Ok a question in a philoshic argument

Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
21
Is man not responsible for his own actions . That stated here's the ??? If a suspect flee's the crime and a cop of his own choice jumps in front of the car is he not responsible for his own death since the criminal was running away and not running the car at him. Or should the man face murder charges for someone elses action. Here's another question should police dogs be placed on the same level as humans and if killed should the man who killed the dog be jailed for the rest of his life over a dog.

ps. sorry if I miss spelled anything
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
1,163
Just my opinions...

We are responsible for our actions.

My former brother in law once hit a little girl who jumped out into the road from between two parked cars. Because he was doing the speed limit, he was not charged or liable. If he had been been going over the speed limit at all, he would have been in trouble.

Thankfully, the girl was not seriously hurt.

The man would be responsible for the officers death, since he was probably speeding, and committing a crime by fleeing the scene. He should not, in my opinion, be charged with first degree murder, but he certainly could be charged with some lesser version of murder, and certainly manslaughter.

As far as the dog goes, I don't understand what the arguments might be. my only thought is that animals should not be considered as equivalent to human beings.

The general principle seems to be this. If you are obeying the law, and something bad happens by accident, you cannot be charged with wrong doing. If you are breaking the law in any way, you are taking a risk, as unintended consequences that result from unlawful behavior can and sometimes will be laid to your account, the idea being that if you had not done that unlawful deed, then the bad things that followed would not have happened.

take care,

Tom
 

Rusty

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 1999
Messages
8,911
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Albert Einstein

When we see ourselves as a part of Einstein's whole, we can accept Universal Responsibility for creation of a better Universe. We can plant seeds which come to fruition after our deaths for the benefit of others. To do this we must tend the garden of our own souls to rid them of weeds planted by those who came before us.

So some of life we have no control over. Good, bad, it just is! That's reality.

As we learn to redefine reality, some of our lives come under our control to create benefits for happiness or sorrow for us and others. ( Sowing the seeds of both good and bad in our lives as we learn and grow in compassion and wisdom. )

And in other ways we experience the harvest others have planted. Bad and good.

Here endeth my time on the soapbox.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Seen on a T-shirt:

People like you
are the reason
people like me
need medication!
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
13,180
Depending on the circumstances the criminal may be guilty of reckless driving, or second degree murder. The police person would be guilty of poor judgement.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
21
To ponder one own path in life and judge it truthfully is hard for all mankind
be cause he looks to the inperfections of others instead of his own heart .Thanks again for your answers.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
98
To chime in with Gravertom
I believe the answer of the question lies in the search for causation.
the criminal created the circumstances of the officers death by his own criminal actions. It follows that if the criminal had not commited the crime then the situation that preceded would not have taken place or would have been considered an accident; no matter how ill advised the officers actions were.
On the other hand due to the officers training , if he had made a decision that
threatened an innocents life then he would be responsible.

AS far a Police dogs go, I think in most cases they are considered an officer/agent of the law (I have seen some I had rather have ridden with) and any action taken against them is considered an action against an officer.
In all reality though unless the death of the dog was particularly heroic or
horrific then the common sense of the jury/court will usually kick in.

The belief that you are responsible for your actions also carries over into circumstances arising from that action.
BTL ( back to lurking)
 

Rusty

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 1999
Messages
8,911
Just to keep it interesting, the Einstein quote came from Sogyal Rinpoche's translation and commentary on The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying ISBN 0-06-250834-2, HarperSanFrancisco, page 103.

Actually I understand it about as well as I understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Not very much.
 
Top