Yep, but I think the question is how to define attempting to do X in a legal sense (and often this isn't clearly defined by the text of the law itself).
France defines it as:
An attempt is committed where, being demonstrated by a beginning of execution, it was suspended or failed to achieve the desired effect solely through circumstances independent of the perpetrator's will.
Which would apply to this case.
Germany defines it as:
A person attempts to commit an offence if he takes steps which will immediately lead to the completion of the offence as envisaged by him
Which again would apply to this case.
Italy has a similar definition (Article 56 of their penal code) but as I can't find a direct English translation.
Just for fun I also looked at Georgia (Attempted crime shall be a deliberate action that was designed to perpetrate a crime but the crime was not completed
), Portugal (Attempt exists when the agent performs acts for the execution of a crime he has decided to perpetrate, which he failed to consummate
and a couple of explanatory pieces), Hungary (Any person who carries out an act with intent to commit a premeditated crime, without finishing it, shall be punishable for attempt
) and Spain (An attempted offence takes place when a person begins to perpetrate an offence by direct action, perpetrating all or part of the acts that objectively should produce the intended result, and notwithstanding this, such is not attained due to causes beyond the control of the principal
I can't find any jurisdictions, penal codes or case law from continental Europe that would indicate that circumstances such as Kythia described wouldn't be classed as "attempt".
Different countries might take different approaches on that, just like they do on assisting a crime in such a way that you actually share the full culpability of the act. Like, I understand in the US you might get sentenced to murder for having helped deflect the attention of somebody in e.g. a car in a way that soon enough offered an option for somebody you were with to move to shoot him (or let's say the guy dies during a breakout attempt, his car being bumped aside etc by a gang of bank robbers, though he isn't actually shot) even if there's been no real proof that you were party to such a plan, knew of it or had bought into it. Some other countries do not view that kind of loose "assistance" as constituting joint culpability in the act of murder itself. Not in general anyway.
I'm not sure which laws in the US you're referring to; the aiding and abetting/accomplice/accessory type laws all require the aider and abettor/accomplice/accessory to have been involved in an original, planned crime to be liable for the unplanned crime. So if I talk to a third party to distract him so
that my friend can punch him... but instead of punching him he pulls out a gun and shoots the third party (killing him) I'd be liable for murder despite not having intended or wanted the person to be murdered. However if I simply talked to a third party (which does distract him) but I have no knowledge or intention of helping my friend punch him and my friend then shoots him I wouldn't be liable; there needs to be an original, planned offence for the liability for an unplanned offence to be spread.
Insofar as we're talking about those aiding and abetting/accomplice/accessory type laws, every European penal code I'm aware of (as well as UK law) impose criminal liability for an unplanned offence on those who engaged in the planned offence in the same way. So in a planned bank robbery it's not a defence for the getaway driver to say he had no idea that one of the bank robbers was going to shoot someone and never intended for it to happen; he's still liable for murder.
If you're threatening somebody with a plastic water pistol painted in black so that it's supposed to look like a real gun, are you actually guilty of assault with a lethal weapon? Legal question, rather than just a common-sense question.
Unlikely; in general assault with a deadly weapon (a subset of assault in the first/second degree in US law) requires there to be some physical injury; if you're just threatening someone it would instead be a simple assault/threatening/menacing charge (although the victim's perception of there being a firearm involved may raise the punishment). However in crimes like armed robbery every jurisdiction I'm aware of treats a toy/imitation weapon as if it were the weapon in question; it is no defence to a charge of armed robbery (or the equivalent) that the "gun" you used was actually a water pistol made to look like a gun.