Are people afraid of death? Please discuss it in a categorical manner, COPY is not recommended .

The older you get, the more afraid you are of death. I mean, of course, that in his life he hasn't encountered any sudden events that have opened his eyes all at once.

You don't have to care about others, just ask yourself if you're afraid of death. The same rice raises tens of thousands of people, you have to listen to other people's opinions, when will you be able to listen to them? Being true to yourself is the last word!

Some people are afraid that a young man dies unnaturally and his soul becomes a ghost, and he does not go down to hell, but he wanders in the air, and he is homeless, and he has no rest, and he will do evil to people in the world. The old man dies normally, and his soul rests in the underworld, and he is not a ghost, so he is not afraid.

The death of young people is definitely not normal, so I am afraid. The dead old man is the law of birth, old age, sickness and death, so he is not afraid.

If you are a year old, you will become wise, and you will not be in vain when you live.

This question depends on your outlook on life, if you don't put life and death first, then you are not afraid of death. It's as if parents are sacrificing for their son. But not being afraid of death is not the same as looking for death, just like many heroes who sacrificed their lives for the country, they are not afraid of death, but they will definitely not rush up to fight the enemy on the battlefield.

In other words, whether to be afraid of death or not is from different perspectives. Some people put their relatives first, regard money as dung, in the choice between death and relatives, he is not afraid of death, in the choice of money and death, he is afraid of death.

Hopefully, you will be able to have something more important than death – dreams.

The oldest and strongest human emotion is fear; And the oldest and strongest fear is the fear of the unknown. In other words, since no one knows what will happen after death, there is an instinctive resistance to death. As for your classmate, he probably likes to read books or something (the in-depth kind), right?

A large amount of knowledge accumulation and the experience of life around you (such as indifference to human feelings, seeing death and not saving it, etc.) form that kind of character. It is estimated that he will have friends who have a good relationship, and often talk about his thoughts and concepts.

But it's also possible that he simply thinks life is boring (laughs).

Fear! I'm afraid! Because they don't know what life is and what death is!

It depends on how he thinks about death.

Children's eyes are the most transparent and pure crystals in the world, and if they believe in a person, they believe with all their hearts. Even if you give him a poison, they will smile and swallow it like candy; In the face of death, they are ignorant and at a loss. And teenagers are hope, and they are also rebellious; At this time, they will be sad and sad, and sigh at the complexity of the world; The flowers fall and people die, and the fragrance of the soul drifts away in a wisp of wind, which may be exactly what they want.

And the elderly, who look down on the mortal world and see through the red dust, are just smiling with a broad mind that has gone through vicissitudes. And middle-aged people, old and young, worry about this, worry about that, and worry about their families. They are the ones who have to endure the most troubles in this world.

They deserve our respect!

His kind of state has been reached, there is nothing to be afraid of death, if there is really such a day, there is no need to be afraid, death is a kind of relief, there is no need to think about anything, sleep forever.

I'm scared, it's hundreds of millions of years before I die.

When you have old people and children, you are afraid to die.

I must be afraid, it's better to die than to live.

How to say it, some people really have no conscience, and some people just don't want to get into trouble, after all, in today's society, there are many porcelain, and it varies from person to person, so it should be "classified and discussed".

It's useless for you to scold them for being disgusting, the result is not the same? All of this is thanks to the judge Peng Yu and many people who bite back to save them after being rescued.

Most of today's people are not concerned about themselves, hanging high. Let a sleeping dog lie. It's a lot more lively.

Now there are a few people in society who have a conscience.

Not necessarily, it needs to be classified and discussed according to the actual situation. Death is a form of inaction. The following conditions must be met for failure to save death in the face of death to constitute a crime:

1. The perpetrator has an obligation of a legal nature to carry out a specified positive act. This obligation requires that it be of a legal nature and that its content be a positive act. The main elements of this obligation are:

1) Obligations expressly stipulated by laws and regulations. For example, China's "Marriage Law" stipulates that parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children, and children have the obligation to support and support their parents. Therefore, the act of refusing to raise or support may constitute a crime of omission.

2) Obligations required by the position or business. For example, the staff of state organs have the obligation to perform the corresponding duties, and the firefighters on duty have the obligation to eliminate the fire, and so on. and (3) obligations arising from legal acts.

For example, contractual acts, voluntary acceptance acts, etc., may lead to the actor having an obligation to carry out certain positive acts. and (4) obligations arising from prior acts. This refers to the specific positive obligation that the perpetrator has to eliminate the danger or prevent the occurrence of harmful results when the lawful rights and interests protected by the criminal law are in danger due to a certain act of the perpetrator.

When an adult swims with a child, he or she has an obligation to protect the child's life.

2. The actor is able to perform a specific obligation.

3. The perpetrator's failure to perform a specific obligation has caused or is likely to cause harmful results.

Hello! This needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

If the person is a person with specific obligations attached, such as a police officer, a doctor. Then, if they stand by and watch when they see intentional injuries or need medical treatment during their work, they are inaction and will be punished by laws and regulations.

But if the person you are talking about is just an ordinary citizen, then he will only be condemned on a moral level.

No, but morally it can't be said, just like Fan Ranran.

It depends on whether there is a causal relationship between that person and you.

No, it is not a crime under the current law.

1.The definition of omission has always been controversial, and it is not easy to accurately summarize a type of behavior in criminal law theory in a few words

Omission is relative to act and refers to the act in which the perpetrator has a specific legal obligation to perform a positive act and is able to do so without doing so.

To briefly summarize the crime of omission, it can be described in six words as what should be done, what can be done, and what not to do. In terms of its legal characteristics, it is hidden, negative, indirect and illegal.

2.The characteristics of the obligation to commit a crime of omission and its **illustration show that a mere moral and moral obligation cannot be an obligation to commit a crime of omission**. The so-called moral obligation refers to the fact that although the obligation does not fall within the scope of the law, it has formed a relationship in which the society generally believes that the danger should be jointly borne and taken care of each other based on certain facts, so that when the other party is in danger, it should have the obligation to eliminate the danger for the other party.

As far as the current general theory of criminal law scholars is concerned, it is not considered that moral obligations belong to the first class as obligations, nor should the understanding of obligations be over-expanded, resulting in a disconnect between practice and legal provisions.

3.If, in the Criminal Law, an aggravated result is provided for in respect of a certain criminal act, or another serious crime is imposed due to the occurrence of a serious harmful result, the aggravated harmful result may be assessed on the corresponding aggravated result or felony; If there is no provision for an aggravated offense or a separate felony, if the criminal act puts another lawful right and interests in danger, the obligation to prevent or prevent the continuation of the harmful result shall be borne when the criminal act causes the harmful result to be in danger, otherwise the punishment for several crimes may be combined.

It depends. If you are not obligated to go to the death in the case, you are not breaking the law. But if you have an obligation to rescue and don't go to help, then you are likely to break the law.

In particular, the duties of the police, for example, are not only in the performance of their duties, but also when they are not performing their duties, such as when they are shopping on a Sunday, and they encounter a citizen who is in danger, then he has the obligation to come to the rescue.

Also, sometimes it is a criminal offense to die and not to save yourself. There is a so-called "indirect composition of the crime" in the composition of the crime. Even if the omission is an offence.

For example, a person takes a one-year-old child to the beach to play, takes him to the deeper sea, and then goes home alone. At this point, he is likely to be found guilty of intentional homicide. The reason is that he took a young child into the sea, in which case he was obliged to bring the child back to a safe place.

If it is not brought back to a safe place, any normal person can imagine that the poor little friend will most likely not come back. He allowed the child to die, which was an indirect constituent of the crime.

For example, if A stabs B and B is bleeding profusely, and A is obliged to call the police or call 120 or provide assistance, if A ignores it and leaves on his own, and B dies due to excessive bleeding, A is likely to not only constitute the crime of intentional injury, but also the crime of intentional homicide.

Therefore, whether you see death or not is saved depends on the situation. But there is no obligation to help, and if you really don't save yourself, although it is not illegal, it may be morally condemned.

In addition, righteousness and courage should also be based on one's own ability. I am more in favor of elementary school students and others not to blindly go to righteousness and courage.

Not breaking the law, it's just immoral. However, when others are in danger, they can take safe measures to save the victim in order not to harm themselves, but if they do not save others, they will not break the law.

If you are a soldier, public security, doctor, armed police, or other national people with public office, then it is your duty to save people, and if you don't save them when you die, you may be ruined. If you are a natural person, then if you see death and do not save you, you will be condemned by your own soul. If you are a ???

People, you can see death without saving.

If the police do not save them when they see death, it is a crime, and ordinary people belong to the category of moral management in this regard, and there is no law. Ordinary people can do things that are not prescribed by law, and some people cannot.

It is possible to break the law and even commit a crime if you don't save yourself. If a public security firefighter receives a fire alarm and does not save him when he sees death, it is dereliction of duty, and if he hits someone by driving and does not save him when he sees death, it is a traffic accident crime, and it may even be intentional homicide. It depends on whether the antecedent act or the law imposes a legal obligation.

It depends on the situation. Moreover, it also depends on what kind of person does not save him when he sees death. If it is only the people who do not save themselves when they see death, they will be condemned by morality and conscience at most.

If someone else does not save for a certain purpose, then it is a crime, then you must also provide relevant evidence before you can be sentenced

Not to break the law, the law has this category.

If you don't know, don't talk nonsense, the law provides for crimes of action and omission. To put it colloquially: the law stipulates that you do not have the right to do it, but if you do it, it is illegal, and if it is serious, it is a crime.

In the same way, the law says you should do it, but you don't do it. If you don't do it in violation of professional rules, it's dereliction of duty. If you don't do what is required by morality and law, it is called criminal omission.

If you're a police officer, you're derelict in your duties, and of course you're committing a crime. But if you're just an ordinary person, it's not illegal to die and not save you. Conversely, if you're a police officer, it's your job to save people.

If you're just an ordinary person, even if you don't lend a helping hand, but you call the police, you can also be rewarded. It's just that your heart will never get over it.

The law also depends on the specific situation, and our moral score is clear in our own minds.

Under certain circumstances, it is not illegal for a person without special status to die and not save him

Omission is a crime, but it is difficult to define it.

It depends on the situation.

Those who have the obligation to act in advance must bear legal responsibility.

It's a moral question! In some cases it is illegal! But it's generally not illegal!

On August 10, 2004, the Supreme People's Procuratorate promulgated the Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment of Procurators (for Trial Implementation). The regulations clearly stipulate that when procuratorial personnel encounter serious threats to state property or the lives and property of the people, and they can not be rescued, and the circumstances are serious, they shall be given the punishment of demotion, dismissal, or dismissal.

Seeing death and not saving can only be a kind of behavior and morality. To this day, there is still no law in our country that considers it guilty.

I think there should be legislation, and if you don't save yourself, you will break the law.

It is also different from the situation, and it is difficult to say what the doctor said.

Not breaking the law, it's a matter of personal morality

Not breaking the law It's just a matter of morality.

Chinese law can't control such people!

Because this thing looks at memory and inspiration at a small level, and whether you are familiar with it or not, math is just brushing up on problems, and you just need to be proficient.

If you get bigger, you will see your IQ.

It's not too stupid... Shamefully hidden.