THE SECOND SHOOTER: YOU ARE CATCHING THAT REP- DONT GET IT TWISTED BUT WAIT.....

You know the song titled "Story of my brother" by Drake. Yes thats how the idea for this writing came about. No this isnt about the song, good song by way, most definitely a record worth writing about, but this isnt that. With this one we will take a look at the application of Criminal Liability within the context of there being a 2nd shooter. We will look at the context within a situation where there is three people X ,Y, Z. X and Y are the shooters. Z is the victim. I know, this is starting to read like a math algebra equation. But stay with me. X,Y,Z. In this scenario Z gets into some altercation with X. X shoots Z in the head, boom!!! Z is on the ground, not dead but grasping for existence. X feeling at that moment that he got his justice, leaves. Y then comes over, and for some reason, lets out some led onto Z, which ends Z's time straight. Police arrive, investigations begin and they find two set of different bullet casings, shot at different intervals. Investigators conclude from that finding that Z had two shooters who rained bullets on him. The question which the prosecutor faces is how do we impute criminal liability on the shooters? And this is what brings us here today. We will touch on the criminal liability of the first shooter but our focus is on the 2nd shooter. With the facts-being the scenario- already laid out, We commence with looking at the law. We are legal minds, therefore everything will always begin with the law/legal principle that applies. We will then proceed to look at how the law would be applied in this scenario, then finally we will look at the implication of this to our everyday lives, specifically to the lives of the persons who find themselves being the 2nd shooter.

1. Legal Principles Applicable: Imputing Criminal Liability:

   Before a person can have criminal liability placed at their door steps, there are certain factors that must be involves. The point of departure in determing whether a person is criminally liable is to first determine whether the conduct in question is regarded as a crime in terms of the law. Once its established that, indeed, the conduct is criminal activity, then it must be established whether the person who is subject/suspect of the crime did commit the conduct recognised by the law as a crime. Did that person act/ommit to act (Our scenario relates to acting, so our focus is on action not action by ommission). It is determined that the person acted contrary to the law, then we move to whether the act of this person caused crime. The last two factors that must be present is unlawfulness and capacity, which deal with whether the conduct was unlawful, meaning without legally recognised justification and whether the person who did this unlawful act had criminal capacity(meaning, was in his right mind and off age which points to the facts that they would have recognised that what they are doing is a crime, appreciated that understanding that what they are doing is a crime and proceeded to still act any way.

But what we are interested in, which we will focus on is the CAUSATION element of criminal liability. The other elements lets take them as having already been satisfied within the scenario we are working under now. Now.....

WHAT IS CAUSATION: "WHO SHOT YA- BIGGIE SMALLS

Its important for me to qualify that the question of causation is a question which is must to answered in the event wherein the crime in question is a materially/result defined crime. That means that the crime is essentially one where what is prohited in its definition is the conduct which cause the prohibited condition/event to happen. Murder is an example of a materially defined crime, which is crime that is the subject of our scenario. We on the right track.

The general default position in determining CAUSATION is establishing what the criminal lingo calls FACTUAL CAUSATION then LEGAL CAUSATION. These are the requirement that need to be established before an individual can be branded as the cause of an offense. You have to determine:

• Factual Causation- Describes causation in the sense that but for the act, the prohibited condition would not have resulted. Latine refers to this as the sine qua non test or the "but for test". So if it was not for the action of the person, then the outcome would not have happened, then that person is the cause of the shits. But then to pinpoint, to bring no doubt that indeed dude disturbed the status quo, the person must also be the legal cause of the outcome, which then brings us to;

• Legal Causation- After factual causation is established, it must then be determined as to whether the link between the act and the result is sufficient enough to impute legal blame on causer of shits, destroyer of worlds.

  • In look at legal causation there are three legal theories that we look at to determine if dude is also the legal cause of the offence, and the theories are :

    • Proximate cause- Which asks whether the action was a close or approximate cause of the prohibited outcome

    • Adequate cause- where you establish the link by considering that according to human experience, in the normal course of event, the act usually causes the shits.

    • Novus actus Interveniens- This theory breaks the chain of causation through a new intervening act. It basically absolves A from liability of a charge that he would have caught if it was not for the intervening cause that cause the condition.

That is our law right there, we will now look at our scenario within the corners of the above stipulated law.

2. THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACT: LIVED REALITIES:

Now that we have outline the equation at the top, we now just solve the equation.

• The Question of Causation of X: The first shooter- aka the first splash brotther

  X is without a doubt the factual cause of the death of Z. But for X mortally wounding Z and putting him to the ground, Z would have been lying there, vulnerable to the vultures who are waiting to finish off the carcass, or should I say the inevitable carcass. On his Legal causation, although the shoot by Y which finished off Z make one think, its still no doubt. X is the legal cause because his action is the approximate cause of the condition. In the normal course of events, that head shot from X has a tendency of killing someone, therefore he is the adequate cause of the condition. Lastly, there isnt an intervening act on the part of Y, therefore X cannot escape that murder rep. X is the cause of Z death, therefore the rightful person to stand accused of murder.

• The Question of Causation on Y: The Second Shoot- aka the second splash brother... FYKYK.

  On legal causation, but for the shooting by Y, would Z have died. You cannot remove Y's shot and still have Z alive. Therefore Y is the factual cause of Z's death. On his legal causation, he is the proximate cause of Z's death, he dealt the final blow. In the normal course of human experience, Z does from being shot again by another person while already is serious critical conditions. Y is the adequate cause of the death of Z. Lastly which is what we were all waiting for, does Y,s shot break the chain of causation in thise scenario. The answer to that question is No it does not. X was bound to die from the shot of X, Y shots was a finishing touch to the death of Z. Y is also the cause of death of Z.

CONCLUSION

The definition of the crime of murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. X unlawfully, without justification, and intentionally killed Z. I dont see a world where X beats a murder conviction. Y, although being the second shooter, unlawfully and had the accompanying intention of killing Z. Both the shooter satisfy the definitional elements of the offence of murder, therefore they both should be guilty of murder. Ofcourse corruption aside, state capture, Mkhwanzi commission shit aside, they both facing the wrath of justice

DISCLAIMER

This does not constitute as legal advise nor legal authority on your criminal law matter or any criminal law matter This is essentially my opinions based on how i interprete the world I engage with. Please do further research, consult your attorney if you are that much interested. Not during a braai. Arrange a consultation

REFERENCE

CRIMINAL LAW, 6TH EDITION: CR SYNMAN

IMAGE: TAKEN FROM THE CRIMINAL LAW, 6TH EDITION TEXTBOOK BY SNYMAN.