Hmm interesting. Guess I read this all wrong.

To me there is no question the world is better off without the brother-in-law. But that is not what's up for debate. It's the acttions of Ed. And it's his guilty intent for homicide, freely confessed, that is the most troublesome thing. Like I said, the character of the victim is not and should not be at issue during a murder trial, since we are trying the killer and not his victim. But that's just me.

 

-----signature-----

Just because "Ed" made it available, with the intent that drunk-guy drink himself into an early grave, does not make Ed responsible for the drinkers freely made choice to do just that.


You can hope for a consequence all you want - but so long as you do nothing to force that outcome you are not guilty of a crime.


Note that this doesn't mean a nasty ADA somewhere couldn't or wouldn't prosecute just to see what happens, but I doubt seriously that he'd get a guilty verdict doing so.

 

-----signature-----

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4453826,00.html

"A German court in Berlin has sentenced a bar owner to three years and five months in jail for giving a 16-year-old teenager so much alcohol that he later fell into a coma and died. "

Unless giving the adult liquor to another consenting adult is a crime, he did NOT commit a crime. The comparison is like giving someone a gun as a gift. He didn't TELL the guy to drink until he died. He just knew that the guy would not be able to resist and do it. There is really no way of knowing if the guy wouldn't have drank enough on his own nickle to die either way.

This is a lot like the fact that Missouri has no "entrapment" law. To entrap someone you'd have to get them to do something they were not predisposed to doing. Offering a drink to a drunk or non-drunk would not be entrapment because they weren't forced to consume the stuff.

The guy is guilty of being a Darwin Assistant.

 

-----signature-----

That case is different because it is illegal to give a 16 year old liquor in the first place

 

-----signature-----

How many people has Mc Donalds killed?

 

-----signature-----

I think legally he isn't guilty of anything, not under laws here at least.

Morally and ethically he did something, well, maybe borderline "bad" according to some definition, that varies from person to person. He couldn't have KNOWN the guy would drink himself to death quicker with more access to alcohol, just reasoning it had fairly high probability.

But yeah, the abusive guy did his drinking through years, possibly decades and will have to assume responsability for his own actions.

Maybe that will make you sleep easier Phlemg.

 

-----signature-----

There's nothing illegal in what he did

If I took donuts/cakes into work each day and some fat arse decided to eat numerous ones each day and eventually died of heart failure within a year... I wouldn't be held accountable for anything

Same idea

There's so many technical points through life as to how we could all slowly be "killing" people. Just look at cigarette companies.

As long as the deceased kept giving in to his own temptation and drinking/eating/smoking or w/e, that's no one elses fault~

 

-----signature-----

Legally he's innocent. I don't think a person can be held responsible for another's addiction and the consequences of that addiction. I suppose one could make the case that the victim was vulnerable and unable to make decisions for himself, but that's a real stretch. Proving he had conspired for this to kill his brother in law would be difficult to prove as well... Everclear isn't illegal and the brother in law knew what he was drinking.

It takes a special kind of addiction to kill your liver in a year. Geez. My guess is his liver was either mostly gone by that point (after years of heavy drinking, not just the Everclear) or he died of alcohol poisoning after binging

Clearly murder and you'll all go to hell.

 

-----signature-----