A legal/philophy question about responsibility?

Question

Lets say if J stabbed K in a brawl and someone tried to prevent K from bleeding to death by applying a tournique to his wound. Who is responsible J to stabbed K? Or the helper who contributed to his death by asphyxiation.

Legally and philophcally who is responsible?

He died of suffocation due to the tornique

Answer 1

I believe J is responsible for this whole mess because he stabbed K. The helper on the other hand was careless; he should have called paramedics and asked for instructions on what to do for the victim, but killing K was not his intention, unlike J who probably had a motive or was struck by sudden anger for him to stab K. Philosophically and legally, I believe that both of them are responsible even though the helper had no intent to kill K.

This is a pretty interesting question :)

Answer 2

Legally and philosophically, both are an "actual cause" of the death -- meaning that "but for" the actions of either, the person may not have died -- or at the very least, the actions of both contributed toward the death.

Legally, there is also the issue of "proximate cause" -- which takes into account how foreseeable the death was, based on the actions taken. For example, if J knew, without a doubt, that the injury would not be fatal -- and if J was correct, that the injury itself wouldn't have been fatal -- then it's arguable that J wouldn't be legally responsible, since the intervening act of someone suffocating K was not foreseeable.

The helper may or may not be responsible -- based on a separate doctrine -- the Good Samaritan rule -- which says that someone helping out in an emergency by rendering medical or emergency aid -- when the aid was necessary to prevent death or injury -- is not liable for any resulting harm from the attempt. However, the issue there is that the help given must be both necessary and reasonable -- which depends on the type of injury, and the type of help given. Applying a tourniquet that strangles someone by cutting off their air supply is rarely going to be considered "reasonable" aid.

Answer 3

Your question is lacking a few details, but let me fill in what I am assuming in the missing material.

J stabs K

L applies tourniquet to K to stem bleeding

K still ends up dying (of asphyxiation?? Was the tourniquet on his neck???)

At any rate, L is protected by Good Samaratin laws.

J is unequivocally responsible for inflicting the mortal wound.

Answer 4

The answer depends on where this happened and the local legal construction of any 'good samaritan' laws plus a full review of the facts surrounding the stabbing and the relationship(s) between the parties.

TO JURYDOC:

Only if such 'good samaritan' laws exist where this occurred.....that's why I answered as I did. Also, there could be provisions whereby no one is either legally nor morally responsible....(thinking cap time).

Answer 5

J is responsible for putting K in the position of needing blood loss prevention in the first place. Both legally and morally.

Answer 6

J is legally and morally responsible for K's death.
The helper could be held legally responsible if the tourniquet is not applied properly. There might not be criminal charges, but and civil suit could always be brought. This is the litiganous society in which we live.

Answer 7

That evil J is responsible and should be kicked out of the alphabet.
The fact is, most states have good Samaritan laws now that protect a person who tries to assist an injury victim.

Answer 8

Well I'm guessing he would've died from blood loss(exsanquination) not asphyxiation. And no matter how you look at it J is the one responsible.