Should a robber be punished for leaving his victim to die?

[Kerr]

Hi all.

Was for once watching the news and one thing struck me. Basically there was a guy, lets call him Travis, who was drunk and fell on a train track. Another guy, lets call him Bill, found Travis, who was unconsious. So Bill takes the opportunity to rob him and the leave him there to be run over by the train. There was no threat to Bills life since the train was not there yet. When it did come, it ran over Travis foot. Travis did survive.

Anyway, when the police later caught Bill he confessed and said he was scared people would think he had been the one who psuhed Travis onto the train track (or something like that), which was why he didnt help him. Bills lawer says that people should not confuse morality and the law and that he should not be punished for leaving the Travis on the track. From what I gather Bill was punished for robbing Travis, though.

Should Bill be punished for leaving Travis on the track? I personally dont know, since the lawer has some sort of a point... but still, he left the man on the track to be run over by a train because he was scared people would think he pushed him, but first he decided to rob the man? It smells fishy and Bill really should be thrown in a dark cell for a little, just so that he at least could think over his priorities.

Take care,
Kerr.

EDIT:

From what I understand, Bill and Travis didnt know each other.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi Kerr!

Law bits first, then Morals later ...... ok?
Firstly let's get rid of the nerdy stuff.....
Law:-
In some countries Bill would have committed a serious crime, just by not helping Travis when in danger. In other countries it would be not a criminal offence. (!)

Technically (Legally!) Bill did not rob Travis! Bill stole from Travis. You need to use force or the threat of force while you steal to 'rob' a person.

So Bill found Travis (****** out of brains) on a rail track, stole his ------(whatever), and wandered off, not for one moment believing that Travis was so drunk that he would not get off the track when the train came rumbling along. Theft of a ---- (whatever) might only attract an official-caution in some European countries, so Bill would have been in the local cafe the next day. The law can be an ***!

That was the nerdy bit:- above ^^^^^^^

Morally? What an ****!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess the question is whether he took on a duty of care toward him by stealing his wallet.

 

[idav]

I guess the question is whether he took on a duty of care toward him by stealing his wallet.

I could just see the internal dialogue now.
"Oh look a guy passed out on the tracks, that can't be good. Hmmm, I wonder if he has any money in his wallet I can help him out with."

 

[Panda]

In some countries you have a legal obligation to help another if they are in danger provided you do not put yourself at risk in the process, France is one example of this. Whilst I don't think he should be guilty of harming the man on the train tracks he should be guilty of not helping when he could have (provided this was possible without endangering his own life.

And morally he is an ***.

 

[Kerr]

Hi Kerr!

Law bits first, then Morals later ...... ok?
Firstly let's get rid of the nerdy stuff.....
Law:-
In some countries Bill would have committed a serious crime, just by not helping Travis when in danger. In other countries it would be not a criminal offence. (!)

Technically (Legally!) Bill did not rob Travis! Bill stole from Travis. You need to use force or the threat of force while you steal to 'rob' a person.

So Bill found Travis (****** out of brains) on a rail track, stole his ------(whatever), and wandered off, not for one moment believing that Travis was so drunk that he would not get off the track when the train came rumbling along. Theft of a ---- (whatever) might only attract an official-caution in some European countries, so Bill would have been in the local cafe the next day. The law can be an ***!

That was the nerdy bit:- above ^^^^^^^

Morally? What an ****!!!

Ok, maybe legal terms are not my strong side . Its not just that Bill left Travis, its that he took the time to go down on the track, steal his money (or whatever he took), and then walk away so that people wouldnt think he pushed him onto the track... There is just something so wrong with that. If he should be punished for it or not, idk. I feel like he should, though.

 

[Lady B]

Shame on him really, Least he could have dragged the man off the tracks, then robbed him ,In his depravity He could have written it off as " he paid me for saving his life" UUUUUUUGh

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sounds like a pretty serious sin of omission to me.
So what ever the law says he will get his come uppence.
It would probably go under aggravated theft with intent to pervert the course of Justice., By leaving him to be killed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

During the WW2 Airmen in North Africa told the natives that the shimmering silver disc on the planes wings, were the doorway to paradise. Were they murderers ? Or was it true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He killed the man.

 

[Willamena]

He killed the man.

That was my first thought. He should be punished for murder.

 

[Lady B]

The man didn't die....

 

[Kerr]

He killed the man.

No, the man actually survived. The train "just" ran over his foot. But thats not thanks to this thief.

 

[Wirey]

He killed the man.

Not yet. The guy lived.

If you pre-suppose that the guy is reprehensible enough to rob someone who's out cold, do you really expect him to behave morally? That said, if he hadn't robbed the guy, his foot still would have got crushed, so I don't see that he did anything 'extra' wrong.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I guess the question is whether he took on a duty of care toward him by stealing his wallet.

No, he took on a duty of care by seeing him on the track in obvious danger. The fact that he took the opportunity to steal his wallet is irrelevant in comparison. Common sense would tell you that sooner or later a train is going to come along and if he remained on the track he could have died.

We know it must have been of course, but even if it wasn't safe or practical to get to him or move him the least someone could do is alert the authorities.

Leaving someone in that state when it would be easy to move him (even if the man on the track had some sort of injury, he's safer off it than on it) is frankly scummy. Personally I'd have had him executed.

 

[Kerr]

Not yet. The guy lived.

If you pre-suppose that the guy is reprehensible enough to rob someone who's out cold, do you really expect him to behave morally? That said, if he hadn't robbed the guy, his foot still would have got crushed, so I don't see that he did anything 'extra' wrong.

Perhaps, I just find it very apalling that he took advantage of someone in that situation and then just left him there to die. He could at least have pulled him a bit to safty. But he left him there because he believed people would think he pushed him, which I guess makes sense, in a way. I mean, a guy was robbed and then the robber helps him. That the robber pushed him would be a possibility.

Furtunately it all took place right in front of a security camera that recorded everything that happened (the news showed part of the recording). So no one could possibly think he pushed the man... but everyone knows he robbed the man and left him on the track to die. For some reason that makes me think we are talking about someone who may not be very smart.

 

[Lady B]

Perhaps, I just find it very apalling that he took advantage of someone in that situation and then just left him there to die. He could at least have pulled him a bit to safty. But he left him there because he believed people would think he pushed him.

Furtunately it all took place right in front of a security camera that clearly showed everything that happened (the news showed part of the recording). So no one could possibly think he did it... but everyone knows he robbed the man and left him on the track to die. For some reason that makes me think he are talking about someone who may not be very smart.

Or....maybe he was smart enough to calculate the odds of moving the man and waking him, and ruining his decrepid plans of robbery.

 

[Kerr]

Or....maybe he was smart enough to calculate the odds of moving the man and waking him, and ruining his decrepid plans of robbery.

Or maybe dumb enough to think he was smart enough to calculate it . Considering he was caught, that is.

Besides, if he saved the guy that could maybe have helped his case if he got caught.

EDIT:

Sorry if I sound a bit... biased against this man. I get that way when I get this disturbed by someone. And I know, its probably pretty dumb to get that way .

 

[Willamena]

The man didn't die....

First thoughts come from the subject line.

 

[Lady B]

Or maybe dumb enough to think he was smart enough to calculate it . Considering he was caught, that is.

Besides, if he saved the guy that could maybe have helped his case if he got caught.

If only he would have known he was on camera ! I am thinking he would have played hero whilst his hand in his pocket....