Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If someone is drowning and you refuse to help, are you responsible for his death? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    no it isn't... there is no duty of care among strangers in english law.
    Oh be quiet you.

    And just because there isn't one doesn't mean there shouldn't be.

    It's manslaughter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    And just because there isn't one doesn't mean there shouldn't be.

    It's manslaughter.
    so are you saying it is manslaughter, or that it should be manslaughter? the former is simply false, and the latter irrelevant.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    It is manslaughter.

    Accidental death is manslaughter...
    Yes, accidental death that you caused.
    Let's say two people are walking next to a river.
    Scenario 1: They get into an altercation and one ends up accidentally pushing the other into the river; they then drown. Seems like manslaughter to me.
    Scenario 2: One of them falls into the river, with no influence from the other, and drowns; the other does not save them. How is this manslaughter?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Quite possibly but to complicate this further, what if you have to risk your own life to save that person?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No you are in no way responible, they are completely at fault for their own death.

    I watched a documentary once where this guy in America jumped into a lake to save this girl, she later sued him for rape ann sexual assault because appartantly he handled her inappropriately when he was bringing her out of the water. He was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years (I think) the girl also got a huge amount of compensation.

    Therefore, after watching this If I seen someone drowning, particularly a women I would not jump in and help. I would try and call for help though.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Yes, accidental death that you caused.
    Let's say two people are walking next to a river.
    Scenario 1: They get into an altercation and one ends up accidentally pushing the other into the river; they then drown. Seems like manslaughter to me.
    Scenario 2: One of them falls into the river, with no influence from the other, and drowns; the other does not save them. How is this manslaughter?
    Hi btw

    Ok, you did cause it if you are staring at someone die...
    you can't just use logical reasoning and your personal bias to answer this if we're discussing law....

    During prosecution questions will be asked to witnesses and defendant: did you see what happened? Can you swim?

    It's why many people are advised not to stand and make testimony, because of self-incriminating evidence, even if they are presumed innocent by everyone and oneself lol I watch trials and love seeing things unfold like such.


    But on to your scenarios:
    ok well now you're discussing irrelevant stuff....and bringing in details that create completely different scenarios which I never stated were manslaughter.

    Back to this scenario: this is manslaughter, involuntary. Become a lawyer, claim it, and see how you win.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. A similar situation occurred on Orphan Black - a character got their scarf stuck in the disposal unit in their kitchen, and they were being strangled. Alison Hendrix was there during the entire thing, and had easy access to the switch to turn the disposal unit off, but chose not to, and let the other character die. It's the same as in the swimming scenario, and they are responsible for the death because they could've stopped it if they wanted to.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Quite possibly but to complicate this further, what if you have to risk your own life to save that person?
    Then don't. The op didnt bother to detail the scenario.

    If it's like a flood or something, I'm saving my skin and the children in my family. That is it if the risk is incredible.

    If it's just a lake, the pool, the beach, the tub, and someone can't swim, and I'm laying down relaxing and can swim, a lifeguard, a stranger, a friend, and just watch them drown, I would expect the police at my door very soon.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Back to this scenario: this is manslaughter, involuntary. Become a lawyer, claim it, and see how you win.
    very bad advice. to prove causation for an omission:
    It is necessary to prove to the criminal standard that but for the omission the deceased would not have died.
    Source: CPS

    In this scenario, but for X's omission to save Y, Y would (still) have died, thus there is no causation (and therefore no criminal offence).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    HEY!
    How come this character is a "his"? What are you trying to suggest here?
    Spoiler:
    Show

    (this is a joke pls don't eat me thnku)
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the level of help you're talking about.

    If you refuse to call for help, or don't throw a life ring (if one is available), then I suppose it's possible. It'd probably be one of those one off cases tbh.

    If you refuse to swim out? No. Just because you can swim, it doesn't mean it's safe to swim out.
    "Reach or throw, don't go" - The American Red Cross

    Ultimately, it's something that should be done on a case by case basis.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is why I hate the internet sometimes. Because people find liberty to defend watching someone die. Really, people?

    So if you're relaxing at the beach or the pool or your child is in the tub...

    you're not going to help if someone is dying simply because you did not push them in??

    In fact, why is this even a thread? How is this now a debate?

    That's enough TSR for me for today.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Hi btw

    Ok, you did cause it if you are staring at someone die...
    you can't just use logical reasoning and your personal bias to answer this if we're discussing law....

    During prosecution questions will be asked to witnesses and defendant: did you see what happened? Can you swim?

    It's why many people are advised not to stand and make testimony, because of self-incriminating evidence, even if they are presumed innocent by everyone and oneself lol I watch trials and love seeing things unfold like such.


    But on to your scenarios:
    ok well now you're discussing irrelevant stuff....and bringing in details that create completely different scenarios which I never stated were manslaughter.

    Back to this scenario: this is manslaughter, involuntary. Become a lawyer, claim it, and see how you win.
    The latter scenario is basically the same as the original scenario though. Someone is drowning and you don't save them, even though you could. That is all the available information. There is no reason to believe your actions led to the person being in the water in the first place, in which case, you cannot be considered to have killed them in any sense. I don't have to be into law to easily find the legal definition as, in simplest terms, 'the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" ' Yes, you might be able to use someone's failure to help as evidence of their original culpability, i.e. it implies they probably had something to do with the person drowning in the first place, to convince a jury that they are guilty of manslaughter, but the actual act of watching someone drown without helping is not manslaughter by definition; you'd have to have pushed them in yourself. Involuntary manslaughter still requires you to have actually killed someone. By no stretch of the imagination is not saving someone's life directly killing them.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    This is why I hate the internet sometimes. Because people find liberty to defend watching someone die. Really, people?

    So if you're relaxing at the beach or the pool or your child is in the tub...

    you're not going to help if someone is dying simply because you did not push them in??

    In fact, why is this even a thread? How is this now a debate?

    That's enough TSR for me for today.
    Of course it is utterly reprehensible to just allow someone to die when there is no risk for yourself, but "responsible" has many connotations; e.g. legally responsible vs. morally responsible.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm guessing there would have to be witnesses.

    So who has responsibility for the guys death, whoever's physically closest?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    So if you're relaxing at the beach or the pool or your child is in the tub...

    you're not going to help if someone is dying simply because you did not push them in??
    then it's different because parents have a duty of care towards their children, thus an omission to save their child in this scenario would confer criminal liability.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No, not intervening is not the same thing as causation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    This is why I hate the internet sometimes. Because people find liberty to defend watching someone die. Really, people?

    So if you're relaxing at the beach or the pool or your child is in the tub...

    you're not going to help if someone is dying simply because you did not push them in??

    In fact, why is this even a thread? How is this now a debate?

    That's enough TSR for me for today.
    This is why I hate the law sometimes. Why does someone have to be at fault for everything?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callicious)
    If you refuse to help yet you're able to swim, that sort of situation, I'd think it terribly amoral. Personally speaking I can't swim; I'd still risk my life to jump in to whatever body of water it is and probably die trying to flail like a Magikarp trying to save the person.
    You can't swim? Man, go out there and learn! It opens up so much
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SCIENCE :D)
    This is why I hate the law sometimes. Why does someone have to be at fault for everything?
    It is a general principle of English law that there is no criminal liability for omissions - so don't hate the law!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.