Seeing that stepmom is in danger and not saving the law?

In real life, "seeing death and not saving" is only the object of moral condemnation, and does not belong to the category of criminal law evaluation;

However, under special circumstances, "not saving when you see death" will also become the object of evaluation by the criminal law, and those who "do not save when you see death" will also bear criminal responsibility.

Among them, special circumstances refer to the fact that when a person who "sees death" has the legal obligation to prevent the death of others, and has the ability to prevent the death of others, but does not take measures to prevent the death of others, so that the death of others occurs, he shall bear criminal responsibility, and its essence is the crime of omission in criminal law theory.

It's okay to see that your stepmother is in danger and don't save the law, but you should not be happy with your moral conscience, don't say it's your stepmother, even others should save it.

Seeing that the stepmother is in danger, although it is not illegal, it is enough to say that it is unjustifiable.

The question is, isn't it illegal to see your stepmother in danger? Whoever is in danger, then you should save him, not ask him if he has broken the law.

Legally speaking, there should be, this belongs to the legal fiction relationship, and there are mutual auxiliary obligations, but the specific situation can only be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Seeing that the stepmother is in danger and not saving it, it is not only morally guilty, but also legally guilty, allowing some bad result to happen, knowing that the other party may die because of it. Failure to save is equivalent to indirect homicide.

If you don't save yourself without ensuring your own safety, then you won't break the law, this is a moral issue, don't worry too much about this situation.

This is an illegal act, because it is illegal from a humanitarian point of view, from a legal point of view, and a certain amount of relief should be given.

Of course, this is a violation of the law, and if you do not save yourself, you will not only be punished by the law, but also be morally condemned.

If you do not have the obligation to help, it will not constitute a crime, and if there is an obligation to help, if you do not help, it will constitute a crime.

It is difficult to say that the specific situation is not clear, but from a legal point of view, the key is to see whether there is a legal obligation for legal assistance, and the specific situation can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

It is not possible to generalize. Under normal circumstances, "seeing death and not saving" does not constitute a crime, but only an object of moral condemnation; However, under special circumstances, "not saving when you see death" will also become the object of evaluation by the criminal law, and those who "do not save when you see death" will also bear criminal responsibility. Seeing death or not saving can be roughly divided into two types.

The first is that those who have an obligation to act will not be saved, and the other is that those who have no obligation to act will not be saved.

If there is an obligation to die and not be saved, then the perpetrator is violating the criminal law. It is generally characterized as the crime of intentional homicide. Failure to save a person who has no obligation to act does not constitute a crime.

I'm definitely not going to save it, because it's not worth it.

If it constitutes a crime, it can only be a crime of omission. Crimes of omissionCrimes of omission refer to acts in which the perpetrator violates the direct provisions of the law, bears a legally-prescribed obligation and refuses to perform, and the circumstances are serious or heinous. To briefly summarize the crime of omission, several constituent elements are ought, can do, and refrain from acting.

The vast majority of acts of not saving people do not constitute a crime, and the main reason is that the perpetrator has no obligation to help.

1. The obligations expressly stipulated in the law, such as the obligation to support family members, and the obligation of the parties to fulfill the effective judgment and ruling of the court;

2. Obligations required by the position or business, such as doctors, firefighters on duty, etc.;

3. Obligations arising from legal acts, such as those created by contractual acts;

4. The obligation arising from the antecedent act, that is, the antecedent action causes the social relations protected by the criminal law to be in a state of danger, and the actor has a specific obligation to take effective measures to eliminate the danger or prevent the danger from occurring

Therefore, as long as there is no obligation to help, even if you do not save you in the face of death, it will not constitute a crime, but if a person who has an obligation to help does not help when she can, it will constitute a crime. For example, a doctor in a hospital who refuses to treat an injured person when he is able to treat it may constitute a crime, and a police officer who has the ability to help someone in danger when he sees him or her in danger may also constitute a crime.

If you don't save you when you die, you don't break the law. There is also no need to bear legal responsibility. But it should be condemned by conscience.

When you see someone in danger and are stunned, it's not a crime. However, morally it is to be condemned, fortunately there is no accident, if something really happens, the guy who installed the broadband and you have to bear some responsibility, because you did not stop the danger that will happen in time, the guy who installed the broadband did not place the construction safety warning signs, reminding passers-by to pay attention to safety, once something happened, you and the guy who installed the broadband will compensate the victim.

It is not illegal, and vulnerable groups encounter such situations and save others on the premise of protecting their own safety.

It's not illegal, but I recommend seeing a psychiatrist to avoid psychological shadows.

I shouldn't have broken the law, because I was already scared at that time, and I didn't have time to save him, and sometimes I didn't look for him when I said it.

Called him a movie and called them a movie method to solve the problem.

People's hearts have changed, everyone has become self-preservation, and the saving of lives within reach has become so far away, is it the absence of law or the regression of human civilization!

There is no direct criminalization of such acts.

Only a person who has a legal obligation or whose previous conduct constitutes such an obligation may be recognized as a crime, such as dereliction of duty, depending on the characteristics of his or her conduct.

Seeing death and not saving is an idiom with a linkage structure, which refers to seeing people in distress and not going to the rescue, mainly describing ruthlessness and belonging to a derogatory idiom. From the second fold of Guan Hanqing's "Save the Wind and Dust" in the Yuan Dynasty. It can be used as a predicate, object, definite; It is mainly described as ruthless.

According to unearthed documents, it was a violation of the law to see death in the Qin Dynasty.

One of the main obligations expressly stipulated in the law is the obligation not to commit a crime, which refers to the obligation provided for by other laws and recognized by criminal law, including laws, regulations, rules and regulations, etc. If it is only provided for by other laws and is not recognized by criminal law, it cannot constitute an obligation not to commit an offence.

If you take someone out to play, and that person is in danger and you don't save him, resulting in his death, that is an omission and criminal responsibility. On the contrary, if you encounter a passerby you who does not know and falls into a river or has a car accident, etc., if you don't save the person, then nothing will happen, and at most the society will condemn you.

As long as you are not an ordinary Chinese citizen of the public procuratorate or a soldier, you will only be condemned in terms of morality and morality and will not be punished.

Death is not included in the criminal law. If you are a person who is required to perform an obligation under laws and regulations, it may constitute an omission. There are other circumstances with special provisions.

Ordinary citizens will not be sentenced to death if they do not save them.

For the act of "seeing death and not saving", from the perspective of the way the behavior is manifested, it is a kind of inaction. The key to defining whether an omission (i.e., an act that should be done but not done by law) constitutes a crime in criminal law is to see whether the perpetrator has a specific obligation. If there is a law that imposes a specific obligation on the person who should be rescued but does not save it, and has the ability to do so, it will bear criminal responsibility, and it will constitute a crime; If the law does not confer specific obligations on them, they do not have to bear criminal responsibility, and can only condemn this kind of behavior from a moral point of view.

What special obligations are stipulated by the law for whom is more complicated in practice, generally speaking: (1) expressly stipulated in the law. For example, the People's Police Law stipulates the duty of the police to provide assistance; The Marriage Act imposes specific obligations of support between husband and wife.

If a police officer fails to save himself or a spouse fails to save the other spouse, he or she shall be held criminally responsible. (2) The actor's position or business requirements. For example, medical personnel have the obligation to save lives and help the wounded, so if medical personnel do not save the dead, they should also bear criminal responsibility.

and 3) the legal status of the actor or the obligations arising from the legal act. For example, if there is a danger of harming others to animals under one's management or mentally ill persons under one's guardianship, if oneself does not save oneself and allows animals or mentally ill persons to harm others, they should also bear criminal responsibility. (4) When the perpetrator's own previous acts have the possibility of a certain danger from occurring, they have an obligation to prevent them from occurring.

For example, Wang and Zhang joked and pushed Zhang into the water, because Zhang could not swim and was in danger, if Wang did not save him when he saw death, he would be criminally responsible.

Judging from what you said, the parties have no legal obligation to save people in terms of their positions and legal status, and should not bear legal responsibility for "seeing death and not saving them", so they cannot be held legally responsible.

Zhejiang lawyer Sun:

It is not possible to generalize whether a crime is committed or not, but whether the antecedent act is related to drowning. If the bridge breaks and causes drowning, the parties are not liable.

Hello, it is not a crime, it needs to have a certain social harm.

Failure to save oneself is a matter of omission. One of the prerequisites for an omission to constitute a crime is the obligation to help. There is no obligation to help enemies or strangers; For loved ones, it is not necessarily an obligation to help.

Only one's spouse, parents, and children have the obligation to help, and it is a crime to fail to save these people in the face of death. However, if the danger of the victim is caused by the perpetrator, then whether it is a stranger, an enemy, or a relative, he has the obligation to help, and failure to save him in the face of death constitutes a crime.

I think you are deliberately suspicious of saying this, if someone sues you, you are jointly and severally liable, but if you feel very tired after saving 2 people, you can't go into the water, and you see the people you didn't save drowned, then there is no way, do you understand? , or you need to do some first aid treatment to save the person who came ashore and delay the third launch, you can't blame you for this Understand, if you are gloating verbally, it is still that sentence, no one sues you and it is fine.

1. It doesn't count.

2. Because the law does not stipulate that it is a crime.

3. It is not a crime if there is no express provision in the law.

This falls under the crime of homicide by omission. Usually people who do not save people have the obligation to rescue, such as whether the parents of minor children can be rescued or not, or whether the administrator of the swimming pool can save or not, or whether the adult takes the neighbor's child out to play, and the child can not be rescued from accidental drowning. In short, there must be an obligation to help, and only if you can save it can you constitute the crime of intentional homicide.

Yes, it is illegal to have the ability to rescue, but ignore it, causing the death of others, and I am really helping you look forward to it

Whether or not a crime is constituted depends mainly on whether the perpetrator has an obligation to help, and if it constitutes a crime, it can only be a crime of omission.

If you choose to be a bystander without the obligation to help, you will not be subject to criminal punishment, that is, you will not commit a crime;

If there is an obligation to help, failure to do so may constitute a crime.

The so-called omission is generally believed to refer to a harmful act in which the perpetrator has a specific legal business to carry out a certain act, and is able to perform but does not perform.

1. Obligations expressly stipulated by law, such as the obligation to support family members, and the obligation of the parties to perform the effective judgment and ruling of the court;

2. Duties required by the position or business, such as doctors, firefighters on duty, etc.;

3. Obligations arising from legal acts, such as those created by contractual acts;

4. The obligation to act arising from the prior act, that is, the antecedent act causes the social relations protected by the criminal law to be in a state of danger, and the actor has a specific obligation to take effective measures to eliminate the danger or prevent the danger from occurring

Is it a crime to not save oneself?

There is no crime in China's Criminal Law that corresponds to "not saving when you see death". Whether it is a crime to die and not save depends on the specific circumstances. In the theory of criminal law, there is a form of crime of omission, the crime of omission, which refers to the act of the perpetrator who has a legal obligation and refuses to perform, and the circumstances are serious or heinous.

Therefore, the following conditions must be met in order to constitute a crime:

First: the perpetrator has an obligation to do something positive, which is a prerequisite for the omission to constitute a crime. This includes:

specific obligations expressly provided for by law (parents' obligation to provide assistance to their minor children); Duties required to be fulfilled in the course of their duties or in their business (the doctor's act of helping the patient); Obligations arising from the prior act of the perpetrator that put an interest protected by the law in danger (if a person is injured, there is an obligation to send a person to a hospital for treatment).

Second, if the perpetrator has a real possibility of performing a specific obligation but fails to do so, but for some reason does not have the actual possibility of performing that obligation, it does not constitute an omission of the offence.

Third, the omission of the actor to fail to perform a specific obligation leads to the occurrence of a harmful result, that is, there is a causal relationship between the omission and the harmful result.

China's law does not clearly stipulate that pedestrians have a statutory obligation to rescue others who are in danger, and the death of the woman in white was caused by the impact of the first car and the second run over of the second car, so it is illegal to see death and not save the law, and there is no legal causal relationship between the death of the woman in white and the death of a passerby. Therefore, it is not a crime for a passer-by to die and not to save him.

Germany's "death does not save the sin".

According to § 323 of the German Criminal Code, "In the event of an accident, danger or emergency, a person who refuses to do so but refuses to do so – especially if he does not bring danger to himself or herself and does not conflict with other important responsibilities – shall be punished by imprisonment for up to one year or a fine." ”

The creditor was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

In April 2013, the incident occurred in Wenzhou, where a creditor and three others pursued the debtor. In the process of escaping, the debtor has no way out and jumps into the river. Due to the impassability of the water, the debtor shouted for help after falling into the water, but the four people on the shore were unmoved and fled the scene without help.

Eventually, the debtor drowned. The court heard the case and held that the four debt collectors chased and surrounded the debtor and refused to rescue the debtor after the other party fell into the water, allowing the debtor's death to occur. Therefore, the creditor was sentenced to 14 years in prison for intentional homicide!