Jury test

[hrugner]

Regarding only responsibility: Any one of the people she went to aught to have called the police and could have ended the situation. The woman also had several other unexplored options and had the most influence on the outcome of the situation so the bulk of the responsibility is hers.

Regarding guilt, none of the listed people are guilty of anything.

[Celista]

From a legal standpoint the only one who is guilty of wrongdoing is the guy on the bridge. Moral standpoint is subjective; the lover, friend and ferryman didn't likely think there was much of an actual threat (especially the friend who was in love with her...would you knowingly put someone you were in love with in harm's way?).

I think a better scenario would have involved exploring more directly the bystander effect; ie a woman is on a bridge is screaming for help; the woman has a reputation for being mentally unstable. A doctor, priest and an electrician walk by, yet do nothing. It was dark and hard to see on the bridge that evening. Her murdered body is found on the bridge the next morning. Are the bystanders culpable in her death?

[hrugner]

From a legal standpoint the only one who is guilty of wrongdoing is the guy on the bridge. Moral standpoint is subjective; the lover, friend and ferryman didn't likely think there was much of an actual threat (especially the friend who was in love with her...would you knowingly put someone you were in love with in harm's way?).

I think a better scenario would have involved exploring more directly the bystander effect; ie a woman is on a bridge is screaming for help; the woman has a reputation for being mentally unstable. A doctor, priest and an electrician walk by, yet do nothing. It was dark and hard to see on the bridge that evening. Her murdered body is found on the bridge the next morning. Are the bystanders culpable in her death?

None of those people fulfill the requirement for criminal inaction, and standard culpability requires action. So, they're all good to go.

[Shadowferal]

No one would have thought the "crazy" person was dangerous...

[Aeula]

She was 100% responsible.

So it was a suicide.

[Deleted]

She was 100% responsible.

So it was a suicide.

What was she thinking, walking around with such stabbable flesh like that?

[Deleted]

And the juries fill in the holes with questions and examination. Just because she didn't think about using another bridge doesn't mean someone who lives in that area isn't going to think about it.

yet in this story you cannot know.
The only part of the story you know are the one related to the protagonists. You cannot know what she was thniking and what she has done outside of her interaction with the protagonists and what was related from it.
And you are assuming there are other bridges the story does not mention any other bridges and seems unlikely.

Looking at this thread they are very few people with the same opinion.

[Aeula]

What was she thinking, walking around with such stabbable flesh like that?

Exactly. /10fleshstabs

[LiiLoSNK]

It's the ferryman's fault. He should've gave her the D so she didn't have to run all over town for it.

[Celista]

None of those people fulfill the requirement for criminal inaction, and standard culpability requires action. So, they're all good to go.

Actually at least 1 of the three and sometimes all three are required to come to aid depending on country/state laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_S...#United_States

[Karlz0rz]

The killer is 100% responsible. But let's be honest, we all wanted to see that cheating bitch dead!

[Independent voter]

She should've swapped sex with the ferryman in exchange for a trip across. In for a penny in for a dollar they say.

[Deleted]

killer is guilty ofcourse, but the woman is responsible for her own unnecessary choice of knowingly getting into a dangerous situation instead of calling her husband to pick her up, not calling the police there is a crazy person on the bridge and going out without any money.

i mean seriously who walks onto a bridge thinking "gee that guy looks like he might legit attack me".

[Halicia]

Actually at least 1 of the three and sometimes all three are required to come to aid depending on country/state laws.

Except that doesn't apply here.

It might be expected to lend aid if she's in danger, but not because she was too cheap to pay for her own cabride home.

I don't care who you are, others shouldn't be held financially or morally responsible because you go out partying with no money to get home.

[Ahovv]

I'm a bit confused as to the point of this.

Would anyone actually blame someone other than the killer, legally?

[Deleted]

I'm a bit confused as to the point of this.

Would anyone actually blame someone other than the killer, legally?

that's exactly the point of a jury test, to find that out. and then the offense/defense can try to get a jury that will support their views based on the outcome of the test.

[hrugner]

Actually at least 1 of the three and sometimes all three are required to come to aid depending on country/state laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_S...#United_States

Good samaritan laws protect your right to not act, and defend your actions if you do. Neither of those apply in this case. Duty to rescue is based on culpability. In most cases it only applies if you caused the situation, or you have a responsibility to the person. If the person is known to be mentally unstable, you get a free pass in even more places since mental instability is culturally associated with people being more dangerous despite being statistically false; so anyone could claim it seemed a personal danger to become involved. Beyond that, a screaming mentally unstable person may not be cause for serious alarm to begin with. I'm pretty sure everyone is in the clear here.

[Deleted]

actually thinking a bit about this, since the woman somehow knows for sure, not thinks or suspects, the guy on the bridge is crazy and dangerous, and she went on to the bridge anyways, cant a legal defense be made around that to get the killer (partially) off the hook?

(the original question specifically said its not a trick question so we can take the text literal)

[Celista]

Except that doesn't apply here.

It might be expected to lend aid if she's in danger, but not because she was too cheap to pay for her own cabride home.

I don't care who you are, others shouldn't be held financially or morally responsible because you go out partying with no money to get home.

The conversation transitioned to my personal example.

- - - Updated - - -

Good samaritan laws protect your right to not act, and defend your actions if you do. Neither of those apply in this case. Duty to rescue is based on culpability. In most cases it only applies if you caused the situation, or you have a responsibility to the person. If the person is known to be mentally unstable, you get a free pass in even more places since mental instability is culturally associated with people being more dangerous despite being statistically false; so anyone could claim it seemed a personal danger to become involved. Beyond that, a screaming mentally unstable person may not be cause for serious alarm to begin with. I'm pretty sure everyone is in the clear here.

I think you should read up on GS/Duty to Rescue, there's a little bit of info in the Wikipedia links I provided. Yes there is some leeway but the laws are not intended to protect your duty to not act.

http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to...port-statutes/ another quick summary of penalties for those who do not act.

[Dendrek]

The story describes the "crazy" person as crazy, but are we to just assume he's the type of crazy where he could have his actions ruled innocent by reason of insanity? Those kinds of rulings are extremely rare. The word "crazy" in laymen terms doesn't always mean literally insane. I might describe someone who looks disheveled or drugged out as crazy. But such people would/should be sane enough to know that murder is wrong. And such a person would likely be found guilty if they committed a murder.

My point is that the only reason we have to think this guy was crazy is the fact he murdered (plenty of non "crazy" people commit murder all the time) the woman and her earlier claims that he seemed to be crazy (hearsay from a nervous and ashamed woman wandering around at night and alone in an unfamiliar part of town -- and if she was actually certain he was crazy (and not just being paranoid), there is zero chance she would have crossed that bridge). What's to say he wasn't actually a drugged out guy trying to mug her? I'm not going to be quick to say he's not responsible for murdering her until it can actually be proven he wasn't aware of his actions.