Guilt by Association?

This sprang up from the Can You Waste Talent? thread.

You're walking down the street when you hear noise from a nearby alley. You peer in and see one man stabbing another to death. You walk away; you do nothing. You go home and act like you never saw it.

Are you indirectly responsible for that man's death?

The law says, yes, you are. If you do not attempt to stop someone from hurting/killing another, then you are an accessory to the crime. But that doesn't mean you have to wrestle the murderer and try to get him to stop. You just have to try to help. The easiest way would be to call 911 and tell them what's happening. This law doesn't just apply to murder though; if you let a wanted person stay with you, knowing that he is wanted by the police, that is illegal.

It makes sense, doesn't it? Doing nothing is an action that you have control over. If you walk away from someone being hurt, you are making the decision to not call the police or try to get help. While the culprit should bear most of the blame, you should share a little bit of it. You should be held accountable. I wouldn't call you a murderer if you didn't help, but I certainly wouldn't want to be around you at all.

Here's a less extreme example: Your friend throws a party, and a lot of people are there, including you. At one point, you're in your friend's bedroom, where some people are talking away from the noise of the music. You see another friend pick up your friend's wallet (which was laying on a table), look inside, and take out some money. You say nothing and do not stop the person. The next day, your friend discovers that his money is missing. He confronts the person who did it (lucky guess on your friend's part), and the thief tries to drag you down with him: "He saw me do it and didn't say anything." Does your friend have the right to get mad at you? Or at you not at fault at all, because you weren't the one who stole the money?

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't there something like 'you are obligated to help but this obligation doesn't apply if your actions might endanger your own life or health'? Trying to stop the culprit would, in case of seeing someone getting stabbed, surely endanger your health/life, so I say just calling ambulance/police and waiting until the attacker gets away is perfectly acceptable by law. Yeah, moralists might say that it's cowardly and shit, but seriously... you would risk your own health/life for some complete stranger? I guess not.

If you just see a stabbed person (or anyone who clearly need medical care ASAP, or being hurt) and completely ignore them, then I say you should be held responsible if anything happens to them.


I'm not entirely sure on this one. I'm actually pretty used to the fact that my former classmates were visiting others wallets without asking and there was no problem with it, since they did it mutually and more or less knew who took what from whom. Not to mention they were from families where a few tens of dollars were just a daily cash from parents... I sometimes share my wallet with my best friend and our accounting is as clear as day. My point is, due to my circumstances, I just take it as a normal thing that some people go to others wallets.
In this situation, it would probably depend on WHO took that money and if the 'robbed' friend asks or wonders why there's less money in his wallet. If any question would arise from him, I would speak immediatelly, but if he says nothing... it's none of my bussines.

Trying to stop by yourself, say a mugging, is in my view, a stupid thing to do since you might fail and anger the culprit, to the point where he ends up killing not only you, but the original victm as well, while had you choosen not to interfere, the criminal might have just taken the money and left.

The situation may become a little more complicated from a moral standpoint when a person is subject to rape or other heinous crimes. The best course of action would be to call the police, but alas, they might fail to reach the scene on time.

Now, if one sees an act of violence towards another, and deliberately chooses not to do anything, then I'll go with the law and while not as serious as actually performing the act itself, judge them guilty. Prison, for these kinds of people however, would be a waste. Put them to do community work or some other productive thing. [size=10]Actually, even that is too extreme.[/h]


And if a friend of mine saw another stealing from me and did nothing, I would get pissed, granted we both knew the robber(as a friend)beforehand. If we didn't then I don't thing I'd get angry.
[size=1]Edit: The fuck did I just type?[/h]

I wont put myself in danger for someone I dont know or dont care about at all...
Call the police/ambulance, sure! But doing more than that is stupid and unreasonable in nine and a half out of ten times.

Following the logic of this blame passing game, calling the police is the best thing to do. If they don't make it, it's their fault.

If I am carrying sufficient force so that I feel I may end the conflict [robbery/rape/random beating] without causing greater harm to the victim, myself, and other bystanders due to my intervention, then I will intervene.
Sc-1
There is a thug holding a woman at knife-point. I have a 1911 under my jacket*.


Sc-2
Several thugs are beating someone, wearing loose clothes, and appear to be in a gang. I have a 1911.


Sc-3
Multiple tangos, 1-3 holding firearms on an individual. Tangos have no appearance of law enforcement and the circumstances suggest criminal activity and not arrest.


*and the CCW license in my wallet



And anyways, you know the saying, right?

I really don't think that you can be guilty too just because you witnessed the crime and didn't do anything about it. Imagine this, a guy goes into a mall and starts killing people. say the security arrives and apprehends the person, but many are dead. So, from what you are saying, do you think that all the people who survived are guilty because they didn't help prevent the deaths of the innocent?

Now that you've said it, no these people are 100% free of charge. However, I'd feel pretty bad about myself for not stopping something I could've, but then again, how would I know what was preventable.

@Harmonian: What about the Good Samaritan law? Does it still exists?

This is pretty much how I feel about the situation^

I Would never try to be the idiot hero who jumps in front of a gun to save someone I don't know. I would never leave them to die as well!
I would attempt to call the cops, and keep an eye on the person from a safe distance until the area is safe!

It seems there's a bit of confusion here.

With my murder in the alley example, I wasn't saying that people should try to stop the killer or be arrested. I was saying that people should, at the very least, call the cops. (Which isn't a hard thing to do nowadays since the majority of people have cell phones.) "At the very least" does not mean "If you do only this, you're a coward." If that's the best you can do, there's nothing wrong with that. So, the question is, should you be blamed for not helping someone, despite there being no danger to you and no hard work required? (If dialing 911 [if you are anywhere near a phone] and saying, "There's a person being killed on this street" is considered hard work, then I don't know what to say.)



I was worrying not about legal ramifications but about the morality of the issue, as well as trying to make it more personal and less extreme. With the murder idea, people can easily dismiss it; with the stealing idea, it's easier to approach the situation realistically and calmly. It's been said that morality doesn't change just because the situation is grander or smaller.

First Shaggy you always come up with good questions

Now to answer the question

Are you I say yes because in any case you should have called the police it's not like you will be punished for it later on.

As for the second question you should step in to stop the person for stealing from a friend frankly I would have at least said something.



That's not entirely true what is called "duty to rescue" forces people in some situations to intervene.
For instance rescue workers like police, fire fighters, EMT's have an obligation under the law to attempt to rescue someone in a situation that fits their job description. (person having a hart attack EMT steps in)
Spouses have a duty to each other in all U.S states under the law.
Parents have an obligation under the law to help their children while they are still minors.

Still there are at least 6 U.S states (I think more) that have "Good Samaritan Laws" not to be confused with the laws of the same name. That force you to intervene if someone even a stranger is in danger. (My state is one of them)
Though I still believe (not sure) that the "reasonable danger" policy still applies to all of them.
"Reasonable danger" being that if you would be seriously hurt or die in the act of saving a person then your allowed a pass.

That's something that gets me to rage pretty hard, probably the number one thing to get me to rage.

Recently there was a 15 year old girl who was gang raped by 5 guys at their school for homecoming. Over a dozen people stood there and fucking watched. Where were the teachers? Where were the supervisors? They stood and watched too? Their responsibility was to keep the dance safe for those students and they all fucking watched 5 guys rape a 15 year old girl.

It makes me rage so hard, because out of all those people not ONE even lifted a finger to text message asking for help. You don't even need to call anyone anymore, you can just text for help, its not that fucking hard.

If the law were up to me, every single teacher who witnessed it and didn't do anything would have lost their license to teach, every single person who witnessed it would have been pressed charges for not doing a single thing. It went on for over 2 fucking hours.

It's just disgusting, there's been so many counts where people have needed help and nobody does anything.

I'm not a bleeding heart type when it comes to the law, but this one just seems like common sense.

There are a lot of cases just like that. There's a famous name, the name of which I cannot remember, where a woman was being murdered on the street and screamed for help. No doubt, she was heard by the people in the surrounding apartment buildings, but nobody tried to help her or called the police.

In such situations, I think the police basically throw up their hands and say that there's nothing they can do to the people who did nothing. With a large group like that, you cannot be sure who did see/hear it and who did not. The only way to be sure would be to have video of the event or something. Without that, any decent lawyer would get the person off free.

Also, people tend to assign responsibility to other people. With the murder in the street, each individual could have thought, "Surely, someone else will call the police." Because they assume that no one would ignore such a situation, they feel that they do not have to take action, when in reality, everybody could be ignoring the situation, wanting somebody else to take action.