LogFAQs > #986927805

pegusus123456 posted...

I don't think they were trying to make a point about the cause and effect of her death lol

Not what I meant, sorry.

Say we have two variables:

1. A. Jane is on her side/B. Jane is on her back
2. A. Walt is present/B. Walt is absent

In 1a2a, she does not die (at least via aspiration, Walt may still kill her, guy sucks).
In 1b2a, she dies, and it is on Walt for not reacting (ignoring for the moment that she rolled over due to his actions)
1a2b, she lives.
1b2b, she dies.

Now take it and add the variable of "on her back BECAUSE of Walt."

That raises an additional level of personal culpability, because the presence or absence of Walt is what puts her in that position. No Walt, no death.

If she had already been on her back, then Walt's presence or absence would be less meaningful, as she would have died with or without his intervention.

But it didn't go that way, so the greater blame is on the person who both caused the events of her death and actively chose to not react, as opposed to the person who just chose not to help someone out of a situation that they (the ignorer) did not personally cause. The first person made two choices that killed someone, the second made only one.