E-conservatives and libertarianism

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I'm pretty sure if you come across someone being robbed, you're under no obligation to "help" the victim. It's called "being the hero" and it'll just get you injured or killed.

During a robbery? Generally not. Post-robbery?

If the victim needs medical attention and you waltz on by, you might possibly be charged with depraved indifference. [/armchair lawyer]

Not that I agree with that. [/libertarian]

But seriously, if you were to do nothing you'd be an a******. [/human_being]

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

i've never come across anyone that fits your description of "libertarian"...

but i agree with the human being part if that censored part also stands for synonyms of "coward"

 

[Johnny]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Does anyone remember the thread about that woman who hit a homeless guy with her car. He was mortally wounded and went through her wind shield. She then drove the car with him in it and parked the car in her garage where the man then bled to death over a few hours. There was a lot of debating whether this counted as intentional manslaughter or just negligence. People argued that she is not required by law to administer aid to someone wounded and as such can not be blamed for his death but just for the accident itself. I argued that what made it intentional manslaughter was the fact that she first caused his injuries and then transported a mortally wounded person from the open where people could see him and put him in the garage where no person would be able to find him, where he then died from the injuries that she caused.

How would this play out legally?

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

anything other than charging the woman guilty would just be plain ridiculous... for a self-respecting judge and jury

 

[phool]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I think R v Le Brun ([1992] QB 61, [1991] 4 All ER 673, [1991] 3 WLR 653) while distinguishable, should help you answer that one. It's English but, while we classify murder differently, the legal principles should be the same.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Being the cause of someone's death isn't really comparable to randomly encountering someone and not giving aid.

I remember the story about the woman who hit the guy with her car. They even made a movie about it, if you can believe it. I don't know the outcome, but I hope she's rotting in jail.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

phool:

In America you can cause a crime by ommission where no special duty of care (familial, contractual, etc) exists?!

It’s rare, but certain States have such laws on the books. In the vast majority of places, you are not breaking any law if you do not come to the aid of someone in harm’s way with the following exceptions (most of them you mentioned):

• A spouse has a duty to come to the aid of his/her spouse.
• A parent must come to aid of his/her child.
• A common carrier must come to the aid of its customers.
• An employer must come to the aid of his/her employees.
• Emergency workers must come to the aid those in harm’s way that they come across.
• A person who creates a dangerous situation is responsible from coming to the aid of those harmed by the situation.

It should be noted that even though these are laws based on positive rights, libertarians have no trouble with them since they were created by either an implied or explicit contract. It should also be noted that the morality of the action taken or not taken is a separate issue entirely. Libertarians believe in personal morality only.

Consider the following situation. You are standing at a busy corner when a two year-old child comes up next to you. The child starts to go into the street. You can easily prevent the child from going into traffic without you being exposed to any potential harm. Libertarians would argue that there should be no legal obligation for you to protect that child; therefore, if you did nothing and the child was hurt, you acted legally. BUT, I doubt if you would find any libertarian who would argue that your actions (or lack thereof) were moral. Society has every right condemn your actions and every right to ostracize you; they just can’t do it though the legal system.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

phool:

It’s rare, but certain States have such laws on the books. In the vast majority of places, you are not breaking any law if you do not come to the aid of someone in harm’s way with the following exceptions (most of them you mentioned):

• A spouse has a duty to come to the aid of his/her spouse.
• A parent must come to aid of his/her child.
• A common carrier must come to the aid of its customers.
• An employer must come to the aid of his/her employees.
• Emergency workers must come to the aid those in harm’s way that they come across.
• A person who creates a dangerous situation is responsible from coming to the aid of those harmed by the situation.

It should be noted that even though these are laws based on positive rights, libertarians have no trouble with them since they were created by either an implied or explicit contract. It should also be noted that the morality of the action taken or not taken is a separate issue entirely. Libertarians believe in personal morality only.

Explain again how the implicit contract of creating a dangerous situation obligating one to help is not a moral stance?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I think anyone who refuses to give aid is an asswipe. But it shouldn't be criminal.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

i've never come across anyone that fits your description of "libertarian"...

What do you mean?

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

How would this play out legally?

It's murder because she put the individual in the position to require aid. But a passerby that sees the dude stuck in the windshield and keeps on walking, though, has committed no crime.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

WildBerry:

Explain again how the implicit contract of creating a dangerous situation obligating one to help is not a moral stance?

I’m assuming that what you’re asking me is how could requiring that a person who creates a dangerous situation must remedy any harm caused by the situation be anything but a moral stance?

It’s based on the libertarian belief that you have the right to do anything you want to yourself or your property as long as you don’t directly harm others; and, if you do harm others, you are required to remedy the harm that you caused and to mitigate any future harm.

Let me explain using an example. You are walking down your block when you see a dog leave its yard through an open gate and attack a child. If it’s someone else’s dog, you have no responsibility to protect the child from the dog. If it’s your dog and the child opened the gate, you still have no legal responsibility to protect the child. If it’s your dog and you left the gate open, then you created a dangerous situation that ended up with harm coming to a third person. It is also your responsibility to mitigate any future harm caused by the dog.

 

[Johnny]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

It's murder because she put the individual in the position to require aid.

I'd like to think of it that way but can it really be murder if it wasn't planned ahead?

I mean if someone insults me in a bar and I whip out a gun and shoot him then that's not even murder unless I went to the bar with the intent to kill someone.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I mean if someone insults me in a bar and I whip out a gun and shoot him then that's not even murder unless I went to the bar with the intent to kill someone.

Not true.

In any event, she'd probably be guilty of felony murder because she killed someone while committing a felony. That's murder whether or not you intended to kill anyone.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Not true.

In any event, she'd probably be guilty of felony murder because she killed someone while committing a felony. That's murder whether or not you intended to kill anyone.

Sloppy work, law student. =P

What AJ meant was the intent to murder can be formed in an instant, even as you are pulling out the gun. I had a case where they called it murder because the man was attacked in his sleep, then followed his attacker down a hallway and killed them. The 5 seconds walking down the hallway after getting startled awake by an attack was enough time to form the intent to kill.

The felony murder rule simply means that the law imputes your intention to commit a felony into intent to commit murder. This means that if you intend to rape someone, but not kill them, and they die anyhow you are still guilty of intentionally killing them. Its a basic extension of transferred intent in other areas.

In the windshield case, I don't see how that could be murder because there is no intent to kill. I would imagine it was vehicular manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Of course, that's in theory. In reality a jury would just conclude its "really really bad" and slap murder on it, probably by "concluding" that leaving the guy there and hiding the crime is proof that she intended to kill him in the first place.

 

[Module88]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

During a robbery? Generally not. Post-robbery?

If the victim needs medical attention and you waltz on by, you might possibly be charged with depraved indifference. [/armchair lawyer]

I want to see citations for that one. More often than not, that's exactly what happens (or people just freeze up and don't even do any waltzing), but I've never heard of someone being charged because of it. Because it, well, happens a lot. Most people don't know wtf they're doing and are morons, and I would NEVER count on some bystander coming to save me under any circumstance, first aid or otherwise. And if they weren't in danger at any point, I wouldn't even count on them to call 911, either.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Hey, what do you know? Chante Mallard was convicted of murder and is serving 50 years.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Depraved indifference is not a crime, its a mental state in murder. Specifically, its a mental state where you don't intend to kill someone but instead are so depravedly indifferent to hurting them that you are treated as if you intended to kill them. For example, you might be setting off explosives in a neighborhood for kicks, not intended to kill anyone but doing something so stupid, unjustifiable, and reckless than if the explosion killed someone you would be held as intentionally killing them, ie, murder.

 

[phool]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Sloppy work, law student. =P

What AJ meant was the intent to murder can be formed in an instant, even as you are pulling out the gun. I had a case where they called it murder because the man was attacked in his sleep, then followed his attacker down a hallway and killed them. The 5 seconds walking down the hallway after getting startled awake by an attack was enough time to form the intent to kill.

The felony murder rule simply means that the law imputes your intention to commit a felony into intent to commit murder. This means that if you intend to rape someone, but not kill them, and they die anyhow you are still guilty of intentionally killing them. Its a basic extension of transferred intent in other areas.

In the windshield case, I don't see how that could be murder because there is no intent to kill. I would imagine it was vehicular manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Of course, that's in theory. In reality a jury would just conclude its "really really bad" and slap murder on it, probably by "concluding" that leaving the guy there and hiding the crime is proof that she intended to kill him in the first place.

All of this rather misses the real issue; read the case I mentioned. I'd copy it from lexisnexis but that'd probably breach copyright and there's an acceptable court of appeal version googleable.

Depraved indifference is not a crime, its a mental state in murder. Specifically, its a mental state where you don't intend to kill someone but instead are so depravedly indifferent to hurting them that you are treated as if you intended to kill them. For example, you might be setting off explosives in a neighborhood for kicks, not intended to kill anyone but doing something so stupid, unjustifiable, and reckless than if the explosion killed someone you would be held as intentionally killing them, ie, murder.

'Depraved indifference' is a new phrase for me but it seems equivalent to 'closing your mind' to a threat, which implicitly requires recognising the threat; sufficient for any relevant test of intent.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

In the US, court cases are public record - no copyright. Don't know what the UK gov't has said about their records, though.