rfenst wrote:They had zero to do with the man getting into the water and did not screw up rescuing him. NO crime, just improperly raised animals.
No duty to rescue in most states.
Florida has a 'Good Samaritan law" that insulates rescuers from liability"under normal circumstances.
some would argue she had nothing to do with him getting into the truck... he was suicidal and certain to attempt suicide with or without her bad advice...
she had no power over him, was not an authority figure, and wasn't even in physical contact with him... I mean, Tonygraz once told me to eat chit and die... does that mean if I do choke on excrement someday, he is somehow responsible?
in both cases, one party observed while another party died... no one had physical contact with anyone else...
in both cases, one party expressed a desire to die followed by a desire not to die... and in both cases the afflicted parties were denied their change of heart...
I dunno, seem pretty similar to me... I understand from a legal aspect they are different, but from a moral aspect, they seem similar to me.... in both cases no one but the dead caused death, but in both cases someone could've prevented death and took active steps not to...
