]

Criminal law is not built around "morality" as much as you want to claim.

Given the facts, the pusher DID NOT KILL the person. The shooter did. now, it was the intention of the pusher to kill, but intention gets you only so far. You need a body to have homicide. And when the Medical examiner comes and says : guy died before hitting the ground, well, how could you pin the death on the pusher?

All the other specualtion you lay out is rather irrelevant.

Criminal law is a set of statues. You can;t be guilty of homicide if you did not cause the death intentionally, recklessly, or through negligence. Again, guy died of a gunshot, not because he hit the ground.

You can certainly charge the pusher with attempted murder, and perhaps a slew of other crimes depending on the locality.

[Angelinaaiiiiiiiii]

That is the exact case from Magnolia.

[swoluelvede]

I never saw the original.....

[Loovikeillilen]

The faller is guilty. Obviously he had it coming.

[Poreponko]

What?

[Storwaytozy]

Potassium poisoning!