3 ms·

> I am trying to point out that suicide is not a reasonable response to the situation Aaron was in. No, you're not. Nobody is claiming that suicide was a reaso

> I am trying to point out that suicide is not a reasonable response to the situation Aaron was in. No, you're not. Nobody is claiming that suicide was a reasonable response to the situation he was in; that's not what you're trying to rebut. What you're arguing against is the suggestion that the overzealous prosecution should bear some degree of culpability for his suicide. Whether his suicide was a reasonable decision doesn't really matter to that question. People do "unreasonable" things all the time, and it is quite ordinary in many circumstances to expect other people to account for that possibility.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
slg 6y ago
>No, you're not. Nobody is claiming that suicide was a reasonable response to the situation he was in; They claimed suicide was a "reasonably foreseeable outcome". My point is that the decision was not reasonable and therefore the outcome isn't to be expected. >People do "unreasonable" things all the time, and it is quite ordinary in many circumstances to expect other people to account for that possibility. Ok, if we are going to hold people legally liable for the most extreme response to their actions, let's build a similar hypothetical. Imagine a similar situation in which a prosecutor is unjustly but legally railroading a person (reminder Aaron was guilty of a crime and no one argues against that, we just argue that the law he broke is unjust). If the person being prosecuted murders the person who pressed charges, does the prosecutor have culpability?