....if the owner of the animal knowingly did not treat it and left it to it's
own devices and the dog bit someone, why would he/she NOT be liable?
--
Nomad
Duke of URL
03-28-2005, 07:47 AM
Nomad wrote:
...if the owner of the animal knowingly did not treat it and left it to it's own devices and the dog bit someone, why would he/she NOT be liable?
Can't speak for other jurisdictions, but I know for a fact that heshe WOULD
be liable in Nebraska & California.
--
Cliologist, Philanthropologist, Prothonotary Wibbler,
Paleoconservative, Surface Warrior Squid
Duke of URL wrote: Nomad wrote: ...if the owner of the animal knowingly did not treat it and left it to it's own devices and the dog bit someone, why would he/she NOT be liable? Can't speak for other jurisdictions, but I know for a fact that heshe WOULD be liable in Nebraska & California.
So infecting someone with any of the 100s of diseases that could
possibly kill another person, like the common flu, is "attempted murder" eh?
guess
03-28-2005, 08:43 PM
YES!!!!! If the intent is for them to die. Giving someone the flu may not be
considered attempted murder, but giving them AIDS most definetly can. The
fatality rate for AIDS is almost always 100%, while the flu is probably less
than .5%.
:Duke of URL wrote:
:> Nomad wrote:
:>
:> > ...if the owner of the animal knowingly did not treat it and left it
:> > to it's own devices and the dog bit someone, why would he/she NOT be
:> > liable?
:>
:> Can't speak for other jurisdictions, but I know for a fact that heshe
:> WOULD be liable in Nebraska & California.
:
:For murder or attempted murder?
If you knew the dog was rabid and deliberately set it on someone?
I suspect you could charge attempted murder in pretty much ANY state.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
:Anyone with the common flu ought to know that exposing ANYONE to
:it risks killing them, as nearly 500,000 people die EVERY year from influenza.
Since you're picking the high end number, now take 15% of the
population of the world as those who get it every year and figure out
what the death rate is.
In other words, you've got 500k/(.15 * 6.5 billion) or an annual death
rate of around 0.05%.
:So anyone who toughs it out and goes to work or school knowing they
:have the flu should be charged with "attempted murder" in Canukistan, eh?
NOBODY has ever recovered from AIDS and it most definitely kills
people. Virtually everyone recovers from influenza.
Surely even you can figure out the difference at this point.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
guess
04-03-2005, 09:06 AM
You can be vacinated from the flu, you can't get an AIDS vacination!!
They'll also get you 25 to life for setting that dog on someone.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rabies has a relatively long incubation period, so immunization soon
after a bite can be protective. Once clinical rabies develops, however,
the prognosis makes AIDS, Ebola, or tetanus look rosy.
The first documented report of survival from rabies, where there had
been no pre- or post-bite immunization, was reported in October 2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a1.htm It is still not
known if there will be residual neurologic deficits.
ISTR there have been a few cases (less than 10) where postexposure
immunization was given late, but there was survival.
Of viral infections, rabies is the closest known to 100% fatal -- and a
thoroughly bad way to die. The only comparable diseases, which have a
much longer course, are the prion diseases ("mad cow" or bovine
spongiform encepalopathy, Creuzfeldt-Jakob syndrome and variants, kuru,
etc.). It's still not completely understood if prion diseases are true
infections, or more of a toxic process.
"Curable" may have been the wrong term, but I believe I'm correct about the
sentencing. Since people who are exposed to rabies seldom die if they
receive the shots in time, you can't claim that the person was trying to
kill you if they deliberately expose you to rabies in such an blatant way.
Reckless endangerment, assualt, etc, but not attempted murder. That would
require exposure to something with a more certain death-rate, inspite of
treatment. ...may be wrong, of course.
Kerryn Offord
04-09-2005, 04:53 AM
LawsonE wrote:
<SNIP> "Curable" may have been the wrong term, but I believe I'm correct about the sentencing. Since people who are exposed to rabies seldom die if they receive the shots in time, you can't claim that the person was trying to kill you if they deliberately expose you to rabies in such an blatant way. Reckless endangerment, assualt, etc, but not attempted murder. That would require exposure to something with a more certain death-rate, inspite of treatment. ...may be wrong, of course.
If you set your rabid dog onto someone.. Attempted murder will be one of
the charges (keeping a dangerous animal (with a notifiable illness)
another).
The point is.. Can they prove that you intended to infect the victim?
Whether or not the person gets the shots in time is not important...
Getting them in time reduces the charges from murder to attempted murder.
The thing is.. in the eyes of the jury.. is rabies considered
sufficiently dangerous that loss of life could be a predictable (almost
expected) outcome?
Its just like shooting someone.. Just because life save surgery keeps
them alive.. doesn't mean you can't be charged with attempted murder..
It is the "intent" that is important...
And the first question the prosecutor is likely to ask is.. Why did you
set your rabid dog onto the victim? (Well, maybe the second question,
after asking 'why were you keeping a rabid dog?').
IF is a big word in medicine. IF you have unprotected intercourse with
someone that's HIV positive, and then get postexposure prophylaxis, it's
certainly not a given that you will acquire HIV. The chance of
transmission also correlates highly with the viral load in the person
with the virus.
In any event, even if there is HIV conversion, current therapy is such
that it's likely to turn the condition into a manageable chronic disease
rather than a death sentence.
How can anyone assume that the person they expose to rabies, or HIV,
will get the proper prophylaxis? Rabies isn't that common, but there
are deaths in the US every day for people that ignored a bite --
especially a bat bite, which can be minor.
Someone shooting you in the shoulder with a .22 may not kill. How does
the court know they weren't aiming at your heart but were lousy shots? Reckless endangerment, assualt, etc, but not attempted murder. That would require exposure to something with a more certain death-rate, inspite of treatment. ...may be wrong, of course.
I have to agree with Howard. It seems to me that the key here is that the
act, which would be likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, is
covered under aggravated battery, or like, statutes in all states that I
am aware of. Purposely subjecting someone to a life-threatening disease,
IMO, certainly satisfies the aggravating circumstance.
--
John Teague
__________________________________
"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is
yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am
attacking..."
- General Ferdinand Foch
How can anyone assume that the person they expose to rabies, or HIV, will get the proper prophylaxis? Rabies isn't that common, but there are deaths in the US every day for people that ignored a bite -- especially a bat bite, which can be minor.
Well, how can anyone assume that someone bit by an uninfected dog
will take any measures to stop the bleeding, or clean the wound to
prevent infection, gangrene or sepsis ?
If people ignore accpeted medical treatment, then death is likely
for all kinds of otherwise non-fatal incidents.
Does that make it murder/attempted murder because the "victim"
refused/denied themselves accepted available treatment?
Someone shooting you in the shoulder with a .22 may not kill. How does the court know they weren't aiming at your heart but were lousy shots? Reckless endangerment, assualt, etc, but not attempted murder. That would require exposure to something with a more certain death-rate, inspite of treatment. ...may be wrong, of course.
So every time a co-worker comes to the office knowing they have "the flu",
or a working parent knowingly sends their sick child to school,
they are, IYO, guilty of aggravated battery, eh?
And addicted parents who deliberately expose their children, on
a daily basis, to toxic tobacco smoke?
If someone died as a result of the exposure and there was some way of
proving it (they were the only two people in an isolated environment for
some period of time), I have little doubt that a wrongful death case could
be mounted.
And addicted parents who deliberately expose their children, on a daily basis, to toxic tobacco smoke?
No question, they are commiting assault and child abuse.
Proving what? A person who knew they had influenze deliberately
came into transmittable contact with another person who contracte
influenza and died.
(they were the only two people in an isolated environment for some period of time), I have little doubt that a wrongful death case could be mounted.
Wrongful death is a civil matter. We are discussing the Canadian's
claim that exposing someone to HIV is criminal "attempted murder".
And addicted parents who deliberately expose their children, on a daily basis, to toxic tobacco smoke? No question, they are commiting assault and child abuse.
So why does society knowingly allow such unquestionable child abuse
to take place 100,000s of times every day?
If you encourage your rabid dog to bite some wandering missionary or a
devout Christian Scientists opposed to heroic medical treatements, you may
well end up with a long stay in the Greystone Hotel.
There is one HIV precedent which comes to mind, a father who injected his
son with the HIV virus, and watched over the descent into AIDs and death
therefrom, Florida, IIRC, and a homicide indictment, trial and verdict.
My how times have changed. When I was young, anyone walking around with
a known rabid dog would not be concerned with a court ruling as to
weather he was guilty of this or that. He and his dog would be shot.
Suffice it to say, rabies was of such a big deal and men were men so
that senario would never be played to begin with.
Well, yes. I do believe that's what we were discussing. (they were the only two people in an isolated environment for some period of time), I have little doubt that a wrongful death case could be mounted. Wrongful death is a civil matter. We are discussing the Canadian's claim that exposing someone to HIV is criminal "attempted murder".
The differences are minor. If you knowingly expose someone to a deadly
disease (and both hiv & influenza are) and someone dies as a result, you can
be prosecuted. There is already precedent for hiv exposure, I don't know if
a flu death has been prosecuted. and that's probably because it is so much
easier to prove a case involving hiv.
And addicted parents who deliberately expose their children, on a daily basis, to toxic tobacco smoke? No question, they are commiting assault and child abuse. So why does society knowingly allow such unquestionable child abuse to take place 100,000s of times every day?
:Well, how can anyone assume that someone bit by an uninfected dog
:will take any measures to stop the bleeding, or clean the wound to
:prevent infection, gangrene or sepsis ?
:
:If people ignore accpeted medical treatment, then death is likely
:for all kinds of otherwise non-fatal incidents.
:
:Does that make it murder/attempted murder because the "victim"
:refused/denied themselves accepted available treatment?
'Reasonable man' test. You will, of course, never comprehend this.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
guess
04-10-2005, 04:06 PM
PLEASE PEOPLE!!! LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
