10 ms·

Example?

by efavdb 2y ago

Example?

lazide 2y ago
Not the poster, but some examples; - emotional support animals - take a penny, leave a penny - ‘discretion’ and speed limits - qualified immunity
s1artibartfast 2y ago
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 2y ago
  > 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.
  - tdeck 2y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
  - brabel 2y ago
    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 2y 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.
      - genewitch 2y 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?
        rendall 2y 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.
        mcny 2y 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.
  - alienthrowaway 2y ago
    > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlE52qKKuw
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      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.
      - alienthrowaway 2y ago
        >[...] 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.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Indeed, we are in agreement. they were in disbelief responding to my parent post.
      - ecb_penguin 2y ago
        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.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    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.
  - GuB-42 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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.
      - ninalanyon 2y ago
        > There need not be a written law. It's called common law. Really? What would be the charge?
  - dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
    > Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. Then you're living in a fantasy world.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pdpi 2y ago
A classical example of legal bad behaviour is that of patent trolls.
- biofox 2y ago
  For illegal good behaviour, see Aaron Swartz
  - jajko 2y ago
    and reverse for legal bad behavior is how he was treated by system
    - pcdoodle 2y ago
      “There is no justice in following unjust laws.” -aaronsw
dtech 2y ago
Making food in public for homeless people runs afoul of food safety laws
- thatguy0900 2y ago
  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.
harrall 2y ago
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.
- rlpb 2y ago
  This example does not illustrate what do you think it does. The first is technically illegal. The second is not only within the law, it's required by the law. The speed limit isn't a limit and in most jurisdictions, the law requires you to reduce to a safe speed when the conditions require it. The speed limit is not the only law that dictates a legal speed.

Example?

by efavdb 2y ago

Example?

Not the poster, but some examples; - emotional support animals - take a penny, leave a penny - ‘discretion’ and speed limits - qualified immunity

s1artibartfast 2y ago

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 2y ago
> 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.
- tdeck 2y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
- brabel 2y ago
  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 2y 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.
    - genewitch 2y 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?
      - rendall 2y 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.
        mcny 2y 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.
- alienthrowaway 2y ago
  > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlE52qKKuw
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    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.
    - alienthrowaway 2y ago
      >[...] 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.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Indeed, we are in agreement. they were in disbelief responding to my parent post.
    - ecb_penguin 2y ago
      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.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  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.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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.
    - ninalanyon 2y ago
      > There need not be a written law. It's called common law. Really? What would be the charge?
- dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
  > Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. Then you're living in a fantasy world.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pdpi 2y ago

A classical example of legal bad behaviour is that of patent trolls.

biofox 2y ago
For illegal good behaviour, see Aaron Swartz
- jajko 2y ago
  and reverse for legal bad behavior is how he was treated by system
  - pcdoodle 2y ago
    “There is no justice in following unjust laws.” -aaronsw

dtech 2y ago

Making food in public for homeless people runs afoul of food safety laws

thatguy0900 2y ago
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.

harrall 2y ago

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.

rlpb 2y ago
This example does not illustrate what do you think it does. The first is technically illegal. The second is not only within the law, it's required by the law. The speed limit isn't a limit and in most jurisdictions, the law requires you to reduce to a safe speed when the conditions require it. The speed limit is not the only law that dictates a legal speed.