https://besttutors.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/logo-best-tutors-300x60.png 0 0 Paul https://besttutors.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/logo-best-tutors-300x60.png Paul2021-07-09 09:54:562021-07-09 09:54:56CRJ 301 MODULE 2 HOMEWORK
Directions: Answer the questions below. Your written responses should be at least one half of one page in length and should utilize APA guidelines for formatting and citations. Please cite examples from the textbook, when applicable. 1. First, explain the concept of “foreseeability” (the first rule of a criminal act). Secondly, the second rule that applies to situations in which the accused takes the victim as he finds him or her; for example, if Keesha strikes Raul without the intent to kill but (unknown to Keesha) Raul is a hemophiliac and bleeds to death because of the injury inflicted by her, Keesha can be liable for the death. Give your explanations of the law in these situations. 2. Write a short essay on the concept of “non-consummation.” Include intent and give a treatment on the statutes in some jurisdictions that may or may not elect to charge the offender. 3. Write up the full definitions of the following four elemental concepts of negligence and provide your opinion in general on each of the elements of negligence. These definitions should be written in your own words. No points will be awarded if your definition is verbatim that which appears in the textbook. a. Standard or Care, b. Breach of Standard, c. Proximate Cause, and d. Harm or Injury Produced 4. Sam was an Olympic medalist in swimming. He secured a job as a lifeguard at Euclid Beach Park. Things were not too exciting, so Sam decided to have a few drinks while he was on duty. Sam was feeling no pain when he heard a cry for help. He saw a person in great difficulty about 100 yards offshore. Sam stumbled and finally reached the water. He was unable to get to the victim before she drowned. Under what theory, if any, would Sam be liable for the death of the drowning victim? Explain your reasons. 5. Assume that Officer Washington, while off duty, is just arriving home from a picnic with his family. He is carrying his off-duty revolver, as required by departmental regulations. As he approaches his home, Smith sees someone climb out a side window and run in the opposite direction. That individual is carrying a sack of some kind, and it appears to be rather cumbersome. The thought also passes through Washington’s mind that the person might be a teenager. He realizes he cannot catch the fleeing figure and knows nobody was rightfully in his home. Should Washington shoot? If he killed the fleeing figure, would he be justified in doing so? Defend your position.