Tumbleweed said:
OH YES IT IS!! Less than 9 months to Christmas.
Do not make the mistake of interpreting "it's reasonable to say the
person was murdered at the time of the act" as meaning "it's reasonable
to say at the time of the act that the peron was murdered". That's
altogether different. What I meant is that *post mortem* we can say
that the person was murdered, and we can place the time of the murder
to the time of the act.
If action is taken to counter whatever the attempted
murder method was, and it works (antidote for poison, surgery for
shooting, etc) I didnt murder you.
Murder means you irreversibly died.
Agreed.
In the para in question, the person seemingly changed their will after
they had been attacked and before they died. But not *after* they had been
murdered. As you say below, "its not until after death that the act can be
said to be murder"
You misunderstand. See below.
Its not beside the point at all, it is the point, until you are dead,
murder cannot be said to have occurred, and even then, if the victim is
resuscitated, it still isnt murder.
There are two questions.
One is DID murder take place, the other is WHEN did it take place.
If the answer to the first is NO, then the second question is void, but
if the answer to the first question is YES, i.e. the victim did in fact
die as a result of the attack (even if death did not occur immediately),
then the answer to the second question can reasonably be that the murder
took place at the time of the attack rather than at the time of death.
Even though the person changed their will after the attack but before
dying, we can say in retrospect, now that the person has in fact died
as a result, that the person was therefore murdered, and murdered well
before they died. We can thus NOW say that they changed their will
after they were murdered, even though it would not have been possible to
say AT THE TIME THEY CHANGED THE WILL that they had been murdered.