|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 17:09:14 GMT
Do what most wives and mothers would do in a situation like that - make out it's theirs!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 10:20:30 GMT
I wouldn't claim it as mine - but then I'm not a mother. I think I would hope for some other explanation to let us all off the hook; could it have been planted by someone else while the bag was unattended?
Probably, I would refuse to answer at all, and hope the other two did the same. We might all get locked up, of course!
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 1, 2013 14:27:17 GMT
I'd have to claim it as mine. I sure wouldnt want to, but I would be morally compelled to stand in harms way for the safety of my offspring.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 19:05:57 GMT
The guards won't take long to twig that the bag belongs to a teenage boy, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 2, 2013 11:35:36 GMT
The guards won't take long to twig that the bag belongs to a teenage boy, surely? Well you could look ashamed and say you'd put it in there hoping they wouldn't look so much at a child's bag...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2013 22:08:02 GMT
Yes, that's what I'd do, Hunny.
I think most Mums feel an instinctive desire to protect our kids.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 3, 2013 0:18:11 GMT
I'd do the same if necessary but I'd hope my husband would beat me to it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 7:45:58 GMT
He isn't a child, though - he is 18 and a far more likely suspect than his (probably) middle-aged parents. Had he been younger I would have urged him to say nothing and wait for us to find him a lawyer - indeed that might be the best policy anyway; I could do more to help him if I stayed out of jail.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 7:48:33 GMT
It also sounds as though the bag was unlocked, because I was asked to open it. Why would I have my son's key? Better to find some possible defence than any one of us admit anything.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 3, 2013 15:46:34 GMT
Wow...that's a nasty one........I believe the cops are going to figure out pretty quick what is going on......definitely going to be identified as the kids bag.........I would probably step forward and argue to the death over the fact it was mine.........but I'm torn by the fact that I would be livid at my child who should know better and have to deal with the consequences of his choices too......
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 7, 2013 16:26:24 GMT
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What Would You Do...?Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out - //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A Callous Passerby Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation ["Good Samaritan" laws] as well?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2013 18:01:53 GMT
He's obviously got a MORAL obligation.
I'm not sure about the law; governments haven't had a good track record of trying to make people virtuous by passing legislation.
So yes to the moral quesiton and maybe to the legal one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2013 22:09:49 GMT
Obviously a moral one. The law in England is that he has no legal obligation, but there is talk of changing that. The situation is that if the child drowns because he does nothing, he is in the clear. However if makes a mistake when trying to rescue him so that the child dies, he could be sued for negligence. Daft, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 7, 2013 23:02:57 GMT
Yes, it is daft, Skylark.
I guess it's a moral obligation for sure but legally - I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 8, 2013 1:17:02 GMT
Don't believe he can be held liable by law......but I would hope he would be tarred and feathered by the townspeople.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 16:38:12 GMT
If he decided not to attempt a rescue for fear of getting sued if it went wrong - well, that is more understandable than not wanting to catch cold.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 8, 2013 18:06:02 GMT
He has a moral obligation to save the kid, a legal one isnt necessary, he's just a scumbag if he walks by and lets someone die he could have easily saved.
Should we pass laws like the "good samaritan" law mentioned on Seinfeld? I dont think so. You cant compel people to put themselves in potential danger.
And I would say you cant even compel people to help when they're in no danger. That would be just way too problematic to apply.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 8, 2013 23:22:39 GMT
Unfortunately I cannot swim but if I could I would of course attempt to rescue the youngster.
(As someone who nearly drowned as a child and has a total fear of water it would be totally wrong IMO to act in any other manner).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2013 6:51:00 GMT
I can't swim and I wouldn't attempt it: I'd go as fast as I could to find someone who could.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jan 21, 2013 19:43:28 GMT
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What Would You Do...?Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out - ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ConfessionYou have been married 70 years to your mate.......you know time is drawing to a close..........you had an affair 50 years ago......it has always weighed heavily on you......you would like to relieve your conscious and confess to your mate ........you will feel better.....but it will cause your mate pain........do you do it?
|
|