Discuss
Discuss
Yes, it's a legal question.
As with most legal questions, the answer is "it depends." One possibility is accessory-after-the-fact, but there would be multiple defenses to that.
I'll let the actual crim lawyers weigh in with more detail.
Well of course if you are referring to the police witnessing a murder it is a different matter altogether.
Awwwwkward wrote:
Well of course if you are referring to the police witnessing a murder it is a different matter altogether.
What if it's a third-degree manslaughter?
Awwwwkward wrote:
Well of course if you are referring to the police witnessing a murder it is a different matter altogether.
It certainly is much worse and morally depraved, but crime is committed by this omission?
legal question wrote:
Awwwwkward wrote:
Well of course if you are referring to the police witnessing a murder it is a different matter altogether.
It certainly is much worse and morally depraved, but crime is committed by this omission?
The 3 other officers were complicit in the crime. If I drive the get away car and my robber buddy kills the shop clerk I still get tried for murder.
josh1988 wrote:
legal question wrote:
It certainly is much worse and morally depraved, but crime is committed by this omission?
The 3 other officers were complicit in the crime. If I drive the get away car and my robber buddy kills the shop clerk I still get tried for murder.
Let's leave this current police murder out of the discussion. And your example about driving the car is actively helping the murderer so is completely different.
The hypothetical here is what law is broken if you witness and do not report a murder.
Nor do anything to try and stop the murder.
Not a crime per se.
If you are a witness that is unrelated to the perpetrator, just minding your own business and pretend you did not see it, there is no legal case against you....not that I've heard of anyway.
If you are related to perp in any way, or he confides in you, saying "don't tell anyone", then you can be 'accessory after the fact'. etc etc
I am Sam wrote:
Not a crime per se.
If you are a witness that is unrelated to the perpetrator, just minding your own business and pretend you did not see it, there is no legal case against you....not that I've heard of anyway.
If you are related to perp in any way, or he confides in you, saying "don't tell anyone", then you can be 'accessory after the fact'. etc etc
Interesting, but what if you are related to the perp, he never confides in you and he never asks you not to tell anyone, but you did see it and you don't do anything.
legal question wrote:
I am Sam wrote:
Not a crime per se.
If you are a witness that is unrelated to the perpetrator, just minding your own business and pretend you did not see it, there is no legal case against you....not that I've heard of anyway.
If you are related to perp in any way, or he confides in you, saying "don't tell anyone", then you can be 'accessory after the fact'. etc etc
Interesting, but what if you are related to the perp, he never confides in you and he never asks you not to tell anyone, but you did see it and you don't do anything.
Just post the footage you have and let us finally see what really happened.
Many professions carry mandatory reporting requirements in the job description.
Triathlonsarefake wrote:
Many professions carry mandatory reporting requirements in the job description.
True, a teacher is actually breaking the law of she suspects child abuse and doesn't report it.
Don't know if there is a law about intervening or reporting murder.
I think it would be a reasonable defense to say you did not intervene because you feared that you too would be murdered. If the person has a gun or knife it would be difficult to successfully stop it. Nothing unethical about this.
It is also reasonable to fear that if you were to report it then you would later be killed by the murderer or its associates. Would you feel comfortable testifying against the mafia after witnessing a murder?
brogan1 wrote:
I think it would be a reasonable defense to say you did not intervene because you feared that you too would be murdered. If the person has a gun or knife it would be difficult to successfully stop it. Nothing unethical about this.
It is also reasonable to fear that if you were to report it then you would later be killed by the murderer or its associates. Would you feel comfortable testifying against the mafia after witnessing a murder?
Or if you do turn in the video that you think will justify what actually happens you may be thrown in jail and booked on murder charges. Seems like we need a lot of changes in the law to help allow the public to come forward with video footage. Just imagine how many protesters have criminal activity on their phones from the past week...
brogan1 wrote:
I think it would be a reasonable defense to say you did not intervene because you feared that you too would be murdered. If the person has a gun or knife it would be difficult to successfully stop it. Nothing unethical about this.
It is also reasonable to fear that if you were to report it then you would later be killed by the murderer or its associates. Would you feel comfortable testifying against the mafia after witnessing a murder?
The question is not whether there is a reasonable defense, it's whether you broke the law to begin with. If you are not breaking any specific law, you don't need a defense.
And if there is not a law requiring you to intervene, is the law different if you are a policemen?
It is a crime on the last episode of Seinfeld.