OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE33
Added 2024-07-24 06:57:57 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE32 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs!
Comments
As the author of the winning answer (jxb1978 on reddit), I am basking in my neverending fame and fortune. :) As the medical consultant for the winning answer, my wife is basking in the reflected glory!
John Barker
2024-07-31 07:54:20 +0000 UTCNot an answer, but a followup to the discussion about the TikTok ban and its potential impact on WeChat: What I'm personally really worried about is that, perhaps in an attempt to avoid being considered a bill of attainder, the bill does lay out a bunch of criteria for banning what's essentially any large social network owned by China. And those criteria also seem to apply to WeChat. Because the Chinese gov't bans all other foreign chat apps, WeChat is the only chat app that Chinese immigrants like my parents and I can use to keep in touch with friends and family in China. Yes, the blame mostly lies with the Chinese gov't for banning all the other apps already, but it would have a hugely disproportionate impact on the Chinese immigrant community to ban WeChat. And I'm afraid the gov't might ban WeChat as well just to show that it's NOT a bill of attainder against TikTok... (Plus the Trump admin had already floated the idea of banning WeChat.)
ToastyKen
2024-07-30 16:48:55 +0000 UTCI think the answer is D. The wife should have called 911 and then divorced Tim.
Kaetrin Allen
2024-07-26 11:04:11 +0000 UTCMy Guess: C My reason: A and B are off the table right away, there wasn't an intent for the man to kill his wife. Now it's just a matter of whether his inaction is negligent enough to fulfill involuntary manslaughter. I think because this is his wife and he knows how much danger she was in, and how as a sportsgoer he knows how common extra long games are, and how common game day traffic is, that is enough inaction to be fairly charged. The man also could've at any point called emergency services when he saw the state of the game/traffic.
Apprentice57
2024-07-26 01:49:39 +0000 UTCC - Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing either an unlawful act, or a lawful act without due caution. A and B are not correct. Since the husband intended to get insulin to treat his wife, he did not intend to kill her. While he didn’t commit an illegal act, he did have a duty to act to prevent the death. This would rise to the level of negligence that would therefore meet the threshold of “without due caution”. He didn’t necessarily need to get the insulin and administer it to her himself. He could have at least called 911 (and still attended what sounds like an epic World Cup game). Failure to do even that is the negligence here.
Corey Helwig
2024-07-25 20:52:56 +0000 UTCFun fact: This is my first answer to a T3BE, and my last episode of T3BE before I actually *take the bar* next week!!! 😬 You don't have a duty to help a diabetic stranger, but you can have a legal duty to help certain people: the people at the pool where you're a lifeguard, your home care patient, your children, and, yes, your spouse. His inaction caused her death, so he's criminally liable for homicide if he satisfies the mens rea element. Involuntary manslaughter requires criminal negligence, which is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. I think blowing off your dying wife so you can watch the World Cup is textbook criminal negligence, so I'm going to say... C.
nocountry4oldben
2024-07-25 11:31:08 +0000 UTCGuessing Answer D is correct. The question goes out of its way to avoid saying the husband had agreed to do anything in a timely manner and I don't think having a spouse is like having a child where you have an obligation to them in this particular way. That said the husband still gets the chair.
ToddTheOdd
2024-07-24 23:47:45 +0000 UTCWhat he told the wife should be material to the answer, IMO. Did he say "I'll be right there" and then arrive 6 hours later? Or did he tell her "I will help after the game" Given that the question DOESN'T give meaningful detail around this, that tells me that it's not actually important for the answer. That leads me to D. If it doesn't matter what he said to her then I don't think he's criminally liable either way.
Jon C
2024-07-24 19:46:22 +0000 UTCD — No form of criminal homicide. The question makes Tim an odious character that the test-taker would want to punish. But there is generally no *legal* obligation to get someone else medical care, and Tim is not legally responsible for his spouse in the way that he might be responsible for a child, or for a disabled person under his care.
Thomas Smith (the other one)
2024-07-24 17:47:26 +0000 UTCC. I could be wrong, but I think his negligence would fall under involuntary manslaughter. Because it's his wife, you'd think he would be aware of the risks of her not receiving insulin, and you'd also think he'd know her well enough to spot when she's too disoriented to help herself. He could've called a friend and asked them to bring her insulin. Pharmacies don't typically ask for ID, just your DOB and address. Okay, I'm getting in the weeds now. You get it.
Kait from Seattle
2024-07-24 15:47:26 +0000 UTCThomas! THOMAS! You were going along, settling in on C, and I'm agreeing with everything you're saying, and then at the LAST second you veer off into D. My answer is C, I think this jagoff is criminally responsible but involuntarily.
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-07-24 14:05:26 +0000 UTCI think the answer might be (d) because even though Tim is evil he didn;t intend to kill and he doesn't have a duty to assist, but here's a PSA. People with diabetes don't die from lack of insulin, they die from lack of sugar. If you see a diabetic about to slip into a coma, for god's sake do not give them insulin. You will probably kill them, and then the answer would be (b), or (a) if you did it on purpose
Paul Collier
2024-07-24 11:43:54 +0000 UTCD. We do not criminalized the failure to help someone (like running into a burning building to rescue Grandma). However, Tim deserves our moral condemnation, and should be canceled.
David Clements
2024-07-24 11:37:19 +0000 UTCOk using English law as my guide, as usual, I think Tim may be in some trouble but there's not quite enough information to be sure. As a general principle there is no general duty to intervene to help a person. However, a person can become liable for omissions where they have either caused the dangerous situation or has assumed a duty to care for a person who is reliant on them. I think there's just about enough here to infer that by not telling his wife to go somewhere else for help, he has assumed the duty to care for her and is liable for his omission, the omission being not going to her aid or arranging help from someone better placed to intervene. Assuming Tim was in possession of enough knowledge about the dangerousness of the situation I would pick (c) involuntary manslaughter, with a hope the prosecutor might consider carefully whether going after him is proportionate.
Tom Evans
2024-07-24 10:01:02 +0000 UTCthe new logo is sick. looks great
Support your local peruvian restaraunt
2024-07-24 08:32:33 +0000 UTC
