|
Ummm This is Something of Dilemma
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Don't know about murder 1, maybe murder 2 or 3, likely a manslaughter would be more appropriate.
And yes, she's one serious fugly. Newest candidate for Extreme Makeover. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Don't know about murder 1, maybe murder 2 or 3, likely a manslaughter would be more appropriate.
And yes, she's one serious fugly. Newest candidate for Extreme Makeover. |
See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort. |
Child abuse/neglect then?
I don't know law specifics, and I certainly do not know the specifics of this case, but since she was specifically told that there was a definite risk to the childs' lives, she has to get slapped with something?
Hmmm, I can almost see some parallels to the abortion argument here. Was this your intent to open up that can of worms, you sly dog you? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hmmm, I can almost see some parallels to the abortion argument here. Was this your intent to open up that can of worms, you sly dog you? |
Waaaaa? Sneak in my pro-abortion views under the guise of a somewhat related individual rights issue? Never! :)
No really, I wish I were that sneaky ... |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
don't you have "causing of others death"? that law seems to perhaps fit into this situation... but i donno if it's rigth to do this now, should have forced her before instead in that case...
anyway she was the ugliest girl i have seen for a looong time! :wtf: :wtf: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. I dunno, it would be like charging you for manslaughter because you didn't push someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. I think the only thing that would hold any water in court would be depraved indifference or something of the sort. |
Wouldn't this be quite similar to the "spiritual healing" cases? I thought the courts had ruled that those parents who allowed their children to die by refusing medical attention were guilty of manslaughter. This case would be even more cut-and-dry since it has nothing to do with religion, it's just a ho who didn't want to look uglier than she already was - I'm sure the courts would have no problem calling it manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder.
We're not exactly talking about a fetus here - this was a live child ready to come out of the womb. I don't think there's much room in this case for philosophy - she killed that kid in order to look slightly less uglier than Sin itself, no bones about it. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
See I don't even think that would hold up in court because she did not committ an action that led to a death, her crime was inaction. |
But that defense only goes so far. When you have a duty to perform an act, your inaction is no different from a case where you did something that caused harm.
For example, in the US, if you witness a car accident and see someone bleeding to death on the front seat, it is your right to keep on walking. No liability.
But once you become involved, i.e. trying to open the car door to save the person, you then have the duty to remain there and see that matter through. You have become linked to the matter at hand, and your inaction can be just as bad as an action. Both cause harm, and when you have a duty to a person, both make you liable.
In this case, I think it would be ludicrous to argue that the mother did not have a duty to the child. Therefore, inaction in itself can be the cause for criminal liability.
p.s. That woman should be charged for ugliness as well. Wow... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| But really, guys, you gotta understand her. A caesarian section would ruin her perfect beautiful body! |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
If I'm not mistaken, I believe once a child is deamed "viable" outside of the woman, a person can be charged for murder by directly cuasing its death. I really have mixed emotions about this one though. I believe it is the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment, but I'm not so sure when it pertains to the life of another. I do believe that medicine, being a technology, is not an inalienable right nor should it be forced on anyone. However, it is difficult for me to justify an infants death because a woman refused a procedure that has been around for at least 500 documented years, maybe more.
And guys, she is my mom, and to me she'll always be beautiful. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
For example, in the US, if you witness a car accident and see someone bleeding to death on the front seat, it is your right to keep on walking. No liabilty |
your rihgt, on the other hand the woman and the unborn twins were under the supervision and recomendation of a physician who has his legal obligation to render assistance. Also the "Good Sumaritan laws" have protections that excludes liability to good sumaritans that make mistakes rendering assistance.
as an aside....I would so hit that in the dirtiest way imaginable :whip: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| By the way, how the frick did she get pregnant in the first place?:conf: |
|
|
|
|
