Blog: Participate in the Discussion
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Please login or create a profile.
Guest Authors
Categories
Recent Posts
- Who Let the Dogs Out: Fetching Medicine?
8/07/2008 - Game, Set, Match, Responsibility
8/05/2008 - Pro Sports: Game of Second Chances?
7/31/2008 - Mothers With Guns: Packing Too Much?
7/29/2008 - Cold But Not Cool: Time to Close the Door?
7/24/2008 - Should You Drink With Your Kids?
7/22/2008 - Growing Up
7/16/2008 - Just Rewards: Banking On It?
7/15/2008 - Review of New American Girl Movie
7/10/2008 - Too Old To Be Responsible?
7/08/2008 - Fertility Treatments: For Convenience?
7/03/2008 - Needling Questions: Immunizing Kids
7/01/2008 - Teen “Pregnancy Pact”: The Perfect Storm?
6/30/2008 - Parenting or Spying: Who’s Watching The Kids?
6/26/2008 - Murder, He Wrote
6/23/2008
Archives
Feeds (What’s this?)
- © 2008 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 175 Berkeley Street, Boston MA 02116.
- Privacy Policy
- Terms & Conditions
It's irrelevant
Sure, she *could* have done something differently, but I don't see how that's very relevant. The (apparently convicted?) defendants assaulted their victim and maliciously created a situation that led to someone's death. If random passersby are obligated to save their victim, surely the defendants have an even greater obligation to do the same, given they're the ones who created the dangerous situation in the first place.