Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IrishWave t1_itqw4cv wrote

Reply to comment by Xaxxon in Former officer in Floyd killing pleads guilty to state charge by the-dasdardly-puppet

I’ll give you a real world example a buddy of mine had to deal with earlier this year.

Crew went out to fix wires on a telephone pole. One worker went up the pole to make the repair. That worker was not wearing the appropriate gear for working around live wires, and failed to follow policy around what could and couldn’t be touched when making this repair. They were electrocuted to death because of this. The rest of the crew, including the crew supervisor (blue collar team leader) weren’t properly paying attention and failed to notice either mistake even though they were all trained to do so.

Do you charge the rest of the crew with manslaughter for not following proper policies and intervening when a co-worker was dealing with a dangerous and potentially life-threatening scenario? If not, what would be your logic for differentiating the two scenarios?

2

Xaxxon t1_itr1m1p wrote

The difference is that you have a long time to observe clearly that the thing being done is very very wrong and is slowly killing the guy after it actually starts. No one is saying the guy should have recognized the possibility of danger when they started their patrol.

After it was clear to EVERYONE that they were killing the person, you would be expected to intervene.

If the guy in your example were slowly being electrocuted over the course of multiple minutes (I know that's really not a thing) and there were a "turn off the power" button right next to everyone and they didn't push it, THEN you talk about charging (ha!) the people with a crime. Even more if instead of a worker they forced a bystander onto the electrical lines and electrocuted him.

Also, and not really relevant:

> electrocuted to death

A bit redundant. "shocked" is the word for it that doesn't require dying.

2

IrishWave t1_itrbezb wrote

The two problems with this logic being the rule of law:

  1. You’re disregarding the inherent danger aspect. Line repair work is a far more dangerous job than being a cop, and exponentially more people die fixing phone/power lines than they do while getting arrested. Lineworkers are trained to know one wrong step can be an instant death and that there is no second chance if you mess up. It’s also not an instant mistake like you’re making it out to be. Proper equipment and precautions are supposed to be taken before the worker heads up to the wires, allowing for a similar window for others to catch the mistake.

  2. Somewhat combined with the above, this logic would suggest far more doctors, nurses, and pharmacists should be criminally held accountable for mistakes, especially if you’re ignoring the inherent/imminent danger aspect. Many of their patients are already worried about death, and they’d have far more than ~10 minutes of being told someone isn’t well to identify and correct a mistake.

1

Xaxxon t1_itrooeu wrote

This is not a “mistake”. This is callous disregard for human life.

I’m honestly baffled how you’re even able to come anywhere near equating these things.

1

IrishWave t1_itrrktu wrote

Who determines the difference between callous disregard and mistake and how do you write a law to differentiate the two? If you’re the spouse or child of the dead lineman, are you not going to be calling for justice because coworkers decided to chat about a football game vs. take 15 seconds to follow policy and look out for the worker’s safety?

This also isn’t nearly as black and white as you make it. We had a garbage truck driver in Philly kill a cyclist because they forgot to signal they were making a turn. Also had a train conductor in Philly approach a turn at too high of a speed leading to a derailment and several deaths. Student died at my college during a football practice because they went on a lift in high-winds and no one thought to tell them not to. In all three of these instances, you had plenty of people calling for criminal charges against everyone involved who didn’t view screwing around while driving a train through a city as anything less than a callous disregard for human life.

1

Xaxxon t1_its3ryh wrote

Having a long time after the murder began to easily stop the murder is how you differentiate.

It’s VERY simple.

Other things involve doing something dumb but it not being blatantly obvious that it would 100% kill someone.

The guy stood by while the cop took minutes to slowly kill the guy.

Holy shit. I’m done. You’re making me dumber by trying to argue these other things are anywhere near the same.

1

IrishWave t1_its8bf1 wrote

Do you even realize how narrow your ignorant definition is? You’ve somehow made this so specific that the cops in the Freddie Gray case did nothing wrong in your eyes while leaving it open enough for an overzealous DA to charge a doctor.

1