These are all decent questions, yet I do not believe that discussing them with you would have that much impact, as we come from quite different viewpoints (you do not think hiring assassins is unethical).
It is not only not ethical but horrible and immoral, but should not be illegal in my opinion. Regardless I'll appreciate your answers.
1) no, guilty of robbery only.
2) no not directly, the person would be guilty of the crime of planting evidence whether the person was sitting in a cell or hanged it would be the same crime. But upon sentencing the judge would obviously consider the outcome of the falsely imprisoned person and change the sentence accordingly.
3) the terrorist would be liable for the death, but it would not be the same as murder.
4) no, but it would depend on the context. If it was an automated defense system then no. But if it was manual and the person was aware of the risk then they should have some liability but if the person acted impulsively and to save the life of others and in doing so other people were killed, then he is not liable.
When I say ethical I mean legal ethicss (or natural law, whatever)
My answers:
1. Not liable
2. Not liable. You hold no responsibility over how things will be interpreted. At most you'll be liable for trespassing.
3. Not liable. You can't be held responsible for recklesness of the killer of the human shield. You will be liable for kidnapping though.
4. Liable. You made a rational choice to sacrifise the lives of others in order to save yours.
Wheylous: These are all decent questions, yet I do not believe that discussing them with you would have that much impact, as we come from quite different viewpoints (you do not think hiring assassins is unethical).
this.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)