If you ignore the Eggshell Rule, you run the risk of falling under the Scumbag Rule. This is the legal principle that if you act like a scumbag, you risk the antipathy of the jury.
Question. If a person knew the victim has a heart condition and gets into a heated argument with the intention to trigger a heart attack, resulting in the death of the victim, with no witnesses, how are they going to prove and charge this person in court?
I would like to know more about the flipside of the eggshell rule in a criminal context. Suppose a victim has a heart condition and knows it. And aggressor starts punching him in the chest. Does that victim have a different right of self defense from someone with no heart condition or who doesn’t know they have a heart condition? Or more correctly, given that they know of their medical fragility, can they more reasonably perceive a deadly threat?
Thanks for your question! We all have the right to defend ourselves from attackers and harm. When we look at that right, we typically look at what is reasonable under the circumstances. Are responses to threats and attacks proportional? And other things like that. Ultimately, the juries of the world decide what is and isn't reasonable. Each situation is looked at one at a time to determine what is reasonable in those circumstances. In the situation you described, the person with the condition would still have to behave reasonably measured against the threat or attack.
If you ignore the Eggshell Rule, you run the risk of falling under the Scumbag Rule. This is the legal principle that if you act like a scumbag, you risk the antipathy of the jury.
Thanks! Ramos Law, this is really a comprised, precise and compact explanation I have seen here.Thanks !
Thank you, glad you liked it!
Question. If a person knew the victim has a heart condition and gets into a heated argument with the intention to trigger a heart attack, resulting in the death of the victim, with no witnesses, how are they going to prove and charge this person in court?
That's a great suit
I would like to know more about the flipside of the eggshell rule in a criminal context. Suppose a victim has a heart condition and knows it. And aggressor starts punching him in the chest. Does that victim have a different right of self defense from someone with no heart condition or who doesn’t know they have a heart condition? Or more correctly, given that they know of their medical fragility, can they more reasonably perceive a deadly threat?
Thanks for your question! We all have the right to defend ourselves from attackers and harm. When we look at that right, we typically look at what is reasonable under the circumstances. Are responses to threats and attacks proportional? And other things like that. Ultimately, the juries of the world decide what is and isn't reasonable. Each situation is looked at one at a time to determine what is reasonable in those circumstances. In the situation you described, the person with the condition would still have to behave reasonably measured against the threat or attack.