A spin off of mangetout’s thread about seeing a stricken climber on Everest.
Moving the scenario to a man drowning, not a stricken climber. I’m sure you’ve all heard the urban legend about Phil Collin’s track In the Air Tonight; supposedly Collins sees a swimmer get himself into trouble. A man on the coast near enough to help the swimmer just stands there and watches said swimmer come to a watery end. In a bit of drama, Collins somehow finds the man’s name and address, sends him a ticket to a concert and performs the song to him in spotlight. When it’s finished the police arrest him/he runs off and tops himself.
It’s all bullshit, but the scenario is comparable to the Everest thread. Assume that the observer hasn’t actually done anything to facilitate our swimmer getting into difficulty, but does jack shit to help him either. What’s he guilty of?
You’re using a pair of binoculars to perv on a nudist beach and observe the whole incident, being to far away yourself. There’s nobody else around either.
Made the poll two parts; the first bit is what you think he’s legally guilty of, the second part is what he’s morally guilty of.
Whether he’s guilty of a crime depends on the circumstances and the part of the world the incident takes place in. Some countries and some states have “Good Samaritan” laws that require people to rescue (usually, I think, only if they can do so with no risk to themselves). The US is not, for the most part, such a jurisdiction, though I think there are exceptions. For example, I think Las Vegas now requires people to take action if they see an attack on a child after the young man watched his friend rape and kill a girl in a casino bathroom a few years ago but could not be charged with a crime.
That’s Duty to Rescue, a tricky tort law phenomenon that is more applicable if you’re expected to help in a professional capacity (fireman, police etc). Good Samaritan laws protect you from prosecution if you intervene to help.
Surprised you haven’t heard the story JohnT, it’s pretty widespread. Eminem mentions it in Stan. If you give the lyrics another look the interpretation is there - see the lines quoted in the post title.
I have no opinion on ay potential legal wrongdoing. But morally, I guess it depends WHY he didn’t intervene. Was he scared of the water? Did he know how to swim? Was he paralyzed into inaction due to shock? Morally he is guilty of letting a man die who didn’t want to die, IF he knew how to swim, could save the victim without putting himself in danger, and was mentally capable of doing so at the time. It’s not easy to judge the bystander’s motivations, though, as a third party.
Maybe the guy couldn’t swim. If I’m alone on the beach and see someone drowning and I can’t swim, how can I possibly be accountable for that person’s death? If I run or call for help, surely no help will arrive in time to save that person. If I jump in, you’re just going to end up with 2 dead bodies.
Well, I’ve never listened to Eminem, so that doesn’t help, but a reading of the lyrics doesn’t suggest anything like the story told by the OP. It sound more like a guy with serious anger issues who is about to kick another guys ass (likely for fooling around with guy #1’s SO.)
And the phrase “Well if you told me you were drowning… I would not lend a hand” is the equivalent of “If you were on fire, I wouldn’t piss on you to put out the flames”, i.e., a declaration of strong dislike, not a statement of actual events.
It is very dangerous to attempt rescue of a drowning person. If you are not trained how to do it, you risk being drowned yourself. The drowning person is typically in a panic and will grab and claw to get on top of you, holding you underwater. You are never supposed to let the drowning person grab you. You push a flotation device to them and let them grab that.
