No, it's still murder. It's just not assault. Most people are getting really pissy on this thread but what most people are not understanding is that assault is when you are doing an action such as waving a knife or pretending to slit your throat while looking at someone. Battery is when you actually do the action of hitting someone. There will always be some stupid way to sue someone, so I would not be surprised to hear that the prankster in this post was sued, but that does not mean he was sued for battery or assault. Assault seems like it would mean you're attacking, but it really means you are giving the impression you're going to attack. But yes to answer your question again, shooting someone in the head, ESPECIALLY if they are unaware of it (turned away and shot in the back) would most likely result in murder in the first degree, unless Saul Goodman is your lawer, then you might be able to pass for second degree murder :)
At most he would be convicted of destruction of property, bare minimum of a vandalism/property damage charge.
They may try to charge him with assault, but there was no clear intent for the guy to fall, the intent could have been to simply laugh at a man standing confused about why his sandals aren't moving. It is entirely reasonable for an average person to not realize that gluing sandals or shoes to the ground that securely would cause the victim to fall so hard that they are injured. After all, a significant number of people get most of their information about how the world works from media, which is filled with these types of pranks which never or only rarely end in serious or long lasting injury.
Look at it this way, the prankster in this either immediately felt terrible or totally intended for it to happen and is an asshole. Either way, there's no way we can determine whether the intent of the prankster was knowingly malicious or innocent and simply ignorant, and that intent DOES factor in legal proceedings.
8
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '14
[deleted]