Yes. :mask:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/450980

I'm happy to be educated on US law, but... the idea that you can try someone for second degree murder or negligent homicide because of exposure to a pandemic with a maximum 10% death rate seems pretty specious to me. Surely the law exists to convict people who behaved in such a way that death was the likely outcome for a given person, not a random percentage of the public? Otherwise couldn't we try every politician for not doing enough about influenza? At what percentage do we draw the legal line?

There may be other laws, guidelines or standards that Trump broke in doing this. He certainly behaved reprehensibly and immorally. I'm just skeptical that it amounts to the category of second degree murder.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The relevant element though is 'awareness of risk': how much risk? No human action is without risk, so essentially we are assessing which degree of risk warrants a criminal charge. This is why I raised the point about influenza.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I answered "no" to all.

And do you think his having an indoor rally in Nevada is not a case of reckless and willful disregard for human life? — tim wood

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec070

Except under the circumstances provided in NRS 484B.550 and 484B.653, involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being, without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act which probably might produce such a consequence in an unlawful manner.

I don't see how holding a rally that other people choose to attend would amount to involuntary manslaughter in the case that someone becomes infected and dies.

Perhaps if someone attends the rally and knows themselves to be infected then that person could be found guilty, but I doubt that the actual organizer (let alone Trump himself, who probably isn't personally responsible for organizing the rally) could be found guilty.

Although even in that case it would need to be proven that the victim was infected by that particular other attendee, which I'm petty sure would be impossible to prove. They could be found guilty of some form of negligence, but not negligent homicide.

Do me a favour. You made a claim, I countered your claim with a specific question about risk and what is deemed to be sufficient risk to establish a crime. You've so far evaded this question twice with snotty 'do the research' responses. This is a philosophy forum. If you want to debate your position, then debate it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I watched the video, and aside from being boring it also did not address the question of risk, nor the relative risk of this outbreak compared to other viruses. Law is a question of interpretation as well as fact. So I'll ask you again, directly: how much risk is sufficient to warrant a claim of negligent homicide or second degree murder? Is it a 10% fatality rate? A 1% fatality rate? 0.0001%? That is the crux of the matter.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

And it's not a matter for philosophical debate — tim wood

Then it should appear in a different forum.

The Lounge isn't supposed to be purely philosophical. You can start a thread solely about kittens here, according to the description.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

↪jgill
The Lounge isn't supposed to be purely philosophical. You can start a thread solely about kittens here, according to the description. — Professor Death

I think I made that post when the thread was on the main page. More appropriate here.