Floridians

Full Answer Section

• Arguments Against Change:

  • Difficult to Enforce: Creating a law that compels people to help in emergencies could be difficult to enforce and open to interpretation.
  • Good Samaritan Laws Exist: Many states have Good Samaritan laws that protect people who render aid in good faith from lawsuits if something goes wrong.

Conclusion

The case sparked outrage and debate about bystander responsibility. While there are arguments for changing the law to address such callous behavior, enforcing such a law and potential infringements on individual freedoms are considerations. Florida did move forward with charging the teens with a misdemeanor for failing to report a death, highlighting the importance of at least notifying authorities in these situations.

Sample Solution

There are a couple of reasons why Florida law, at the time of the incident (2017), didn't classify the teens' behavior as illegal:

• No Duty to Rescue: Generally, in the US, there's no legal obligation to intervene in someone else's crisis. This means bystanders, including the teens in this case, have no legal duty to help a drowning person or call for assistance.
• Focus on Acts, Not Omissions: Laws typically address actions, not inactions. The teens' act of recording the incident isn't directly responsible for Dunn's death.

Should the Law Change?

There are arguments for and against changing the law:

• Arguments for Change:

  • Ethical Concerns: The teens' behavior displayed a cruel indifference to human life. A law could deter such behavior and encourage intervention in emergencies.
  • Moral Hazard: Knowing there's no legal consequence could discourage people from helping in similar situations.