Defending Responsibility

December 10, 2009

Today's discussion focused on the following topics: personal responsibility, suing, and self-defense.

The discussion started by Scott sharing an article that he read about a woman who was suing a debt collection agency because she held them responsible for her husband's death.  I think that we were all in agreement that the agency - no matter how annoying or disrespectful - was not responsible for her husband's death.

This opened the discussion up to who can be held responsible for someone's misfortune.  Could the wife win her lawsuit because stress caused her husband's heart attack?  Could one sue an ex for mental anguish which then led to a firing or a car accident or a fight.  The overriding question, then, is where is the line for personal responsibility?  Is it fair to hold others accountable for our sadness, stress, failing health, etc.?

This questions relates to a discussion we have had on a couple of occasions about lawsuits, namely when it is okay to sue someone else.  (The example that keeps coming up is if a person slips and falls on someone else's property.  Pat contends that he would sue because he would not go bankrupt paying his own medical bills if a business, such as Wal-Mart, could pay for it.  He believes it is an American's right to take it to court, and if he is in the wrong and has insufficient grounds to sue, then he would pay his bill.  Annie agrees with Pat and adds that businesses have insurance for that very problem.  If it doesn't cost Wal-Mart any extra but it would cost her everything she owns, then she wouldn't feel bad about trying to get her bills paid by Wal-Mart.  Scott completely disagrees and is disappointed that good people feel that way.  He believes that bad things sometimes happen - that is life - and no one else is responsible for his medical bills if he falls on some ice.  Basically, he is unhappy with the system in place and the frivolous lawsuits that come about because of the system.)

And finally, we also discussed self-defense and murder laws.  Here's the scenario: "A 110-pound male crack addict attacks a 265-pound football player with a knife.  The football player feels threatened, knocks the knife out of the addict's hands, and proceeds to beat and kill his attacker."  Was that self-defense or murder?  Pat and Scott believe that the football player was justified in his actions because he felt threatened.  Annie believes it stopped being self-defense once the attacker was incapacitated.  (She remembered being told once that a woman could be taken to court for murder if she killed an attempted rapist.  She was told that once the man was down, she could not keep beating him or go back to her car to get a gun to kill him; her responsibility is to get far away and call the police.)

We then discussed how our opinions would change if the person being attacked was a woman.  Or what if the attacker was a woman?  Or what if the person being attacked had a record of violence?  Where is the line between self-defense and murder?

Lunch ended and Pat existed gracefully.