Sorry, not in the mood to entertain any more of your nonsense. As stated, there are malicious acts that you can be charged for. In addition, you can be charged for not being involved in a situation (it's basically the reverse of the good Samaritan law...duty to rescue). Apparently this is hard for you to comprehend as you appear to think everything is black and white with your "personal responsibility" mantra. And then you can't seem to comprehend that no one forced others to take the drink in the Jim Jones example. But it would have been a crime nonetheless. That's because it was essentially brainwashing and the people weren't capable of acting in a rational manner, similar to the bartender giving the drunk person a few more drinks. But, but, but...what about personal responsibility. Yeah, I get it pal. Give it a rest already. I'm done arguing with you.
Personal responsibility only applies to those who aren't weak minded.
If you are ripe for the picking so to speak you're likely to get taken
advantage of. Jim Jones was one of many charismatic people throughout history
who had a knack of forcing people to do his bidding without using force.
As best as I can tell there are only two people who have been convicted of a
crime they didn't commit. One was Jesus Christ and the other was Charles Manson.
Think about it.
Disagree Dave. A friend of mine is an EMT. If he was the only one available in a situation and refused to help with someone having a cardiac arrest, he indeed could be charged. On the other side of that coin, he could not be sued by say family members, if a person died while he was trying to help under the Good Samaritan law. I believe in the situation you brought up, this person was not in control of his mental facilities (similar to the people in all the situations that have been brought up in the examples by myself and a couple of other posters) and I do believe the judge made the right call. If it gets overturned, it gets overturned. But I have no problem at all with the decision. Not everything is black and white like these other two clowns seem to think. Judges will make interpretations depending on the situations. Sometimes they overstep. I don't believe this judge did. Guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on this one.
And there's the rub. They are supposed to follow the law not make
it up as they go along to fit their own personal agenda. Now if she was
convicted by a jury of her own peers that would be a different story but
being convicted by an activist judge doesn't make it in my book.
Did you know that the 6th, 8th, 9th, 5th and 11th circuit courts all have
over a 70% overturned rate, bet you didn't.
Respectfully...
I would argue "good Samaritan laws" as patently unconstitutional. That is, if the word Liberty still means anything. This isn't Singapore where the government tries to legislate politeness.
As Dave pointed out, it would seem this is another example of activist judges overstepping their authority legislating from the bench. Justices like the late great Antonin Scalia would most likely agree with me.
