- View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1968 Vinyl release of 'Until You Happened To Pass By' on Discogs.
- Chiba: Man assaults woman who ‘happened to pass by’ with concrete block By Tokyo Reporter Staff on January 13, 2020 CHIBA (TR) – Chiba Prefectural Police have arrested a 36-year-old man over the alleged assault of a woman in Chiba City with a concrete block, reports the Sankei Shimbun (Jan.
- Is It Went Past Or Went Passed
- Happened To Pass By Meaning
- Who Happened To Pass By Answer
- If You Happen To Pass By
Kedah Man Who Happened To Pass By Accident Scene Finds That Deceased Victim Is His Wife Both the husband and wife are deaf and they have a seven-month-old child. By Arisha Rozaidee — 18 Sep 2020, 06:40 PM. According to a Jan. 19 newsletter from Punchbowl News, a Capitol Hill-based publication founded in January by former Politico journalists: “House Democrats now tell us they are aiming to pass Joe Biden’s massive Covid relief package by late February or early March, according to multiple sources involved in the effort.”.
The nature of the eventual discovery shocked the science community and investigators alike. The bodies had been discovered at different sites and at different times; some had signs of severe internal trauma, others showed traces of radiation. Half the bodies were naked or wearing each others’ clothes. And there was no object in the vicinity that could have caused any of that to happen, as concluded by the Soviet investigation.
Theories ranged from homicidal psychosis to aliens and government experiments. And they're showing no signs of slowing down - just look at this movie trailer for 'The Devil's Pass'. And it's not even the only horror movie to come out of Hollywood that deals with the subject matter.
Now, nearly 60 years later, Russian blogger Valentin Degterev - who manages a journal about the paranormal and unexplained - believes the deaths of the Dyatlov group were caused by a small-yield missile that hit the side of the rock. Evidence of a 30-meter wide crater, he says in his online journal, can be seen on closer inspection of the satellite images of the area and is situated about three km from the site of their tent.
“The granite was melted to basically red glass. I think the temperature at the moment of impact was very high. This is clearly visible on the satellite images.”
He continues: “Having been woken up by the shockwave, [the hikers] were blinded by the bright light, probably suffering temporary loss of vision. This explains their sudden escape and descent into the woods.”
The findings are even more strange, given Degterev’s belief that the firing of the missile had not been a test.
“The missile had probably gone off-course and changed direction, hitting the mountain face accidentally.”
The blogger states that, had there been no radiation found on the clothes, his other theory would’ve been that it was a meteor impact.
“I think the place needs a thorough look when spring arrives. If radiation is indeed found, and if there is an impact crater, then the mystery of the Dyatlov Pass can be considered solved.”
But can Degterev’s theory explain everything?
What originally happened
The group, led by 23-year-old Igor Dyatlov, hadn’t returned from their hiking trip to Otorten mountain in the winter of 1959. Later investigation showed that on Feb. 2 the tent the party had stayed in was ripped from the inside, with its inhabitants wandering into the night wearing only the clothes they wore to bed. All of the bodies were discovered weeks later - some of them were wearing the others’ clothes, soaked in high doses of radiation.
Where it gets really bizarre is that some of the bodies had shown only signs of hypothermia (hence the theory on why they were naked), while others found deeper in the woods had shown signs of massive internal trauma: bleeding, fractures, and broken skulls. One member of the group, Lyudmila Dubinina, was missing her tongue.
The Russians didn’t know what to do with all of this, and shut the investigation after finding no reason to suspect foul play. The final report from the Soviets posited that the group was killed by an “unknown compelling force.”
The Russians didn’t declassify the documents until the 1990s, which, understandably, has fueled conspiracy theories ranging from nuclear tests to the presence of aliens and paranormal creatures.
Various theories
The new theory by Degterev has received mixed reactions. Many of the commenters responded positively to the alleged revelation; others, however, remembered other versions that, in their minds, deserve closer inspection. There are over 60 known versions of what transpired in the blizzard.
What the science tells us for sure is that the nine skiers could not have sustained their injuries from any object found in the vicinity.
One of the most interesting theories revolves around a sacred cave of the local Mansi tribe, which they use for ritual sacrifice. The tribe, apparently, does not like to share the mountain with outsiders, and when the Dyatlov group allegedly robbed their sacrificial cave of its various items, hunted them down in the night and killed them. This theory, however, is more word of mouth than anything else.
Others argue that the chaotic and violent deaths could have been the result of a strong and toxic moonshine-type beverage the group had procured from the local hunters (possibly also used ritualistically). The stuff could easily have caused psychedelic hallucinations, it is believed. This would have accounted for the haphazard escape and the group’s apparently inexplicable behavior.
There is still the fact of the tent ripped from the inside, as well as the absence of any footprints outside the tent that did not belong to the members of the Dyatlov group. It really does appear that the group had shot out of the tent, running in different directions. The mystery of what really happened persists.
If using any of Russia Beyond's content, partly or in full, always provide an active hyperlink to the original material.
Get the week's best stories straight to your inbox
DISCLAIMER: This is taken from the context of “Zeroglyph” by Vance Pravat. The following could be a good quote, or a bad quote, but is nevertheless a QUOTE. Please, don’t talk me in in this discussion.
”What I have is a decision procedure or a framework, rather than a full-fledged theory of rights. I’ll limit the rights to a core set of four: the right not to be deprived of life or existence; the right not to be deprived of liberty; the right not to have one’s body and products of that body – which could be labor, speech, ideas, property, etc. – appropriated without consent; and finally, the Kantian right not to be used as a means to an end. These rights are what one rational, moral creature owes another.
Some definitions first. In this treatment, rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. Rights imply duties and duties imply rights. The four rights I mentioned are negative rights, which means they prohibit an agent from performing certain actions on the holder of the right. Each of the rights is associated with a corresponding hard duty. Your negative right to life implies others have a hard moral duty not to kill you. Your negative right to liberty means others have a hard moral duty not to imprison you or restrict you in any way unless you yourself are in violation of rights. Apart from the core rights, there are secondary rights. These rights are associated with soft duties. Your right to be aided is one such, and correspondingly, others have a soft duty to help you. In the decision procedure, secondary rights are not binding, but core rights are.
(NOTE: The following answer the question asked:) As a moral being, I have a duty to help you, but the duty is not an obligation. In contrast, I am under a strict obligation not to push you into the water. If everyone respected everyone else’s rights, if people didn’t kill and steal and lie, the world wouldn’t be in need of so much help.
A right to be aided cannot be obligatory because the discharge of the corresponding duty will result in inevitable conflicts with the hard duties. If the right to be aided is obligatory, one could justify killing someone in order to help someone else, like the doctor who harvests organs from a healthy patient to save five terminally ill patients. It will lead to a self-defeating philosophy.”
21 Answers
Pursuant to § 323c of the German Penal Code, absent of immediate danger to yourself, you are indeed legally obligated to render assistance under penalty of law.
Failure to do so is punishable by a fine, or up to a year in jail.
The charge is criminal indifference. You can get up to a year in prison.
Legal or ethical?
I can’t see it being an legal requirement in the US, particularly with the dangers of being sued by the drowner and his family and descendants. There are ‘good samaritan’ laws in some jursdisctions, but by no means all.
Ethically, I probably ought to try. But at what point does my risk of injury or dying outweigh that ethical need.
For example, to expand on your question
- You’re in the lake, flailing and drowning, with knives in each hand.
– I could jump in and help you survive, but by doing so there is a good chance I will be injured by your knives and possibly bleed to death.
What should I do?
Am I required to die for you to live? (Haven’t we played that game once before?)
Is It Went Past Or Went Passed
@elbanditoroso I would tell them to drop the knives. But being I’m not a strong swimmer, I could only try to get help anyway. But it got me thinking. What someone broke into my home while I was frying something and I forgot about what was on the stove and it caught fire and quickly spread. I run out of the house but the robber is frozen in fear from the smoke but can safely escape because he’s near the front door. Am I obligated to help? Do I watch them burn? They always say never go back into a fire.
I’ll do what I can for you without putting my life on the line.
In these situations, I think your instinct is to help before you have time to think what you are doing. Society will then consider you a “hero”. On the other hand, those who look the other way are liable to be despised. I’m surprised this should be part of the penal code of any country.
@flutherother No, I get it. People need to know that if they are at risk of losing their own life they won’t be penalized for not putting themselves in danger. But at the same time, it also doesn’t take into account that sometimes people panic and freeze. Like I’ve seen videos where people jump to grab children about to be hit by a car with no thought of the danger to themselves and others could have time to react but freeze at the thought of danger to themselves or are just slow to react. I remember sitting up on a bridge to take a photo over one of Niagra Falls bridges. My mom saw me and dropped to her knees in panic. If I were in any real danger she couldn’t save me. So would she be libel.
I don’t believe I have a legal obligation to help you but I’d try to find you help, or a way to help. I’m not a strong swimmer so I doubt I would jump in, sorry.
It is my understanding that in the US you have no legal obligation to help another person in mortal danger. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
I do think you have a moral obligation to help a fellow human though (even if that person is contemptible).
Holy shit @ragingloli that really is a thing
https://www.lewik.org/term/15890/omission-to-effect-an-easy-rescue-section-323c-german-criminal-code/
In the US generally speaking there is no legal obligation to save someone else in peril, but there are several states that have exceptions like if you created the danger you are supposed to do something to help the person you have put in harms way, or if you are responsible for the person, like a teacher or a parent would protect a child. As I said that is only in some states.
Even though Americans are not required to help other others in a dangerous situation in almost all circumstances, there are good samaritan laws to protect people who do try to help. For instance if you try to save someone’s life with CPR and in the process crack their ribs, you are safe from lawsuits.
@JLeslie In Canada the Red Cross provides insurance for a significant amount just in case you get sued. As long as you are doing as you are trained to and keep your certification current. About $100 a year or so. You get a discount if you renew every year.
My guess is law suits probably still do happen in the US. I am not sure how the law is actually interpreted.
I found a list of Duty to Rescue laws for different countries and states.
Paraphrasing from the above reference:
In the common law of most English-speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. However, such a duty may arise in two situations:
1) A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been negligent – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
2)Such a duty may also arise where a “special relationship” exists. For example:
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.
Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.
Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.
In some U.S. jurisdictions, real property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all reasonably foreseeable dangers on the property. Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the duty to rescue to all persons who enter upon real property regardless whether they are classified as invitees, social guests or trespassers.
Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.
In the United States, as of 2009, ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person.
These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.
Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with reasonable care, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have limited or removed liability from rescuers in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuers need not endanger themselves
in conducting the rescue.
Calling out for help or dialing the Emergency 911 system is considered helping.
(I learned a lot from this question. Thanks!)
I go canoe paddling 3 to 5 days a week all year round in the PNW (>2000 miles/year). I always wear a PFF (even though I’m a strong swimmer and feel at easy in water). I wear the PFD not for me but so that I will be immediately ready to help someone struggling in the water. The PFD will allow a panic stricken person something to grab onto without pulling us both down.
Safety is no accident!
According to my own moral compass I would be obligated to call for or provide help, if possible.
Many years ago I was walking down the street of the river city I called home at the time. It was a Sunday morning and the downtown streets were almost deserted. Suddenly I heard the roar of a car engine whining through the gears at a high rate of speed. I looked toward the source to see a blue Baracuda racing through the intersection toward the river. Several seconds later I heard the squeal of tires skidding on pavement, followed by a crashing noise and a splash as the car flipped over the barriers into the river. I ran down the block and could see the car floating upside down in the middle of the river, surrounded empty beer cans floating up.
This was before cellphones, so I was torn. The thoughts flooded too fast to process…should I attempt a rescue or should I call 911?
After a few seconds (that each seemed like minutes) I heard the sirens and knew the rescue crews be able to do more than I could. I didn’t stick around.
The next day I found out both driver and passenger perished and were probably gone before the rescue crew arrived. The passenger had been someone I knew from school. I had dated his sister and his dad delivered dairy products to the place I worked!
I worked for the town volunteer ambulance service for many years – over 2000 hours of active service. Most of my shifts were weekend nights. Many of the calls were for car accidents involving high speed, maybe alcohol, carelessness. Pretty much at every scene there would be one or 2 bystanders – always guys – who were willing to help do what I needed. “Can I help? What do you need?”
“Yes! Help me lift this motorcycle.” “Lift this” “Hold this”.
Some people would drive past the stopped ambulance but many would stop to help.
Rarely did we get names.
This was before cell phones and HIV when people were not so afraid of coming in contact with blood. Things are different now.
@KNOWITALL I did for a few years. When I saw his Dad a few weeks later, I didn’t tell him I was there at the accident scene. I felt guilty. But over the years I realized how dangerous it would have been for me. I knew how to swim, and I’d had water rescue training in the Navy. Still, it was a dangerous situation with unknown undercurrents. Now? I don’t regret not jumping in. It wouldn’t have changed the outcome for the better, and possibly have ended up at my own funeral.
To cut to the chase, yes I would try to save you. Because it’s the right thing to do. Might screw it up and drown the both of us, but I would have to give it a shot anyway, A situation like that is no time to sit around and play Sigmund Freud..do what has to be done and philosophize about it later.
Happened To Pass By Meaning
Who Happened To Pass By Answer
Answer this question
Login
orJoin
to answer.If You Happen To Pass By
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.