Tweet
(Sorry about all the machine code instead of spaces, I composed this in several places and can't get rid of them; they don't show up on this composition page 
* *)
Dear Legal Beagles,
I am just curious about a point of culpability or responsibility, I am not expressing an opinion as to current or historical acts of violence against specific groups of any size or designation.
I have an ongoing conversation with a teenage friend about software issues, particularly fleeceware, and as a joke at the end of my question about the wisest course of action, I added this disclaimer:
"Legal*disclaimer: no adverse consequences experienced as a result of advice taken and acted upon as a result of this question shall be deemed to be pursuable in civil law under the principle of _caveat emptor_ and refutation of the Corey*Stoughton Principle Of Legal Responsibility".
The*Corey Stoughton Principle Of Legal Responsibility (marked by double asterisk quotes in the following explanation) is my personal title for the statement in the following explanation:
" "Corey Stoughton, head of the special litigation unit at the Legal Aid Society, said: “We have heard from our clients who have been arrested that the conditions in the holding cells that they are held in, in many cases for 10-20 hours, are abysmal. Especially following some of the larger demonstrations and mass arrests, that there are extremely crowded conditions, that the cells are dirty and unsanitary and unsafe.”
Police officers, she added, “rarely” wear masks. ** “So really an arrest is a decision by the police department to put protesters into a situation that is dangerous for their health and safety.” ** "
(Reported in Guardian Newspaper, online edition 10/6/2020 by Miranda Bryant: *https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mal-conditions)
The circumstances reported relate to protestors (and possibly some rioters) against injustice to black people (following the death of George Floyd 2 weeks before). *The same article quotes:
"Protesters in*New York*have been unnecessarily arrested and detained for as long as 48 hours in “abysmal” conditions without access to masks, food and water, according to legal experts. ... More than 2,000 people had been*arrested*in the city as of Thursday – around a fifth of the total of over*10,000 arrested*nationally – on charges such as resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and violating the*now cancelled*city-wide curfew. New York Police Department (NYPD) declined a request for updated arrest figures, saying they will be available “in the near future”.*... Details of arrests are not publicly*available, but anecdotally, lawyers said protesters are facing charges for disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration and for violating the curfew, which was considered a*Class B misdemeanour, carrying a maximum sentence of up to three months imprisonment. ... Despite the cornivirus pandemic, they said most police officers do not wear masks and in some cases confiscate those of protesters who are being “packed” into cells with no regard for social distancing."
There was no statement in this article of how protestors themselves managed social distancing during their protest, nor whether the protestors considered the laws enacted by the US national and regional authorities which were designed to minimise exposure to Covid-19.
NYC social distancing regulations retrieved 12/6/20:
The City has enacted public health social distancing restrictions to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Restrictions include:
Keeping six feet away from others (non-family group members)
Not engaging in team sports
Not gathering in groups of more than 10
Gatherings of 10 or Fewer
Any gatherings of no more than 10 people will be allowed statewide beginning Friday, May 22nd.
Religious gatherings of no more than 10 people and drive-in and parking lot services will be allowed statewide beginning Thursday, May 21st.
You must still keep at least 6 feet of distance between yourself and others and wear a mask or a face covering when social distancing is not possible. Social distancing guidelines and cleaning and disinfection guidelines required by the Department of Health must be followed.
So, all the foregoing being my explanation, I couldn't help wondering:**Is there a legal phrase or principle which states the responsibility a person has for their own safety, and which they choose to forfeit for their own reasons, no matter if those reasons are for legal or illegal, honourable or dishonourable, spontaneous or premeditated reasons which that individual considers sufficient to warrant forfeiting their own safety for?**I suppose the endangering of the safety of others might be a separate issue.
I imagine it's the sort of thing that covers burglars injuring themselves in the process of a burglary and suing the premises owner, or extreme sports people who need rescuing and one of the rescuers suffers in some way.
What opinions do you have, please?**I reiterate that I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of targeted violence against groups or individuals, I am asking about responsibility or culpability when one has chosen to forfeit personal safety.
* *)Dear Legal Beagles,
I am just curious about a point of culpability or responsibility, I am not expressing an opinion as to current or historical acts of violence against specific groups of any size or designation.
I have an ongoing conversation with a teenage friend about software issues, particularly fleeceware, and as a joke at the end of my question about the wisest course of action, I added this disclaimer:
"Legal*disclaimer: no adverse consequences experienced as a result of advice taken and acted upon as a result of this question shall be deemed to be pursuable in civil law under the principle of _caveat emptor_ and refutation of the Corey*Stoughton Principle Of Legal Responsibility".
The*Corey Stoughton Principle Of Legal Responsibility (marked by double asterisk quotes in the following explanation) is my personal title for the statement in the following explanation:
" "Corey Stoughton, head of the special litigation unit at the Legal Aid Society, said: “We have heard from our clients who have been arrested that the conditions in the holding cells that they are held in, in many cases for 10-20 hours, are abysmal. Especially following some of the larger demonstrations and mass arrests, that there are extremely crowded conditions, that the cells are dirty and unsanitary and unsafe.”
Police officers, she added, “rarely” wear masks. ** “So really an arrest is a decision by the police department to put protesters into a situation that is dangerous for their health and safety.” ** "
(Reported in Guardian Newspaper, online edition 10/6/2020 by Miranda Bryant: *https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mal-conditions)
The circumstances reported relate to protestors (and possibly some rioters) against injustice to black people (following the death of George Floyd 2 weeks before). *The same article quotes:
"Protesters in*New York*have been unnecessarily arrested and detained for as long as 48 hours in “abysmal” conditions without access to masks, food and water, according to legal experts. ... More than 2,000 people had been*arrested*in the city as of Thursday – around a fifth of the total of over*10,000 arrested*nationally – on charges such as resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and violating the*now cancelled*city-wide curfew. New York Police Department (NYPD) declined a request for updated arrest figures, saying they will be available “in the near future”.*... Details of arrests are not publicly*available, but anecdotally, lawyers said protesters are facing charges for disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration and for violating the curfew, which was considered a*Class B misdemeanour, carrying a maximum sentence of up to three months imprisonment. ... Despite the cornivirus pandemic, they said most police officers do not wear masks and in some cases confiscate those of protesters who are being “packed” into cells with no regard for social distancing."
There was no statement in this article of how protestors themselves managed social distancing during their protest, nor whether the protestors considered the laws enacted by the US national and regional authorities which were designed to minimise exposure to Covid-19.
NYC social distancing regulations retrieved 12/6/20:
The City has enacted public health social distancing restrictions to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Restrictions include:
Keeping six feet away from others (non-family group members)
Not engaging in team sports
Not gathering in groups of more than 10
Gatherings of 10 or Fewer
Any gatherings of no more than 10 people will be allowed statewide beginning Friday, May 22nd.
Religious gatherings of no more than 10 people and drive-in and parking lot services will be allowed statewide beginning Thursday, May 21st.
You must still keep at least 6 feet of distance between yourself and others and wear a mask or a face covering when social distancing is not possible. Social distancing guidelines and cleaning and disinfection guidelines required by the Department of Health must be followed.
So, all the foregoing being my explanation, I couldn't help wondering:**Is there a legal phrase or principle which states the responsibility a person has for their own safety, and which they choose to forfeit for their own reasons, no matter if those reasons are for legal or illegal, honourable or dishonourable, spontaneous or premeditated reasons which that individual considers sufficient to warrant forfeiting their own safety for?**I suppose the endangering of the safety of others might be a separate issue.
I imagine it's the sort of thing that covers burglars injuring themselves in the process of a burglary and suing the premises owner, or extreme sports people who need rescuing and one of the rescuers suffers in some way.
What opinions do you have, please?**I reiterate that I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of targeted violence against groups or individuals, I am asking about responsibility or culpability when one has chosen to forfeit personal safety.
Comment