New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Legal Responsibility for Words

Spamature

President
Interesting line of thought (and, for the record, in the case at hand, she was depressed, too). But I decide, instead, based on my near-absolute defense of free speech. You should be free to argue that someone should kill himself -- even someone you know to be intoxicated or depressed. Unless you owe a duty of care to the person (e.g., it's a child, or you're the person's psychologist, etc.), they should be responsible for their own acts.
It a slippery slope in both directions. I don't know if its illegal for a crowd to chant jump to a person on the ledge of building, but we all know it not the right thing to do.
 

Jen

Senator
Baltimore, Dallas, Ferguson, Alexandria for starters. It used to be a list like this took place over a course of a decade or more instead of a few years.
Why does Lefty demand for us to give them lists like that?
No wonder they are referred to as the "low-information" crowd. Or are they just plain stupid?
 

Spamature

President
It's not like Dawg is the only one around here who ever cut somebody....
But he went around bragging about it. Along with his gang affiliation and his status as "tank boss" when he got locked up for it. So the difference is I am not making up what I say about him like he does about me.

We'll the part about his victim being a sleeping hobo is not true. It's just a dig at him because I think it's funny.
 

freyasman

Senator
But he went around bragging about it. Along with his gang affiliation and his status as "tank boss" when he got locked up for it. So the difference is I am not making up what I say about him like he does about me.

We'll the part about his victim being a sleeping hobo is not true. It's just a dig at him because I think it's funny.
Nothing wrong with bragging, as long as you can back it up. The folks who don't like it, are usually the folks with nothing to brag about.
And some of us live in environments where if you claim something, you will get tested... usually right then, right there. So we don't say shit that ain't so.... I don't doubt Dawg.
 

freyasman

Senator
Yeah but the guy looked like he wanted to jump off a building in that apology video.
I didn't watch the "apology", AKA humiliation porn for man-hating Feminist cvnts to get off to.... I'm not interested in that shit.
He should have just ignored them, or told them to go change their tampons and STFU.
 

Arkady

President
Baltimore, Dallas, Ferguson, Alexandria for starters. It used to be a list like this took place over a course of a decade or more instead of a few years.
There was a cluster of protests following some high-profile police shootings, but I'd need to see a more systematic review to have a feel for whether it was more or less common overall. Also, are those "leftists"?
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Ordinarily, the answer would be "no," since there's not ordinarily a legal obligation to be a good Samaritan.

In law school we dealt with a bunch of similar scenarios to grapple with the concept. Picture three scenarios, in each of which there's a child trapped in a well, after having fallen down into it:

(1) You're the child's babysitter, and the child fell into the well when you weren't watching. You spot the child in the well, but don't help and don't tell anyone.

(2) You're a stranger who happens to spot the child in the well. You don't help and don't tell anyone.

(3) You're a stranger who happens to spot the child in the well. When asked if you've seen the child, you say no.

In the classic common law analysis, you'd be guilty of a crime in the first and the third scenario, but not the second. In the first, you owe a duty of care to the child, because you were the babysitter and because it was partly your fault the kid ended up there. In the third scenario, your actions hampered search efforts, giving rise to liability for you. But in the second, you simply didn't act, and traditionally the law lets you do that.

The judge in this case tried to get around that, in this case, by arguing that she was the one who put him in harm's way, by telling him to get back in the car, and thereby she acquired a duty of care to him, and should have gotten help. But I wouldn't be surprised if she wins the appeal, because she didn't really put him in that car. He did. She just advised him to get into it.

That's interesting,and thank you for the tutorial. I think most would agree that what she did was morally repugnant - the legality of it may be another matter. I suppose the argument may be somewhere along the lines of "But for her act.....", but that's for the lawyers and judges.
 

Arkady

President
That's interesting,and thank you for the tutorial. I think most would agree that what she did was morally repugnant - the legality of it may be another matter. I suppose the argument may be somewhere along the lines of "But for her act.....", but that's for the lawyers and judges.
Since there seems to be near-universal agreement that what she did was morally repugnant, I'll play devil's advocate here and make the counter-argument. Someone she loved was suffering terribly and said he wanted to die. For a while she tried to talk him out of killing himself, but over time she came to think he'd go right on suffering terribly if he lived, and so she thought the most merciful thing she could do was help give him the courage to end it. Of course, someone more knowledgeable about mental health issues understands that there were all sorts of unexplored options that hadn't been explored, any number of which may have given him relief from his psychological anguish without ending his life. But she was just a kid at the time. She had the tunnel vision of a kid and just tried to do what she could to guide her boyfriend away from the pain.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Since there seems to be near-universal agreement that what she did was morally repugnant, I'll play devil's advocate here and make the counter-argument. Someone she loved was suffering terribly and said he wanted to die. For a while she tried to talk him out of killing himself, but over time she came to think he'd go right on suffering terribly if he lived, and so she thought the most merciful thing she could do was help give him the courage to end it. Of course, someone more knowledgeable about mental health issues understands that there were all sorts of unexplored options that hadn't been explored, any number of which may have given him relief from his psychological anguish without ending his life. But she was just a kid at the time. She had the tunnel vision of a kid and just tried to do what she could to guide her boyfriend away from the pain.
Well......good luck with that.
 

Spamature

President
I didn't watch the "apology", AKA humiliation porn for man-hating Feminist cvnts to get off to.... I'm not interested in that shit.
He should have just ignored them, or told them to go change their tampons and STFU.
Yeah, he could have told them to STFU. And then he could have found another organization who was landing spacecraft on f'ing Mars.
 

freyasman

Senator
Yeah, he could have told them to STFU. And then he could have found another organization who was landing spacecraft on f'ing Mars.
Because a guy who can help land a rocket on a freaking comet is so easily replaced that they would fire him because some loudmouthed feminist with zero qualifications besides having a bad attitude and a vagina criticized his wardrobe.
Fvck those bitches. :cool:
 
Top