Miscellaneous desk
< February 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 1

The Dressmaker

In The Dressmaker, 10-year-old children Myrtle Dunnage and Stewart Pennyman are shown in a flashback in a schoolyard, with Stewart having pushed Myrtle against a brick wall and then going to charge her head-first into her belly. At the last moment, Myrtle moves out of the way, causing Stewart to hit his head into the brick wall, killing him instantly.

Does this mean Myrtle caused Stewart's death or not? JIP | Talk 00:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. At least not in any meaningful way. His own actions caused his death. Her actions only protected herself, she was not intentionally using deadly force against him. --Khajidha (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good variant on Hoist with his own petard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death by misadventure. Nanonic (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a philosophical perspective, I'd say that Stewart did not die, since Stewart is a fictional character. Kidding aside, in this hypothetical situation, Stewart's death was caused by a chain of factors, including the relative brittleness of his skull compared to the wall, but the proximate cause was his hitting his head, which in turn was caused by his impetuous charge and apparent inability to exercise restraint. But did Myrtle believe Stewart's threat to murder her mother was real? Was she really so afraid to get hurt and did she move purely out of self-protection, or was the fatal result of her stepping aside perhaps precisely what she hoped for? I guess we'll have to wait for The Dressmaker Episode 2: Deathbed Confessions. --Lambiam 13:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manslaughter (United States law) doesn't seem to apply in this instance, "Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another person without the intent to kill, but where the person's death occurs as a result of the negligent or reckless actions of the defendant". It appears to me that avoiding a headbutt would be neither negligent or reckless, but it might be for either the public prosecutor or a court to decide. Alansplodge (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The passage by Rosalie Ham adds a few aspects, but i don't know if they are intentional on the author's part. Actus reus and mens rea. fiveby (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about criminal responsibility, Age of criminal responsibility in Australia seems relevant here. The 10 years is actually an interesting point since in modern contexts, if Myrtle had not yet turned 10 it doesn't matter what Myrtle actually did, she would not be criminally responsible for Stewart's death. Further while IANAL, this isn't legal advice etc, I think in modern times, even if you could make some argument that will succeed in court for Myrtle being criminal responsibility for Stewart's death if Myrtle were an adult, I find it hard to believe you'll succeed when Myrtle was 10 years old at the time. For all the problems that still exist, I find it hard to believe you'll succeed even if Myrtle was an Aboriginal Australian. However things may have been different in 1924, it sounds like precisely where Dungatar is located may not have been clearly stated (even if the film was shot in Victoria) so the precise situation may also be unknown. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reader is judge and jury, the author the only witness. Usually neither are very reliable or honest. Should probably point out that causation is not necessarily responsibility. fiveby (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is barreling toward you, you have the right to get out of their way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But causation by the question is a different matter that guilt, and both are pretty ambiguous especially in a work of fiction. There's no answer here, only interpretations. I'll point out tho that going by the passage, if this was a scene that was played out multiple times before and every other time you remained still, but this time you decide to move does that change things? The action is now abnormal and outside the normal way it usually happens. If you lie about it is this evidence of a guilty mind and intention? fiveby (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. No law can compel you to not move when someone is aiming to harm you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of consequentialism? But did Myrtle cause Stewart's death, as Lambian's response addresses? I just wanted to point out a couple factors from the book that may not have appeared in the movie. fiveby (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His death was caused by him hitting a wall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But for Mrytle moving, Stewart would not have hit the wall. fiveby (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But for Stewart attacking Myrtle, she would not have had to move, and he would not have hit the wall. --Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. The only way she might share some blame is if she was somehow concealing the presence of the wall. But it's still self-defense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proximate and ultimate causation, WP has a whole slew of articles that might be informative. Blame, and doesn't matter appear to be moral judgments of the outcome or actions. Discrimination between a cause and the cause based on such may produce different results than from other approaches or other moral systems. fiveby (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guy caused his own death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Hofstadter (I think, it may not have originated with him) proposes an interesting scenario: A man falls asleep under a palm tree in a desert, enemy number 1 approaches, and secretly poisons his water bottle, then leaves. Enemy number two approaches and, not knowing about the poison, cuts the waterskin, so that the content leaks out. The man wakes up, proceeds on his journey, and, having no water, dies of thirst.

In this case both enemies have mens rea (i.e. are guilty of attempted murder), but it is not easy to say which was the cause of his death. Or did he cause it himself per Baseball Bugs' reasoning? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No, unless you figure his having fallen asleep was negligent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]