An old Law Question

[BioCatholic]

There is a question (or parable) in Law School, a very basic one:

A man falls of the Empire State Building, and on the way down, a person on the 67th floor fires a gun out the window, and instantly kills the falling man. The man who fired the gun is guilty of murder.

Now let’s reverse this:

A man jumps off the Empire State Building to commit suicide. BUT on the way down, a person on the 67th floor fires a gun out the window, and instantly kills the falling man.

IS the jumping man still guilty of the sin of suicide, or does his murder BEFORE the actual end nullify the suicide itself? Would it now only be an ATTEMPT at suicide?

 

[rr1213]

I don’t think that the concept of intervening cause applies in the spiritual sphere. Jesus told us that we committed adultery if we lusted after a woman in our hearts. Certainly, this is not adultery in the physical and actual sense, but Jesus tells us that it is adultery in the spiritual–but very real–sense. I think the same would be the case in your scenario. The man actually jumped out of the window with the intent to commit suicide…and what he attempted would be sufficient to kill him if not for the intervening cause. As such, as Christ teaches, he would still be guilty of suicide. That’s my opinion for what it’s worth…

 

[Pug]

I think the jumping man picked a tall building so that he could repent on the way down. So the key is, which floor did the man jump from?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I don’t think that the concept of intervening cause applies in the spiritual sphere. Jesus told us that we committed adultery if we lusted after a woman in our hearts. Certainly, this is not adultery in the physical and actual sense, but Jesus tells us that it is adultery in the spiritual–but very real–sense. I think the same would be the case in your scenario. The man actually jumped out of the window with the intent to commit suicide…and what he attempted would be sufficient to kill him if not for the intervening cause. As such, as Christ teaches, he would still be guilty of suicide. That’s my opinion for what it’s worth…

That sounds right to me. Sin lies very much in the act of the will, not the physical action. That is why a man cam be guilty of sin, but an animal cannot.

 

[otjm]

/assuming that your jumper did not repent prior to being shot, and assuming that he was not under the influence of anything that would impair his ability to freely choose suicide, he would be guilty of the moral sin of despair. The shot is irrelevant to the determination of his act.

Source: the Gospel account wherein Christ tells those who have lusted after a woman that they are already guilty of adultery.

Ad as to the shooter, a charge of murder would require that he intended to kill the jumper with no defense (it is hard to posit self defense if he is in the bulilding and the jumper is outside…); however, if he were randomly shooting out the window, the best they could do would be a form of manslaughter; and if he were lawfully discharging the gun, say, to stop a murder in the next building, it may be that he was not guilty of anything.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Intent, or consent to commit a mortal sin makes it a mortal sin if two other requirements are met

1. Grave matter
2. Full knowledge
3. Complete consent

Even if he is not successful, the intent is enough.

CCC

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

If he truly didn’t know it was a sin then???

The man who fires the gun lacks consent, even though it is grave matter, and knowledge is doubtful.

In court it would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder, and probably not result in jail time for anything other than any firearms violation that occurred.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

if he were lawfully discharging the gun, say, to stop a murder in the next building, it may be that he was not guilty of anything.

Morally or legally? I’d say that if he’s randomly shooting out a window, if it’s dangerous to other people and he kills someone, he’s sinned. If we was trying to stop a murder and had no idea the guy was jumping, he didn’t sin. (Legally I think it would vary from state to state whether or not he would be charged in the 'stop-a-murder" scenario.)