Quote:
|
: I do NOT mean to be a Monday Morning Quarterback, or to second-guess how divemedic handled this.
|
I second that altho my earlier post was negative on the legal aspects.
But before others pile on the law: thinking it inhibits us, it's purpose is precisely due to the confusion and anger that visits anyone in such situations.
It's SUPPOSED to inhibit life and death choices only made on those feelings.
So, it's to demand an objective eye, and that demand ultimately protects many people - including us - who could otherwise be killed because of someone's mistake, due to their anger, fear or whatever.
Second, the tests for valid SD SHOULD be extremely stringent: in a split second judgment on which lives depend: we could be wrong, killing an innocent person - we could even err in fact but have a legitimate case that it was reasonable to believe otherwise. Still, an innocent person is dead.
This is not the kind of situation - human life dependent on split-second decisions- that should be loosely treated by law.