Except the law won’t agree with you. If you push someone outside in a blizzard where they’re very likely to die, expect to spend some years in prison for some variety of homicide depending on the exact facts and the exact laws of the locality.
Yeah, great advice to not pick fights with people who hold your life in their hands. However, that some decides to take your life, the fact that you annoyed them isn’t enough to keep them out of prison.
Well, if the law says I must actively protect someone who is a threat to me, the law is wrong. We’re not talking about actually harming someone here, we are talking about refusing to allow someone who has just fought with you to stay in your property.
And that person is not in imminent danger, they have all the clothes and possessions that they brought to stay there, which presumably would allow them to survive. If this was about throwing someone naked into a frozen lake or whatever, recklessness might come into play, but that’s not the situation at all.
Lets imagine it with the genders reversed. Should a woman be disallowed from locking a violent, abusive man out of her (not their, her) property if it’s cold outside? The answer is obviously no.
If the other person is an immediate threat to your life, then you can kill them in self defense. If they’re not an immediate threat to your life, then you can’t kill them in self defense. And in scenario 1, we are talking about killing.
And “immediate threat” means they have a gun pointed at you and their finger on the trigger, or they are in the act of coming at you with a knife, or whatever - the fact that they are a potentially dangerous person is not relevant for immediate threat.
Unless there was some reset I didn’t see, the problem here is you’re changing the question from what was asked.
First it said:
“Once there, they have a fight, and break up.”
There was no suggestion it was a physical fight or that she posed any physical threat. If she did, different question.
Then the first of three cases said:
“(1) They are out in some truly life-threatening wilderness, due to isolation or weather, and she’s nearly certain to die of exposure”
How are you not in ‘imminent danger’ if you are ‘nearly certain to die of exposure’? That is ‘the situation at all’ in case 1), ‘nearly certain to die’ is obviously ‘imminent danger’ even if you don’t happen to die.
Seems like you are arguing the second or third cases. But everyone seems to agree the third is not a crime. I think the second could be found to be one as a practical matter if even by an ‘a priori’ small chance the kicked out person suffered death or grave bodily harm in a fairly remote (but generally survivable) area/situation, something people don’t deal with every day. Because that’s just how ‘the law’ (ie the people interpreting it like prosecutors and juries) works in practice. It doesn’t correct well for hindsight when assessing circumstances. But if the person actually didn’t come to harm, and it wasn’t agreed it was ‘nearly certain’ they would, then 2 wouldn’t be found a crime. 1), I don’t see how that’s not a crime.