Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn derided the charge of attempted murder as “a legal impossibility,” saying someone can’t kill an inanimate object.

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170308/las-vegas-man-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-mannequin-hammer-attack

I think the defender is correct you can't murder something that is not alive.  Charges are BS.

The [Nevada] state Supreme Court in 1976 rejected an argument asserting that “since it is legally impossible to commit the crime, it must also be legally impossible to attempt the crime."

Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn derided the charge of attempted murder as “a legal impossibility,” saying someone can’t kill an inanimate object.

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170308/las-vegas-man-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-mannequin-hammer-attack

I think the defender is correct you can't murder something that is not alive.  Charges are BS.

Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn derided the charge of attempted murder as “a legal impossibility,” saying someone can’t kill an inanimate object.

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170308/las-vegas-man-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-mannequin-hammer-attack

I think the defender is correct you can't murder something that is not alive.  Charges are BS.

Your title is inaccurate.  He was chaged with ATTEMPTED murder.  Should read, "Can you attempt to murder something that's not alive?"

No difference than any other sting operation using fake items.

This guy attempted to bomb the New York Federal Reserve using a 1,000 lb bomb.  The explosives he bought from undercover agents were inert.  He believed they were real and tried to detonate them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/fbi-federal-reserve-bomb-plot

Mens Rea ("Guilty Mind"): the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

LVPD said 2 other homeless killed by a hammer used to crush the skull.  Same MO.  If the Cops tie him to at least one of the other killings, he's toast no matter what his defense says about "impossibility."

What no....the guy can say he knew it was a dummy.  Because he attacked an item not a person,  it is not attempted murder.   While it is wrong to destroy personal property that is not the same as murder.  There is no logical way other than a confession to prove intent.   The guy who attempted to bomb the federal reserve bought "explosives"  in a plot to harm REAL people.  This was not a real person. 


I feel this is just a slippery slope till thought crimes are illegal.  First you outlaw things that look like people.  Then you outlaw violence/sex in video games/books/fantasy/drawings cause they are people too. Then you outlaw thinking about people.

What no....the guy can say he knew it was a dummy.  Because he attacked an item not a person,  it is not attempted murder.   While it is wrong to destroy personal property that is not the same as murder.  There is no logical way other than a confession to prove intent.   The guy who attempted to bomb the federal reserve bought "explosives"  in a plot to harm REAL people.  This was not a real person. 


I feel this is just a slippery slope till thought crimes are illegal.  First you outlaw things that look like people.  Then you outlaw violence/sex in video games/books/fantasy/drawings cause they are people too. Then you outlaw thinking about people.

Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn derided the charge of attempted murder as “a legal impossibility,” saying someone can’t kill an inanimate object.

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170308/las-vegas-man-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-mannequin-hammer-attack

I think the defender is correct you can't murder something that is not alive.  Charges are BS.

I think the prosecution needs to prove that the individual believed the mannequin to be real. It is what this man intended to do that is the question here. The man may try to say he knew it was a mannequin asa defense. Not the easiest thing to prove what was in this man's mind but it can be done. It has to do with the circumstances as the individual believed them to be, not what they actually are necessarily.

What was the alternative, put an undercover officer there to be hit in the head and then charge the man with murder/attempted murder?

This...flapp isnt smart enough to understand

You do realize that I am disagreeing with you? It is possible to build a prosecution for attempted murder in this case.

Are you going to suggest that if the FBI sells a fake bomb to the terrorist and the terrorist plants the fake bomb in an attempt to kill a bunch of people that he cannot be prosecuted because the bomb was never real?

Hmmm?  No you can interpenetrate it as this.  The man was a vandal he liked to hit inanimate objects with a hammer.  Trashcans etc, he saw a mannequin and proceeded to hit it.  Its a far cry from selling someone a fake bomb who goes to a location to use said fake bomb.  There is clear intent to do harm to people.  Vs this could be some dude who likes to hit inanimate objects with hammers.  There is no proof that he thought it was a person.  And no proving beyond a reasonable doubt a random person could not identify the object was a mannequin.

The whole point of being innocent b4 found guilty is that the prosecutor has to prove that the man thought it was real and a human he was hitting.  That is VERY hard in this case.

You guys are arguing over some strange shit.

They don't have to prove what he thought, Mr. Mason. 

They only have to prove what any reasonable person would have thought. 

If the decoy was good enough, and the area was dark enough, it should be no problem.

I still think a completely reasonable person would know its not alive.

Hmmm?  No you can interpenetrate it as this.  The man was a vandal he liked to hit inanimate objects with a hammer.  Trashcans etc, he saw a mannequin and proceeded to hit it.  Its a far cry from selling someone a fake bomb who goes to a location to use said fake bomb.  There is clear intent to do harm to people.  Vs this could be some dude who likes to hit inanimate objects with hammers.  There is no proof that he thought it was a person.  And no proving beyond a reasonable doubt a random person could not identify the object was a mannequin.

The whole point of being innocent b4 found guilty is that the prosecutor has to prove that the man thought it was real and a human he was hitting.  That is VERY hard in this case.