Miscellaneous desk
< September 5	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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.

September 6

Shooting someone who's burning alive

I've had this weird question in my mind for a while. Imagine a police officer arrives at a car accident scenes and someone is trapped in the car. The car catches fire and the person starts burning. Would it be "legal" for the police officer to shoot that person to end their sufferings or could they be prosecuted? Ericdec85 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed own post, accidentally duplicated due to confusing edit conflict: see below. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)][reply]

Specifically, it's going to depend on the jurisdictions laws regarding mercy killing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] The legality would likely depend on the particular jurisdiction involved, i.e. where geographically the incident occurred, and possibly other circumstances as well.

(For what it's worth, in the worst rail disaster in Britain, in 1915, one of the three trains involved was carrying about 500 troops. The mostly wooden wreckage caught fire and many were trapped with no hope of being pulled free or of the fire being extinguished. It is fairly certain that at least one of their officers shot a number of the soldiers in order to give them a merciful death, but no official efforts were made to confirm this, identify him/them, or to bring any prosecution.

The military aspect of the situation (in the middle of World War One) may have had some bearing, particularly as all the officers of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, responsible for investigating rail accidents, were at that time (and for long after) ex-members of the Corps of Royal Engineers. The fact that the accident happened in Scotland, but a number of the victims died after having been moved to England, was also a potential complication as the two countries had, and still have, entirely separate legal systems. The signalmen responsible for the accident were prosecuted in Scotland.)

In the UK, actions which potentially could be prosecuted by the State are sometimes not when a prosecution is deemed to be "not in the Public interest" (about which Wikipedia seems to have no article or mention, though perhaps it should): I suspect this would apply today in the scenario Ericdec85 describes. How this would play out in other jurisdictions others must address. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's deja vu all over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Accidental duplication resolved :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)][reply]

If someone felt obligated to murder people as more merciful than letting them burn, he could avoid prosecution by saving the last bullet for himself, even is his life was not in danger. This would reduce incidents of murder-happy people going around and shooting injured or dying people for the sheer hell of it. Edison (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would a genuinely merciful person (a) seriously consider the possibility of subsequent prosecution at the time of their mercy killing and (b) deem killing themself afterwards to be preferable to possible prosecution and their affirming that they thought they had done the moral thing and allowing their peers to judge them (as I hope I would in a situation such as Quintishill)?

How many incidents of someone shooting already injured or dying people as a cover for recreational murder can you instance? If none (as I suspect), it seems a bit much to expect person X to kill themselves in order to discourage some unknown person in the future from committing a theoretical crime whose actual previous commission person X will never have heard of. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia "is the practice of intentionally ending life to relieve pain and suffering". In this particular form where there is no consent by the victim, it would seem to be illegal just about everywhere, although I imagine courts might take a sympathetic view. Police officers in the UK don't routinely carry guns, so this form of first aid seems unlikely here. Alansplodge (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If lifesaving is impossible and they're making blood-curdling screams presumably they wouldn't have minded. The cop could waste what feels like an eternity getting the guy to notice his presence (not sure if I'd notice even a gunshot to the ground when I'm melting) or move the inevitable a few seconds. Even in the wilderness at 4am it doesn't hurt to chant help me and when you're ready kill me just in case. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the moral case, but the question is over legality. According to our article, even in countries where euthanasia is legal, consent is required along with other safeguards. Ultimately, it would be up to a court to decide what to do. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few documented cases of mercy killing in war zones, some of which have come to trial and resulted in convictions. It's illegal; the Geneva Conventions are pretty clear that you can't kill anyone who is no threat, they are ratified by most states, and there does not seem to be a widely-proposed alternative law (partly due to practical difficulties in determining risk of death and motivation). But it is often socially accepted, meaning people don't talk about it publicly, and no legal action is taken, or much lighter punishments are given than for a malicious killing.[1] So both moral beliefs and social dynamics play a role in the de facto legal consequences. Few will persecute an illegal act which they consider moral. When a dying person is suffering, and witnesses emphasize, they may all feel a relief of suffering when one of them kills the dying person. See alturism and psychological egoism. Battlefields full of cheap sensors now make it less likely that killings will simply go unreported. This is a controversial issue because we're generally against both killing people and permitting needless suffering (animal euthanasia is less controversial as the law, and most people's morals, permit killing animals for all sort of reasons). Nor is it new; there's a discussion, which also raises political issues with killing superiors and death sentences, in 2 Samuel 1. HLHJ (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti

Is Haiti in Latin America? Heegoop 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read Latin America. It will tell you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the first "contemporary definition" over the "more literal" one, it's too French, even now. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While reading a source that uses the term, I trust the definition used by the source over any other. --Lambiam 09:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French is a Latin-based language, as are Spanish and Portugese. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Quebec is Latin America too? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. How far south of the Mexican border are they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not far enough, probably, but Louisiana is arguably a good country mile beneath the California-Baja California border. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like every definition and every category that people create to organize anything, there are "fuzzy edges" in these terms, and not everyone agrees on the same definitions. Haiti is one of those places that lies in the fuzzy edges. Some people following some definitions would consider it part of Latin America, while other people following other definitions don't. There is no simple, universal "yes/no" answer here. But yes, the article Latin America explains the differences and also explains why some countries are in those fuzzy edges. --Jayron 32 14:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]