Final answer:
The statement in question is false; shooting towards someone not known to be already dead can still be considered assault due to the perpetrator's intent and actions at the time. The principle of 'transferred intent' in law holds the perpetrator responsible regardless of the outcome or the state of the victim.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement, "If one shoots another, not knowing the person he shot was already dead, he is not guilty of assault," is False. In the legal context, assault typically refers to an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The act of shooting towards a person, whether they turn out to be dead or alive, constitutes an attempt, and could still be subject to legal consequences under the theory of "transferred intent." This principle applies when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still responsible for their actions. An actual contact is not necessary for an assault charge; the attempt and ability to cause harm can suffice.
Moreover, in the realm of criminal law, an assault can be considered an act that was carried out with the intention to cause fear or harm, even if the ultimate outcome or the state of the person being assaulted is unknown to the perpetrator at the time of the act. Therefore, even if the intended victim was already deceased, the perpetrator's actions are judged based on their intent and actions at the time of the commission of the act.
In other words, the fact that the target of the assault is already dead may affect the potential for a homicide charge but does not necessarily negate the act of assault, especially if the perpetrator believed the victim to be alive and intended to cause harm or fear of harm.