| |
| ▲ | harrall 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Going 10mph over the speed limit on a highway, especially because you’re a little late, isn’t a big deal. Going 5mph UNDER in a neighborhood with kids playing around on the street is too fast. | |
| ▲ | dtech 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Making food in public for homeless people runs afoul of food safety laws | | |
| ▲ | thatguy0900 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or, further, taking waste food to distribute to homeless is also against the rules. I used to work at a pizza hut express, we would have small personal pan pizzas in a ready to go area for like 15-20 min then throw them away if they were unsold. At the end of the day you'd have a trash can full of personal pan pizzas that were honestly fine to eat. You'd get fired for doing anything with them though. |
| |
| ▲ | pdpi 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A classical example of legal bad behaviour is that of patent trolls. | | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For which side? Most examples boil down to common sense. Nobody is going to arrest a 14 year old for driving their dying parent to the hospital. Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. There is a difference between law and morality, and humans will use the second to selectively enforce the former. | | |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. | | |
| ▲ | alienthrowaway 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. There's video from a few years back that shows very American cops standing outside a burning house at night, knowing there was a young child still in it. A passing pizza delivery dude[1] rescued the 6-year old, handed her to cop, and ended up requiring hospitalization. In the online discussion, everyone called the rescuer a hero, but I don't recall seeing a single condemnation of the cops (a "first-responder") who didn't enter the burning house. edit:
1. the hero's name is Nick Bostic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlE52qKKuw | | |
| ▲ | kstenerud 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It gets tricky when professions, insurance etc are involved. Example: After a missile attack on a Dnipro gas station in 2022, my wife and her team arrived to see the station burning and 3 people already confirmed dead, but the paramedics would not go inside (they actually weren't allowed to, due to the danger). Her team was military, however, so it was OK to go in and check for survivors. | |
| ▲ | bmacho 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A burning house is not "a pool". In my country you can't watch a kid drowning in a pool* but you are not obligated to help anyone in a burning house, since that would put you in danger too. I assume it is the same ~everywhere in the world, including the US. * assume rescuing would be fairly safe, you are a good swimmer, you have lifeguard education, the weather is nice and the kid is small. AFAIK rescuing drowning people is dangerous as they can pull you down. | | |
| ▲ | mikepurvis 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | A drowning child is of fairly limited threat to an even halfway competent adult swimmer. Even at maximum panic/flailing, they just don't have the mass or strength to prevent you from at least treading water. | | |
| ▲ | sdwr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a good swimmer, and 50 pounds of thrashing, scratching and climbing feels dangerous. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is a very clear difference, if you need to bring yourself into danger (enter a burning house) vs just looking it drown in a pool. | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cops have no legal obligation in the US to protect people from crime. They can watch you be mugged without lifting a finger. They might be fired, but the victim isn't entitled to protection. It basically comes down to positive and negative rights. Someone is at fault if they harm you, but nobody is required to help you, even the government. | | |
| ▲ | ecb_penguin 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If police had a legal obligation to protect people from crime, everyone would have recourse if the police failed to protect them. Bar fight? Sue the police. Domestic violence? Sue the police. It would literally lead to the collapse of the justice system. | | |
| ▲ | betenoire 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Really? You don't think there is a middle ground? Are the cops watching this fight or hearing about or later? |
| |
| ▲ | alienthrowaway 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >[...] but the victim isn't entitled to protection. Which is the my point. If cops don't have an obligation to save anyone from a fire, then why would random Joe get into trouble for similar inaction. GP was mistaken about the laws in America. | | | |
| ▲ | ClumsyPilot 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > nobody is required to help you, even the government Seems very convenient, what am I paying taxes for then? | | |
| ▲ | krapp 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're paying taxes because your government forces you to under threat of violence. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem is, as always, insurance. Entering an unsafe building in an employment context without adequate PPE will kill off any claims for workplace injury. The pizza driver however will most likely be covered by some kind of government scheme, because him getting injured is not tied to his employment. It's the same why store clerks are explicitly banned from intervening with thefts or fights among unruly customers. When they get injured because they willfully entered a fight, they have zero claims to make (other than trying to sue a piss poor drug addict, which is pointless) - only a security guard is insured against that. | |
| ▲ | darkwater 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But there was a fire, so the risk of themselves dying was pretty high!
There is a reason why they get extra, literal medals if they go above and beyond.
Hell, there are situations in which even firefighters would not go easily. |
| |
| ▲ | brabel 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you'll never find a case where someone got in trouble for not being a hero.
I've recently found myself in a somewhat related situation where a guy turned violent in a pub... first I tried to calm him down and almost got hit... he then turned to other guys who were nearby, and one of them got punched in the face and fell unconscious. My family was with me and told me to stay the hell out of it, but I thought that would be extremely cowardly so I jumped at the guy to try to keep him down, but he was strong and I got a punch in the eye which cost me a week with a black eye, but could've easily turned out much worse for me. If I had just stayed quiet, would I be "negligent"?? The police told me what I did was good as I was trying to help someone, but I didn't have any obligation to do it. In the case of a child in a pool, the difference is a matter of degree. What if I am terrified of water myself? Does that justify my inaction? What if I just "froze", which is common in stressful situations. Does anything justify not doing something? | | |
| ▲ | kukkamario 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Here in Finland, there is legal obligation to help people in emergencies, but this does not mean that you are required to danger yourself or act beyond your abilities. So usually only thing you are actually legally required to do is to call for help. | | |
| ▲ | genewitch 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges. For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it? | | |
| ▲ | ajb 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a discussion of the difference between American and German tort law here: https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/how-germany-vie... The difference is that German law is more systematic and includes a general duty to rescue, but this doesn't result in excessive negligence charges, as awards are much smaller. | |
| ▲ | ecb_penguin 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? Obviously not... If you have no means to communicate you are not required to communicate. I don't know why you'd think otherwise. > For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it? This would obviously depend on circumstances and how safe you're able to drive without causing more incidents. This is also why we have courts, and judges, and juries. They look at the totality of circumstances and arrive at judgement. | |
| ▲ | rendall 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges. It's not anything nefarious like that. US citizens and US law enforcement tend to have an adversarial relationship, unfortunately. Finns generally do not. That law is an expression of expectation for behavior in a civilized society, not an opportunity for prosecutorial promotion, as it might be in the US. One must take reasonable steps to save a drowning child, including calling police. In practice, only the most egregiously callous psychopathic misbehavior is punished. Honestly, who doesn't think that a person shouldn't be in jail who would prefer to film and giggle while a child was drowning? A person like that needs a timeout at least. | | |
| ▲ | mcny 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Honestly, who doesn't think that a person shouldn't be in jail who would prefer to film and giggle while a child was drowning? A person like that needs a timeout at least. The difference is that jail in the US is not "timeout". Prisoners may be required to work against their will, which is the carve out in the fourteenth amendment which abolished slavery. People openly joke about sexual assault in prison with derogatory comments like "don't drop the soap". All in all, I think the bar should be higher to send someone to prison in the US. We already have too many people in prison and, in my opinion, many of them are wrongly in prison. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nilamo 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I think you'll never find a case where someone got in trouble for not being a hero Very much depends on country:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue | |
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | GuB-42 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In France at least, and I believe in the US to, it is illegal to not do something if you can. It does not mean that you should dive and bring him back. In fact, it is not recommended unless you know what you are doing as you may put yourself in danger and need rescuing yourself. But if there are other people around who can help and you don't alert them, or if you have a working phone and don't call whatever emergency number is appropriate, than that's illegal. EDIT: It appears that it is not illegal do do nothing in most of the US. The law only protects you from consequences of trying to help. | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It depends what you mean by do. In the US, if you didn't notify police or call for help and just stood and watched while someone died, no jury would pass on convicting you. You're expected to behave reasonably. There need not be a written law. It's called common law. |
| |
| ▲ | tdeck 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I suppose it would depend a lot on the specifics of the situation, but there's less obligation to help others than I would have thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue | |
| ▲ | dontlikeyoueith 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. Then you're living in a fantasy world. | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unless you are the parent, legal guardian, or someone with some other special legal duty to the child where this might be criminal neglect, yes, this is legal in, AFAIK, every US legal jurisdiction — there is no general legal duty to render aid. | | |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | In Germany it is different. - failure to render assistance ("unterlassene Hilfeleistung") up to one year in prison or a fine - Exposed to a life-threatening situation ("Aussetzung", § 221 StGB) – If a person leaves someone helpless in a life-threatening situation, they could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison Edit: Also note that murder would often give you 16 years in germany even though it is called live long. |
| |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The law is not indented as a one stop shop for instructions for life or how to be a good person. The law serves to stop people from damaging each other, not make them help each other. Most of common law is based on the premise you dont owe anyone anything but to be left alone. |
| |
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | lazide a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not the poster, but some examples; - emotional support animals
- take a penny, leave a penny
- ‘discretion’ and speed limits
- qualified immunity |
|