Homeless man $6 deadly flip
Quote: sabre
"A person commits grooming when he or she knowingly
The only grooming I do is
on my dog. No complaints,
yet.
If he hindered the aid of the victim then to me that is clearly a crime. I’m not so sure it should be a crime to ignore someone in need. But I’ll have to think about the ramifications....
Quote: SOOPOOSaw the video. Of course the guy is pond scum. And I’d be happy if he gets out away. But the offer and accept s part of so many things in life. I’ll give you $100k if you go in and try and knock out Daniel Cormier! The fighter on the other side is taking a greater risk than a back flip. Same with many other jobs. How about free rock climbing? If you know someone is going to attempt it and you do not stop them are you guilty of a crime when they inevitably fall?
If he hindered the aid of the victim then to me that is clearly a crime. I’m not so sure it should be a crime to ignore someone in need. But I’ll have to think about the ramifications....
Totally agree
EB argues that the homeless guy was impaired drunk. Not sure if that's true (don't assume a homeless guy is always drunk) but if so blaming the defendant means the drunk guy had no responsibility in his own death.
That's contrary to our legal system. Drunk drivers don't get to say they were impaired so not responsible. A drunk driving accident and being impaired is not a get out of jail free card
So to say this homeless man isn't to blame and it's all on the defendant makes no sense to me
Quote: SOOPOO
If he hindered the aid of the victim then to me that is clearly a crime.
A lot of it is he not only
showed no remorse, he
was expressed glee for 10 min.
This doesn't go over well
with law enforcement,
they're big on remorse.
Quote: darkozTotally agree
EB argues that the homeless guy was impaired drunk. Not sure if that's true (don't assume a homeless guy is always drunk) but if so blaming the defendant means the drunk guy had no responsibility in his own death.
That's contrary to our legal system. Drunk drivers don't get to say they were impaired so not responsible. A drunk driving accident and being impaired is not a get out of jail free card
So to say this homeless man isn't to blame and it's all on the defendant makes no sense to me
If you say the homeless man is equally to blame, does that make it easier to understand? Let's say the homeless man is 95% responsible. Doesn't that mean the other guy is 5% responsible for the loss of life? No one here is saying the man is a murderer, but he initiated an act that resulted in a death. Texas just executed a guy who was a minor player in a crime that resulted in a death.
Quote: billryanIf you say the homeless man is equally to blame, does that make it easier to understand? Let's say the homeless man is 95% responsible. Doesn't that mean the other guy is 5% responsible for the loss of life? No one here is saying the man is a murderer, but he initiated an act that resulted in a death. Texas just executed a guy who was a minor player in a crime that resulted in a death.
Being a minor player in a crime is not the same as being even a major player in something not a crime.
Asking a man to do a backflip is not a crime any place I can think of.
If the man had done the flip successfully there would be no criminal action, correct?
So the entire case is not that the backflip was criminally enforced by the defendant but that the defendant just laughed without remorse at his injuries.
Can a guy go to jail for laughter?
I think the guy is despicable. I'm not defending his actions. I'm just playing devil's advocate that this isn't a slam dunk case people assume
Quote: darkoz
Can a guy go to jail for laughter?
You bet. Next time you get
sentenced laugh at the judge.
He'll give you more time.
Quote: EvenBobYou bet. Next time you get
sentenced laugh at the judge.
He'll give you more time.
Right so basically the answer is no.
Quote: darkoz
Asking a man to do a backflip is not a crime any place I can think of.
It is in Nevada.
Quote: darkoz
If the man had done the flip successfully there would be no criminal action, correct?
No. It would have been a misdemeanor says Nevada law.
Quote: darkozI'm just playing devil's advocate that this isn't a slam dunk case people assume
Dont make up your own law. Read the law that exists in Nevada.
Quote: darkozTotally agree
EB argues that the homeless guy was impaired drunk. Not sure if that's true (don't assume a homeless guy is always drunk) but if so blaming the defendant means the drunk guy had no responsibility in his own death.
That's contrary to our legal system. Drunk drivers don't get to say they were impaired so not responsible. A drunk driving accident and being impaired is not a get out of jail free card
So to say this homeless man isn't to blame and it's all on the defendant makes no sense to me
But in general drunk drivers probably did their decision making on their own.
I think there's is a different situation when you get drunk then run into someone who tries to influence you into making bad decisions while you're drunk.
Quote: AlanMendelsonIt is in Nevada.
No. It would have been a misdemeanor says Nevada law.
Dont make up your own law. Read the law that exists in Nevada.
Speaking of making up laws please link to the backflip is illegal law. I searched and couldn't find it.
I hope you didn't just make up that law while accusing me of doing it
Quote: darkozSpeaking of making up laws please link to the backflip is illegal law. I searched and couldn't find it.
I hope you didn't just make up that law while accusing me of doing it
I posted it twice already in this thread. Here it is again:
NRS 202.595 is the Nevada law which makes it a crime to recklessly endanger others’ safety. The statute states:
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:
1. If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.
2. If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI posted it twice already in this thread. Here it is again:
NRS 202.595 is the Nevada law which makes it a crime to recklessly endanger others’ safety. The statute states:
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:
1. If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.
2. If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
Yeah that's ridiculously broad to make the statement that backflips are illegal in the state of Nevada.
So in your mind asking a grown man to do something and then that person does it of his own accord means the person who asked "performed an act"?
I'm not the only one thinking this is a difficult case.
Here is a good legal analysis of this particular case. They too seem skeptical. I suggest reading the full article before commenting
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/man-arrested-in-las-vegas-after-coaxing-homeless-person-into-doing-backflip-for-money-and-he-dies/
Now review the video. Review his own statements made repeatedly.
Review his comments not to render aid.
Review his repeated offer of $6 and the victim saying he needed to do it on grass.
Then watch the video again and consider the disregard for the victim lying motionless.
If I saw you lying motionless I'd call 911 immediately.
Edited to add: I was in the TV news business for decades. The rule was, if you came upon an accident you rendered aid first, you shot video second.
There is a famous 60 Minutes report of Ed Bradley helping Vietnamese boat people so they wouldn't drown. He put lives before the story.
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou can disagree, and I respect that. But that's the law he was charged under.
Now review the video. Review his own statements made repeatedly.
Review his comments not to render aid.
Review his repeated offer of $6 and the victim saying he needed to do it on grass.
Then watch the video again and consider the disregard for the victim lying motionless.
If I saw you lying motionless I'd call 911 immediately.
Edited to add: I was in the TV news business for decades. The rule was, if you came upon an accident you rendered aid first, you shot video second.
There is a famous 60 Minutes report of Ed Bradley helping Vietnamese boat people so they wouldn't drown. He put lives before the story.
I can see news channels instituting that rule but that's not law.
Otherwise hundreds of spectator videos posted on YouTube could result in charges
There is no law says someone must call 911 but more than that 911 was called and did respond. Nothing in the law says any particular person must call 911. Since someone did it not sure what crime you are pointing at.
Yes, I agree he has been charged under the statutes you posted. I just don't think this is going to be an easy prosecution.
weeks ago. This is how you're
supposed to act when someone
is in a life or death situation. This
guy deserves a medal.
Quote: AlanMendelsonHis own video will make it an easy prosecution.
That's if it even goes to trial.
He already posted bail and he doesn't strike me as someone with a lot of cash on hand.
I'm guessing bail was pretty low.
That means the charge wasn't considered too serious
Quote: darkozThat's if it even goes to trial.
He already posted bail and he doesn't strike me as someone with a lot of cash on hand.
I'm guessing bail was pretty low.
That means the charge wasn't considered too serious
I get the impression that it is important to you that this man be found not guilty.
Quote: billryanI get the impression you both like beating dead horses and getting the last word. Carry on.
Why the personal attacks?
You contribute nothing to the conversation.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI get the impression that it is important to you that this man be found not guilty.
I don't get that impression at all. I'm confused as to why you get that impression.
After both sides have rested their cases the attorneys will hand the judge "charging documents" or perhaps there is a better term for it
Those are suggested charging INSTRUCTIONS for the jury. Both sides naturally try to get the instructions they believe will win their case.
The judge goes over them, then sits with attorneys and makes ruling on how he, THE JUDGE will charge the jury.
Once everyone is signed off (with the judge having final say over objections [any incorrect final say can be used as basis for appeal of course]) then the jury is called in.
At that time the judge will give his charging instructions
These are designed to explain to a layman jury of the law exactly what the law encompasses and how to proceed in their analysis.
These instructions are pretty straightforward usually. But they can include what not to consider under the law as well.
If an answer that may have swayed the jury was stricken from the record this is where it will be reiterated that the jury is to disregard that answer for example.
It is here the jury may hear the instructions that verbal requests and laughing are not to be considered under the letter of the law the defendant is being charged with.
It is here that cases are often won or lost.
Of course the jury may ignore the judges instructions. But you should understand that no case is a slam dunk and I don't think this one will be.
Now we just have to wait for the resolution a few months from now.
BTW, I am not an attorney and am basing my knowledge on what I have read and a few cases I observed. It's probable that things differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and venue to venue.
Quote: kewljA 28 year old Las Vegas man was arrested yesterday after he paid a homeless man $6 to do a back flip resulting in injury and death to the homeless man. As despicable as this is, I don't see how it is a crime. Seems like a transaction between two consenting adults. What am I missing?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/las-vegas-man-accused-goading-homeless-man-deadly-stunt-arrested-n1233990
I can't watch the video link in the article because I don't have Facebook.
But, consent can't be given if one party is impaired.
If the homeless man had mental illness, giving him money for something that will likley result in harm is wrong.
Also, it sounds like he made no effort to call for help after the injury.... (after seeing the clip this is confirmed).
I tried finding the full video on YouTube, but it appears to be quickly taken down at most sources....
I found a clip of the event on a random channel and after the injury the guy who paid the homeless guy said to somebody who appeared to be either checking or rendering aid after he landed on his head and was unresponsive, "Nah leave that n-word" while laughing , terrible person. 100% deserves prison.....
Also, the fact that he was proud enough to post this on Facebook makes it worse....
Quote: AlanMendelsonI posted it twice already in this thread. Here it is again:
NRS 202.595 is the Nevada law which makes it a crime to recklessly endanger others’ safety. The statute states:
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:
1. If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.
2. If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
OK, so I watched the video. The version I saw was not that clear visually, but the facts seemed to come across clearly. I don't think there's anything missing to get a clear understanding of what happened, except that there was no visual evidence about the terms or manner in which this wager was placed. That's irrelevant to my opinion of the scumbag. He's every name you can think of to describe a complete waste of human life.
What should he be charged with?
Nothing more or less than what any other person present after the guy hit his head should be charged with. Unless he physically prevented someone from calling 911, I don't think he's responsible to do anything more or less to assist the guy than anyone else on the scene.
If the relevant statute is NRS 202.595 as cited above, I'd point out "performs any act or neglects any duty IMPOSED BY LAW in willful or wanton disregard..." The critical phrase to me is IMPOSED BY LAW. That says to me that there has to be some statutory requirement that he do something. That the action be... IMPOSED BY LAW. What law requires him to do anything?
Is there a law that says he must call 911? Give first aid? Offer a prayer? Perform CPR? Is there a law that says he cannot film what's happening? That he cannot laugh out loud? That he cannot act like a total jackass? That he cannot think, to himself or aloud, thoughts and ideas that we all believe are wrong?
Would he be guilty of anything, after the victim hit his head, if he turned around, walked away, saying nothing and doing nothing?
In all of these possible actions, cite for me the statute that makes it IMPOSED BY LAW that he act in some way, and that everyone else at the scene does not have the same imposition placed on them in the same way.
Break this event into two parts.
1. What the guy is, what we all think of him, what we all think should be done to him. On this we do not disagree, if only to the extent of pain and suffering we would vent upon him.
2. What he should be charged with under. what is... IMPOSED BY LAW.
Quote: racquetQuote: AlanMendelsonI posted it twice already in this thread. Here it is again:
NRS 202.595 is the Nevada law which makes it a crime to recklessly endanger others’ safety. The statute states:
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:
1. If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.
2. If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
OK, so I watched the video. The version I saw was not that clear visually, but the facts seemed to come across clearly. I don't think there's anything missing to get a clear understanding of what happened, except that there was no visual evidence about the terms or manner in which this wager was placed. That's irrelevant to my opinion of the scumbag. He's every name you can think of to describe a complete waste of human life.
What should he be charged with?
Nothing more or less than what any other person present after the guy hit his head should be charged with. Unless he physically prevented someone from calling 911, I don't think he's responsible to do anything more or less to assist the guy than anyone else on the scene.
If the relevant statute is NRS 202.595 as cited above, I'd point out "performs any act or neglects any duty IMPOSED BY LAW in willful or wanton disregard..." The critical phrase to me is IMPOSED BY LAW. That says to me that there has to be some statutory requirement that he do something. That the action be... IMPOSED BY LAW. What law requires him to do anything?
Is there a law that says he must call 911? Give first aid? Offer a prayer? Perform CPR? Is there a law that says he cannot film what's happening? That he cannot laugh out loud? That he cannot act like a total jackass? That he cannot think, to himself or aloud, thoughts and ideas that we all believe are wrong?
Would he be guilty of anything, after the victim hit his head, if he turned around, walked away, saying nothing and doing nothing?
In all of these possible actions, cite for me the statute that makes it IMPOSED BY LAW that he act in some way, and that everyone else at the scene does not have the same imposition placed on them in the same way.
Break this event into two parts.
1. What the guy is, what we all think of him, what we all think should be done to him. On this we do not disagree, if only to the extent of pain and suffering we would vent upon him.
2. What he should be charged with under. what is... IMPOSED BY LAW.
Willifull Disregard for Persons Saftey, that is what he was arrested for....
Quote: Gandler
Willifull Disregard for Persons Saftey, that is what he was arrested for....
So where's the "duty imposed by law"?
Is it illegal to bet on someone else's physical action? Hitting a baseball? Or a golf ball? Doing a reverse backflip in a gymnastic competition?
He stood around and watched. So did several other people. Somehow his presence was documented enough such that his name became known, adding stupidity to the list of things he's guilty of. If he turned around and walked away he'd be unknown to everyone, especially the police.
Regardless, there has to be a DUTY imposed on him, by law. How is that duty unique to him and no one else?
Quote: racquetSo where's the "duty imposed by law"?
Is it illegal to bet on someone else's physical action? Hitting a baseball? Or a golf ball? Doing a reverse backflip in a gymnastic competition?
He stood around and watched. So did several other people. Somehow his presence was documented enough such that his name became known, adding stupidity to the list of things he's guilty of. If he turned around and walked away he'd be unknown to everyone, especially the police.
Regardless, there has to be a DUTY imposed on him, by law. How is that duty unique to him and no one else?
You are concentrating on what happens after the man is injured. The crime appears to be goading the man into doing something that puts him at risk. Had the man not been injured, it would have been a misdemeanor. Injuries upped it to a felony. His not calling 911 and prancing about weren't in the charges.
You and I are on the fourth floor. I offer you money to jump into the crowded pool below. I'm dumb enough to film the bet and put it on youtube. If the police find the film, I can be arrested for it. If no one got hurt, it'd a misdemeanor , if someone got hurt ,it's a felony.
Thats my take on it, but I've never slept at a Holiday Inn
Quote: billryanYou are concentrating on what happens after the man is injured. The crime appears to be goading the man into doing something that puts him at risk. Had the man not been injured, it would have been a misdemeanor. Injuries upped it to a felony. His not calling 911 and prancing about weren't in the charges.
You and I are on the fourth floor. I offer you money to jump into the crowded pool below. I'm dumb enough to film the bet and put it on youtube. If the police find the film, I can be arrested for it. If no one got hurt, it'd a misdemeanor , if someone got hurt ,it's a felony.
Thats my take on it, but I've never slept at a Holiday Inn
I didn't see any goading, assuming that goading is a criminal offense. Absent evidence of any awareness of impairment on the part of the guy with the camera, which I doubt is on film, it seems just like you and me in that hotel room.
Actually, less so. Nobody is going to compare the risk of a forty foot dive into a pool with a back flip. You are more likely to be charged for proposing a much more obviously dangerous stunt. Goaded or not, a back flip is something even I could be trained to do, although onto a sidewalk is more dangerous than onto a gym mat.
I'd charge the guy because he's a total waste, but he'll certainly be able to find a lawyer capable of getting him off.
Quote: billryanYou are concentrating on what happens after the man is injured. The crime appears to be goading the man into doing something that puts him at risk. Had the man not been injured, it would have been a misdemeanor. Injuries upped it to a felony. His not calling 911 and prancing about weren't in the charges.
You and I are on the fourth floor. I offer you money to jump into the crowded pool below. I'm dumb enough to film the bet and put it on youtube. If the police find the film, I can be arrested for it. If no one got hurt, it'd a misdemeanor , if someone got hurt ,it's a felony.
Thats my take on it, but I've never slept at a Holiday Inn
Hmmm...
So I'm on one side of Tropicana avenue with large traffic.
I yell for my friend to cross the street so we can hurry to the casinos.
My friend gets hit by a car crossing at my behest and dies.
I now committed a felony????
Quote: darkozHmmm...
So I'm on one side of Tropicana avenue with large traffic.
I yell for my friend to cross the street so we can hurry to the casinos.
My friend gets hit by a car crossing at my behest and dies.
I now committed a felony????
Why not use a specific example that is actually cited in the NRS?
You organize a street race. Someone is killed. It's a felony.
Now do you understand?
You challenged someone to do a back flip for $6 and he dies. Under NRS it's a felony. Why? Did the victim have the skills to perform the flip?
Now, about your friend crossing the street... would he normally be able to cross or was he in a wheel chair? Was he handicapped? Was traffic zooming at 75 mph or was it a crowded Las Vegas Blvd on a Saturday with traffic at a crawl?
Look at the video again. What do you think it shows about the victim's condition?
Quote: AlanMendelsonWhy not use a specific example that is actually cited in the NRS?
You organize a street race. Someone is killed. It's a felony.
Now do you understand?
You challenged someone to do a back flip for $6 and he dies. Under NRS it's a felony. Why? Did the victim have the skills to perform the flip?
Now, about your friend crossing the street... would he normally be able to cross or was he in a wheel chair? Was he handicapped? Was traffic zooming at 75 mph or was it a crowded Las Vegas Blvd on a Saturday with traffic at a crawl?
Look at the video again. What do you think it shows about the victim's condition?
Well if that's the example actually cited in NRS then I expect this guy will get off.
Organizing a street race (drag racing) is illegal in most jurisdictions and goes to the wording used in this statute that the person is only guilty based on "DUTY UNDER LAW".
It can be argued there is a duty under law not to organize illegal drag racing.
I don't believe it can be argued there is a duty under law not to organize a backflip.
The problem with your argument about did the homeless man have any skills/lack of skills makes it illegal is that is nowhere mentioned in the statute.
To take the actual example of the street racing, the statute does NOT SAY that if the drivers were qualified racers that a death would be okay. The only reason the death becomes a felony is because an illegal street race was organized. Skills of drivers notwithstanding.
Backflips are not illegal in and of themselves. Organizing a backflip regardless of outcome and regardless of the skill of those imvolved is not illegal.
Now do you see?
Do you consider it safe to have someone do backflips on a concrete median strip or barrier in a parking lot?
Then consider the condition of the victim. Do you think he had the ability to do a back flip?
Quote: AlanMendelsonDarkoz what I see are these words: "willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:"
Do you consider it safe to have someone do backflips on a concrete median strip or barrier in a parking lot?
Then consider the condition of the victim. Do you think he had the ability to do a back flip?
Alan
Do you also see the words "Duty imposed by Law"?
When reading a statute every word has meaning. The words are chosen very specifically.
Yes I see the words you point out. You need to stop ignoring the words I am pointing out.
Read together this is not a strong case
Put up a fair O/U line on how much jail time he will get at -110 and let me choose if i want to take the over under for a few hundred. We will see just how strong of a case you think it is. Lets see if you have the balls to set it at ZERO.Quote: darkozAlan
Do you also see the words "Duty imposed by Law"?
When reading a statute every word has meaning. The words are chosen very specifically.
Yes I see the words you point out. You need to stop ignoring the words I am pointing out.
Read together this is not a strong case
Quote: darkozAlan
Do you also see the words "Duty imposed by Law"?
When reading a statute every word has meaning. The words are chosen very specifically.
Yes I see the words you point out. You need to stop ignoring the words I am pointing out.
Read together this is not a strong case
And the video detracts from the case?
So far, there has been an arrest. It looks like you're wrong.
Deal with it.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAnd the video detracts from the case?
So far, there has been an arrest. It looks like you're wrong.
Deal with it.
An arrest?
So he's guilty without his trial?
No one ever gets arrested but it's a done deal and the person goes to jail?
Quote: darkozAn arrest?
So he's guilty without his trial?
No one ever gets arrested but it's a done deal and the person goes to jail?
I'm under the impression that he wasn't arrested at the scene. Usually, when someone is arrested after the fact, it's after the DA has examined the case and decided the evidence warrants a trial, and few DAs want to go to trial unless they think they will win.
ETA: Story is a quote from victims sister. Said he did walking home from the hospital. Something strange there that I don’t get re: why hospital discharged him if he was at risk of death walking home.
Quote: unJonFrom the story I read, the victim didn’t die for 10 days. He went to the hospital, stayed for a few days. Got discharged. And died later.
ETA: Story is a quote from victims sister. Said he did walking home from the hospital. Something strange there that I don’t get re: why hospital discharged him if he was at risk of death walking home.
Hospitals routinely discharge people at risk, especially if their insurance is sub-par. They are only required to perform a certain level of care.
Where does this BS come from?
Sorry... but this isn't about winning $20,000 a week using other people's player cards.
Perhaps you confused the facts with this from the Las Vegas Review Journal which interviewed the victim's sister:
"Larry Coner’s sister said he was just leaving a treatment hospital for his mental health problems when he was goaded into performing the backflip that led to his death."
Quote: AlanMendelsonTotal BS. The victim was not discharged from the hospital and walk home. He was paralyzed. He died.
Where does this BS come from?
Sorry... but this isn't about winning $20,000 a week using other people's player cards.
“ She said he was walking home after getting out of the hospital when the fatal injury happened. Williams added that he died on June 30, their mother's birthday.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/crime/vegas-man-arrested-for-allegedly-paying-homeless-man-6-to-do-backflip-which-resulted-in-fatal-injury/%3famp=true
Quote: unJon“ She said he was walking home after getting out of the hospital when the fatal injury happened.
That's right. He didnt get discharged from the hospital after the accident.
Quote: AlanMendelsonTotal BS. The victim was not discharged from the hospital and walked home. He was paralyzed. He died.
Where does this BS come from?
Sorry... but this isn't about winning $20,000 a week using other people's player cards.
Perhaps you confused the facts with this from the Las Vegas Review Journal which interviewed the victim's sister:
"Larry Coner’s sister said he was just leaving a treatment hospital for his mental health problems when he was goaded into performing the backflip that led to his death."
Oh could be. The people news story is done very poorly and reads the other way to me.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThat's right. He didnt get discharged from the hospital after the accident.
Read the People article I linked and tell me if it reads that way. I’m not saying you have the facts wrong. Just saying the People article is terribly written.
Quote: unJonOh could be. The people news story is done very poorly and reads the other way to me.
Really? You think a paralyzed man would be released from a hospital and walked home?
Geezus friggin crapola.
Quote: AlanMendelsonReally? You think a paralyzed man would be released from a hospital and walked home?
Geezus friggin crapola.
It’s really hard to take your posts seriously.
Quote: darkozHmmm...
So I'm on one side of Tropicana avenue with large traffic.
I yell for my friend to cross the street so we can hurry to the casinos.
My friend gets hit by a car crossing at my behest and dies.
I now committed a felony????
If your friend is not mentally sound (including intoxicated) and you coerce him into an unsafe action (jaywalking through heavy traffic), then possibly, yes.
