Is it illegal to have the ability to save people but not to save them when they die?

has the ability to save people, but does not save them when they see death, although it is not a crime, but at least they have lost their due morality.

This kind of thing is not illegal, but only subject to moral constraints. Especially for ordinary people, of course, for people with special occupations, and when they are working, they have the ability to save people, but they don't save them when they die, they can only be said to be punished, and they can't be considered a crime, and for doctors, if they don't have the signature of the patient's family, they can't operate without authorization, so in this case, they have the ability to save people, but it's helpless to see death and not save them.

It is a crime, according to the latest laws and regulations, if you encounter a person whose life is in danger, you should rescue it without threatening your safety, otherwise it is a crime.

Is it illegal to have the ability to save people but not to save them when they die? This is not illegal, but it will be morally condemned, because saving people involves risks after all, and he will protect himself, which is selfish, which is also understandable.

This is not a crime, but it violates social morality, life is more precious after all, the so-called saving a life is better than creating a seventh-level floating slaughter, even if it is not recognized by others, at least his conscience will not be condemned.

It is not illegal to have the ability to save people, but not to save them when they die, but they will be condemned at the moral level.

First of all, this is not illegal, there is no need for moral kidnapping, and secondly, there may be a lot of pressure in your heart, and you will feel very guilty.

Is it illegal to have the ability to save people but not to save them when they die? If it turns out that he has the ability to save people but does not save them in the face of death, of course he is breaking the law.

The ability to save people is not illegal if he sees death and does not save him, but he will be condemned by his conscience and the eyes of others.

If you have the ability to do things, but you don't save them when you die, do you break the law? He is not guilty, but he is morally condemned. , but it does not constitute an offence.

Is it illegal to have the ability to save people but not to save them when they die? Although this is not illegal, it is also immoral, no matter what, it is a life that can help or help?

In this case, although it is not illegal, it will also be condemned by others, and such a person will not have any good results.

If you have the ability, you can do it, and if you don't save the law, you won't save the law? This must be put away, you come to those old ones, but you don't save them when you see death, this is an illegal act, and it is also a driving license is also a method in indirect homicide.

Is it illegal to have the ability to save people but not to save them when they die? This unit belongs to the method. If you don't, you may lose half of it, and you can call the police.

If you have the ability to save people but don't save them when you die, it is also counted as a moral problem, so if you have the ability, you can't hold on, and such a person is unloving.

If you have the ability, there are people, but if you see it, don't you break the law? I think that if you have the ability to see people, it doesn't mean that you don't break the law. But I don't think it's immoral to see like this.

Is it illegal to have the ability to save people but not to save them when they die? I think that the law of the country should have this article, and he really has the ability to save it, which means that he has broken the law.

Legal analysis: A stranger who sees death does not break the law, such as seeing a stranger falling into the water but not rescuing, because there is no indirect relationship between the two, so there is no obligation to rescue, and it will not be convicted. There are also cases where indirect intentional homicide can be convicted, such as doctors and police officers on duty, who should have an obligation to help citizens in distress.

However, if the doctor or police refuses to provide assistance and does not save the person who dies, it may also constitute intentional homicide, and "the police officer or doctor on duty is the person who has a specific obligation in the course of his or her duties or business, as prescribed by law." If the deceased is related to the person who will not be saved, that person is obliged to rescue the other person; In this case, if the person who does not save the person will be sentenced to intentional homicide.

Legal basis: Article 232 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China Whoever intentionally kills a person shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; where the circumstances are more minor, the sentence is between three and ten years imprisonment.

Legal analysis: If there is an obligation to rescue, it is illegal not to save in the face of death; If there is no obligation to rescue, it is not illegal to not save when you die.

Legal basis: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 3: Where the law clearly provides that it is a crime, it is to be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law; Where the law does not expressly provide for criminal conduct, it must not be convicted and sentenced.

Article 4: All persons who commit crimes are equal in the application of the law. No one is allowed to have privileges beyond the law.

To determine whether the act of not saving the person is a crime, it is necessary to determine whether the act is a crime of "omission" in the Criminal Law. The objective aspect of "omission" requires three conditions: 1. The perpetrator has the obligation to condone a certain positive act, which is a prerequisite for constituting a crime of omission.

This includes: specific obligations under the law; Obligations required to be performed in the course of one's position or business; Obligations arising from the prior conduct of the perpetrator that puts an interest protected by law in jeopardy, etc. 2. If the perpetrator has a real possibility of performing an obligation under the Tertres chain but fails to do so, but for some reason does not have the actual possibility of performing the obligation, it does not constitute a criminal omission.

3. The actor's omission 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. Therefore, if the above conditions are met, it is possible to violate the law and be investigated for criminal responsibility; Failure to do so will only be morally condemned.

Article 21 of the People's Police Law: Where people's police encounter violations of citizens' personal or property safety or are in other situations of distress, they shall immediately provide assistance; Assistance shall be given to citizens who request the resolution of disputes; Cases of citizens reporting to the police shall be promptly investigated and handled. People's police shall actively participate in emergency rescue and disaster relief and public interest work.