Does inaction make you a killer? (Details )

If I for some reason I froze and didn’t throw the line, I would have nightmares forever and a day. I’m sure society would condemn me. But I’m not sure if there is a law to punish people who freeze. I’ve read of people who’ve frozen at a time like this. They basically become incapacitated and I try not to judge them harshly, but it is sometimes difficult to do so.

It’s not about freezing necessarily. I mean, if you just decide not to get involved.

This question stems,loosely, from an episode of Breaking Bad. Involves Walt and Jesse’s girlfriend.

@MrGrimm888 Well, in that case, I’m the wrong guy to answer this question. I can’t read minds and I don’t understand the kind of mind you describe. If this could somehow be proven, I would imagine our manslaughter or culpability laws might cover it. The family of the victim might have a civil case.

Civil case? I didn’t think of that. Nice. Thorough as usual.

You can be charged with legal liability under ‘parental negligence law’ if you’re a parent and your minor-age child is the one drowning, not that I sure it will be treated the same as intentional murder.

As for the stranger, it’s easily contested by the witness with various convincing reason and no penalty can be burdened to someone for not taking action to save another person. In the end, each person is responsible for his/her own life. If the situation happens within your own premises and the person died you can still be arrested under suspect of murder.

I have never walked away from such situations. I always help. Stupid? Perhaps. But I can sure as hell look myself in the mirror without the upset at realizing that if I had done nothing, I would be a total asshole. Good Samaritan Law or not. By not helping- why are you wasting perfectly good air? Who needs you around? Karma Loves this kind of quandry. Question back- if someone sees someone – a child or some animal in a hot car, windows up, why do they hesitate? Is it the same “who gives a shit, I’m not getting involved, like the drowning person?

The life ring is there for exactly that purpose and it is expected that it would be used to try save the person from drowning. You shouldn’t put yourself in danger but it is expected you would help. Who wouldn’t?

It’s not the case in the US, but in Argentina, Denmark, France, Germany and Quebec, there is a legal requirement for anyone to assist anybody in mortal danger, unless doing so would put the helper in harm’s way.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

In some countries and states in the US, there are “Good Samaritan” laws that prevent a person who aids someone in distress from being sued for wrongdoing. It is an inducement to action.

@MrGrimm888 IMHO In some instances (like the above) we are responsible for “failing to do” that which would have given the person a chance to live. (tossing out life ring)

If at all possible we should always intervene in an emergency situation yes. However, if I cannot swim and there is no life ring handy, well…two drowned people would not be better than one. haha
I have jumped into action many times in emergency situations, often without taking the proper precautions for my own safety. Once I darted across a highway to assist a downed motorcyclist and only later, realized I didn’t remember if I even looked before running across the road.

Another time I scaled a steep, rocky, cliff side to get to a young guy that had fallen and broken both his ankles while attempting to cliff dive into a mountain river.

Well, in traffic laws there are laws that say if person A caused an accident, but person B could have done something to prevent it, but didn’t, person B is held liable too. I think there would be a hell of a lot of questions. What happens to the onlooker would probably depend on his answers.

@MrGrimm888

I know the scene you refer to and in that situation I would say yes, since it wasn’t just inaction, but a deliberate refusal to act so that the person would die.

But @Darth Algar, he didn’t have anything to do with the circumstances. He simply didn’t act right? He didn’t watch with impunity, he just thought it was a ‘good thing’ ,so he decided not to act. His first instinct was to help. But he fought it back.

He wasn’t a hero, but he didn’t really have anything to do with her death. He simply happened to be there when it happened.

Complete disregard for others to the extent that even a minor inconvenience to save someone’s life is too much bother—is worse arguably worse than many forms of intentional killing.

Inaction here is indicative of sociopathy.

@MrGrimm888

He may not have had anything to do with the causation, but he stood back and watched her die when he could have easily, with little effort, have prevented her death. Worse yet he made the decision to allow her to die because she was an inconvenience to his plans. That’s just as bad murder in my view.

In the USA we generally have no duty to help a person in peril absent what is called a special relationship such as spouses. That is the common law.

It was cold blooded DA. That’s for sure.

@MrGrimm888 In the world IMHO we have a moral obligation to at least TOSS OUT THE LIFE RING!

No.
But here is a terrific discussion of the moral principles involved. A great article.

^Very interesting. ..