Culpability

If there is a person in distress, imminent danger, or peril, and you have the means/capasity to help them but do nothing, are you responable for their death?

World English Dictionary responsible (rɪˈspɒnsəb ə l)

— adj (usually foll by for ) (foll by to )
1. having control or authority (over)
2. being accountable for one's actions and decisions (to): to be responsible to one's commanding officer
3. (of a position, duty, etc) involving decision and accountability
4. ( often foll by for ) being the agent or cause (of some action): to be responsible for a mistake
5. able to take rational decisions without supervision; accountable for one's own actions: a responsible adult
6. able to meet financial obligations; of sound credit

So technically No.

but who am I kidding...

To me, you are responsable.

Well in my opinion..
If you are in good terms with the victim then u are, it'll be better to try help the s/he than regretting doin nothin for later o.o

No. If it seems like a good idea to you, then by all means to it, but it's not your individual responsibility to save the life on someone because you happen to see them in peril.

If you stand there and watch, no, but you look like an asshole, and if you did all you could and they still died, well hopefully they did a bit more comfortably.

If you are not the cause of why he/she is in that kind of situation, then it's not your fault nor your responsibility. I maybe sound like a jerk here, but helping others in need is optional.
You will ? You won't ? Your choice.

Yes/No. It depends on the situation. In Christians, it is called as a sin of omission. But philosophy is a very wide area of thoughts that can make your stand right or wrong.

No. If I was the cause maybe it was my fault, like I could of saved them from drowning, but if they were going to get shot why would I want jump infront of the bullet?

If you are the cause, then yes, it's your fault (at the very least, partially), not "maybe". Also, I really don't get what are you trying to say by the later statement. Care to rephrase ?

OT :
No.
As long as you are not the cause, then the case will be optional.

As long as you're not the direct cause, no. Feel free to ignore. If you can live through the guilt trip that is.

It depends on how you look at it. If the person was THAT much in danger, it would be normal for anyone to not want to get directly involved, no matter how capable they are. After all, one would priorize one's own life over another. That being said; no. You won't be responsible for that person's death, however, you'll be the person who COULD have saved that person from dying.

Anyone who says yes is either a hypocrite or apathetic.

There are people starving in the world, but you're in front of a computer, obviously NOT. Why aren't you saving everyone say, in africa?

Probably one of those "ignorance is bliss" kind of cases.

I wont get shot and die for someone else.
That being said, maybe for a really hot chick. And I am Serious about that.

Yes you’re responsible
but im gona let them die I don’t want to be sued. Even if you save them and they still die the relatives blame you and sue you, and if they live same stupid thing I hate that about alot of Americans Hell Let Me Die (thats how most people got there money that live around me)
Screw The lawers

I don't meant to offense.
but you will be most likely die as a loser if that's the case.

and I really hope that you were joking with it.

To a certain extent, we could be partly responsible for the outcome.

Looking at it from another angle, will we be putting ourselves in danger by helping another person? Wouldn't the other party be responsible for the outcome because the event first started out with them?

Lesson Learned: Philosophical questions are always difficult to answer. :eng101:

[font=Verdana][color=green]No, you're not. Back to the law...yay~

According to the English Legal System, a person cannot be guilty of murder by omission. Omission is, basically, when the defendant fails to do something, rather than doing something which causes the crime. Omissions can work for other crimes i.e. assault, but it will never work for more serious crimes. Why? Because no-one should be legally obliged to do something to help someone else.

However, there are always exceptions to this strict rules.

Take, for example, a father and his child. If his son starts to drown in a pond, and no-one -including the father- does anything to help him and he dies, the father is responsible for the death and no-one else. This is because the father owes his son a duty of care. By failing to save his son, he breached the duty, which resulted in the sons death. He's guilty.

This duty of care can also be applied to other situations. For example, a life guard at a swimming pool, or a doctor and his patient, but these involve technicalities.

Also, there's such a thing called taking on the duty of care. This would happen where, and let's go back to the drowning child, a person attempts to save the child. By attempting to save the child, a duty of care has been established. However, and this area of law makes me laugh, if the person were to fail to save the child and the child dies, the person becomes liable for that death. Now, who's more culpable? The person who tried to save the child, or the person who just let him drown? Legally, the first person, but morally, surely the second person?

So, if you're in England and Wales, and you see a person drowning in a pond, let them drown if you don't want the risk of being guilty of homicide. If you want to be a hero with no reward, feel free to jump in.

There are no Good Samaritan laws in England and Wales? I find that odd.