Comment by brabel

Comment by brabel 15 days ago

10 replies

View on Hacker News

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 15 days ago

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.

Reply View 7 replies
  • genewitch 15 days ago

    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?

    Reply View 6 replies
    • ecb_penguin 15 days ago

      > 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.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • rendall 15 days ago

      > 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.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • mcny 15 days ago

        > 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.

        Reply View 2 replies
[removed] 15 days ago
[deleted]
Reply View 0 replies