Does that justify not calling for help? “Oh, it’s too late, he drowneded.” I know if I’m in a situation like that, I’m not qualified to decide it’s too late. Even if he was indeed a goner, I’d still feel better if I called 911. At least I know I made an effort, even if it turned out to be in vain.
The problem isn’t what they did or didn’t do, its that their sick fuck mentality exists.
I am not defending those idiots in any way. They should have called 911, they should have been concerned about someone drowning, they shouldn’t have been acting like assholes, but I still don’t think it should be illegal. If you start making laws that require people to act in situations they have nothing to do with you are opening the door to injustice. How will you define when people are required to act? How many people will flood 911 with calls to protect themselves from prosecution when they see a drunk walking down the street? How are you going to determine if people had a reasonable fear of assisting, or even of reporting a crime? When someone falls on the subway tracks and one brave person jumps down to help them does that make everyone else a criminal for not assisting? This case is a bizarre situation where the idiots made it known that they didn’t take any action, maybe a couple of more idiots will be found and prosecuted this way and then after that it will become another case that the OP brought up, the state finding an excuse to prosecute people for something no one knows is even a crime. If those morons hadn’t recorded themselves acting like assholes do you think anyone would be calling for a prosecution? If witnesses say they saw someone else who might have seen an accident but had nothing to do with it do you think the police should start a dragnet to track them down? The moral outrage over this incident is justifiable, making new laws or applying arcane laws to satisfy moral outrage always turns out to be mistake.
That’s what being a civilized society, not a bunch of isolated individuals, entails. We have responsibilities to each other.
Besides this one which of those responsibilities do we enforce? When did the responsibility to act with no possible beneficial results become so paramount while people still starve, die from lack of treatment, kill themselves with drugs, suffer mental and physical anguish on a daily basis, where we fail not just individually to act but as a civilized society? Or is it just that we don’t feel the moral outrage when we fail to assist others as a society instead of individually?
I do not get your reasoning here. There is a legal requirement to report a dead body, so ‘they did nothing illegal’ is wrong on it’s face.
The law being stupid doesn’t make it not a law nor does it make it unenforceable.
The law is NOT stupid. The state has a legitimate interest. The presence of dead body needs to be investigated and the sooner the better. It is, in and of itself, evidence. Family members need to be notified. Not to mention that a decomposing body could have public health ramifications.
Your highway example doesn’t hold either, for a number of reasons.
- Most people DO report these things
- If they didn’t and kept on driving, how would the police know if they saw anything?
- Why would police track them down? It’s a crime, but not exactly the crime of the century.
- If they filmed themselves knowing and not reporting it and posting it on youtube, then they deserve all the trouble that’s coming their way.
And I, for one, am Thankful for that! 
[Bill Graham]"It’s a Free Concert from now on"[/Bill Graham]
no, for the same reason the courts have held that the police have no “duty to protect” you. Not because that isn’t their job, but because they don’t want police departments (or their employing cities/counties) being sued left and right because an officer couldn’t respond in time to prevent a crime.
these kids are pieces of shit (as most teenagers are) but if the state has to work this hard to find something to charge them with, then maybe they shouldn’t be charged.
so? it’s not illegal to be a psychopath. Get it out of your head that “legal” automatically means “right” and “illegal” automatically means “wrong.” I mean, how many illegal things are people trying to legalize?
Rule of law means the laws are applied fairly to all, whether or not their case was covered heavily by the media or not.
Maybe not here, but it certainly is applied. Cases like where someone badly needs first aid, and nobody stops definitely apply.
Thing is, there are already laws like that in Western countries. Germany was already mentioned and we have a law requiring people to help here in Finland as well. Like with other laws the whole judicial system is there to make sure the results are sensible.
AFAIK the law is mostly used here when people flee the scene of an accident or leave a passed out friend out in the winter etc. In a case like this calling the emergency number would’ve been enough, the Finnish version of the law doesn’t require you to risk your own life.
The problem with that is, then you don’t really have rule of law, do you? It then becomes a sort of vigilante, mob based thing, what used to be called “lynch law”. It’s pretty much saying “Even though what this person did wasn’t illegal, we all find it offensive, so we’re going to punish them.” The problem is, though, you shouldn’t punish people for psychotic and abhorrent behavior. You should punish them for illegal behavior. If you really think standing around watching another person die is horrible, make that illegal. But until you do, don’t punish people for it.
Yeah, the point is that these teens aren’t being charged because they didn’t report a death, they are being charged because they laughed while someone died. “Finding something to charge someone with” is a practice that really should be unconstitutional, especially given the huge number of laws we live under in the 21st century. The authorities can get pretty much anyone they want now. For example, you posted a video offensive to Muslims that caused an international incident, so while scouring your Facebook account they also find that you smoke marijuana. So you get arrested for smoking marijuana.
Ten US states have “Duty to Rescue” laws. It’s not at all clear to this layman why Florida’s does not apply here.
Thought experiment:
The kids laugh and joke at the drowning man, but do call the police.
The police arrive, and they discover the man is dead.
Should the same charge be filed? “After all,” says the zealous prosecutor, “the boys did not ‘report such death and circumstances forthwith to the district medical examiner,’ as required by Fl Stat 406.12. I can get 'em for being assholes!”
If a county goes 25 years without a murder, and then someone ends up dead due to the deliberate and malicious acts of another, is charging them with a law that has not been used in a quarter of a century, maybe one that no one remembers the exact code for and has to look up, “finding something to charge them with?”
Do the police report to the district medical attorney? Do the EMT’s, or firefighters? If you have reported it to any proper authority, then you have reported it to the chain that reports to the M.E., I think you’re covered. If you report it to no one, no one at all, then you have not reported it to the M.E. They may be required to give an interview directly to the M.E. so that an autopsy can be performed in context of what the witnesses saw, but that would be later.
That is not finding a law to charge someone with, that is playing semantic games with the law. Then the kids would just be assholes who laughed at someone who was dying, not assholes who laughed at someone who was dying and didn’t lift a finger to help.
Is THAT what the law says?
I retract my statement that the law is not stupid.
I entirely agree with this.
I live in a country where law mandates rendering aid to a person in danger, with stiff penalties for those who don’t. And I totally support this law.
But, I don’t think law should be twisted to obtain a desired result. When the lack of legal requirement to render aid has been mentioned on this very board, I remember people giving precisely this example : “you can drink a tequila on the shore and point and laugh at someone drowning and you committed no crime”. So, it wasn’t exactly a secret that what happened was perfectly legal. If people are now suddenly offended, then it’s time to introduce such a law. But it doesn’t seem from what I read that this is receiving much support.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. Punishing people by twisting laws when you feel like it and let other people doing the same thing walk free the rest of the time. People who don’t want, for whatever reason, to see rendering aid be mandated by law have to live with the consequences of their choice.
You presumably can’t legally prevent such a prosecution from happening. I hope however that a court will also be able to prevent what appears to be a misuse of the law. Who knows what you’ll end up being creatively charged with for having offended someone if we approve of this behavior? I find the idea more threatening than letting some psychos free.
I don’t see how it is creative, or trying to make it stretch. The law says that if you know of a dead body, you need to report it to the appropriate authorities. It specifically says the district ME, but any authority that reports to the ME would suffice. It would be nice if we had a law that also covered their lack of action in someone’s distress, and if there were that law, then maybe it would be pointless to charge them on a lesser charge of not reporting a body. But, in the end I really don’t see how it is “looking for a law to charge them with”, when there is a perfectly valid law, that has perfectly valid reasons for existing, that they violated in ways that are the reason for the law existing in the first place.
In a perfect world, they would put in life vests, bound hand and foot, slathered in bacon grease and tossed in the swamp.
But we all know they are gonna skate. We will have to wait till they commit other heinous criminal acts for them to be punished.
And you know they will.