If One Of Our 3000 Soldiers Contracts Ebola, And He Dies, Or If As A Result......

[Theowl32]

What if an outbreak happens here as a result of one if the 3000 soldiers brings ebola here to the US?

Oh, I know. Could never happen. Of course not. Right. I wonder why no other country would even THINK about sending any of their people (let alone 3000) to an area that is experiencing the worst outbreak of ebola in history.

So, here is the question. (I know this would never ever happen, but there could be a case based on the way this law reads.)

Could Obama be charged with murder by depraved indifference?

Depraved Indifference Law Legal Definition

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition




To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274.


---------------------------------------------

Yeah, I think a case could be made. Let alone with a mass outbreak happens here as a result of one of these soldiers bringing it here.

 

[martybegan]

As CinC he can send troops wherever he sees fit, bound by the ability of Congress to Declare War. This isn't a war so the second part is moot.

A ton of countries already have people going to the Hot Zone, and in a far more disorganized way. The Army has been training to work in a Bio/Chem hot zone for decades, and are well equipped to handle it. if a solider does get infected, the previous airlift of two Doctors back here with zero subsequent infections shows it can be done.

 

[bodecea]

What if an outbreak happens here as a result of one if the 3000 soldiers brings ebola here to the US?

Oh, I know. Could never happen. Of course not. Right. I wonder why no other country would even THINK about sending any of their people (let alone 3000) to an area that is experiencing the worst outbreak of ebola in history.

So, here is the question. (I know this would never ever happen, but there could be a case based on the way this law reads.)

Could Obama be charged with murder by depraved indifference?

Depraved Indifference Law Legal Definition

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition




To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274.


---------------------------------------------

Yeah, I think a case could be made. Let alone with a mass outbreak happens here as a result of one of these soldiers bringing it here.

I think you should do all you can to get the GOP to blame the President for Ebola.

 

[Freemason9]

Apparently the person that wrote the OP is much more in tune with partisanship than actual containment of a viral outbreak/epidemic. The whole focus now should be on prevention of a pandemic . . . and that won't happen by ignoring the problem. Obama's actions are exactly correct, albeit perhaps later than desireable.

 

[Desperado]

Then add to that

200,000 from Ebola countries have visas to enter U.S.
So it is not a matter if Ebola comes to the US, it is only a matter of when, Thanks to our policy that fails to protect America Citizens.
200 000 from Ebola countries have visas to enter U.S. WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[martybegan]

Apparently the person that wrote the OP is much more in tune with partisanship than actual containment of a viral outbreak/epidemic. The whole focus now should be on prevention of a pandemic . . . and that won't happen by ignoring the problem. Obama's actions are exactly correct, albeit perhaps later than desireable.

It would have also been nice to see Europe more on the ball with this. Most of the response has been from NGO's, not governments.

The biggest fear is with all these generations of virus propagating that a more robust strain comes out as a mutation. Even one that could survive for a few minutes as an aerosol would be a major problem.

That being said, an outbreak in the US would be catastrophic but containable due to our governmental organization and our infrastructure. The worry would be an infection in a large city causing a panic evacuation. You would see more deaths from that than Ebola in that scenario.

 

[Silhouette]

What if an outbreak happens here as a result of one if the 3000 soldiers brings ebola here to the US?

Oh, I know. Could never happen. Of course not. Right. I wonder why no other country would even THINK about sending any of their people (let alone 3000) to an area that is experiencing the worst outbreak of ebola in history.

So, here is the question. (I know this would never ever happen, but there could be a case based on the way this law reads.)

Could Obama be charged with murder by depraved indifference?

Depraved Indifference Law Legal Definition

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition




To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274.


---------------------------------------------

Yeah, I think a case could be made. Let alone with a mass outbreak happens here as a result of one of these soldiers bringing it here.

The short answer to the OP's question is "Yes". Obama seems hellbent on importing a 90% fatal infectious disease to the New World that we don't fully understand.

For instance, animals carry and/or succomb to it. We aren't sure which ones. We aren't even sure if things like fleas or other arthropods can transmit it by biting sick, then healthy people. We aren't even sure how long after the lucky 10% who recover from it remain infectious in all their bodily fluids and secretions. Nor do we know the number of people who don't get sick but instead who carry the disease [the worst case scenario of all]...

The patently-insane policy seems to be, "import it now and we'll just wing it as it cuts through our population like wildfire".

 

[Freemason9]

What if an outbreak happens here as a result of one if the 3000 soldiers brings ebola here to the US?

Oh, I know. Could never happen. Of course not. Right. I wonder why no other country would even THINK about sending any of their people (let alone 3000) to an area that is experiencing the worst outbreak of ebola in history.

So, here is the question. (I know this would never ever happen, but there could be a case based on the way this law reads.)

Could Obama be charged with murder by depraved indifference?

Depraved Indifference Law Legal Definition

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition




To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274.


---------------------------------------------

Yeah, I think a case could be made. Let alone with a mass outbreak happens here as a result of one of these soldiers bringing it here.

The short answer to the OP's question is "Yes". Obama seems hellbent on importing a 90% fatal infectious disease to the New World that we don't fully understand.

For instance, animals carry and/or succomb to it. We aren't sure which ones. We aren't even sure if things like fleas or other arthropods can transmit it by biting sick, then healthy people. We aren't even sure how long after the lucky 10% who recover from it remain infectious in all their bodily fluids and secretions. Nor do we know the number of people who don't get sick but instead who carry the disease [the worst case scenario of all]...

The patently-insane policy seems to be, "import it now and we'll just wing it as it cuts through our population like wildfire".

Again, you are demonstrating a remarkably narrow view of this situation--and doing the old standby of blaming Obama for this is very near complete idiocy. Partisanship is one thing, but you go too far on this.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Ground Zero for the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic that killed millions worldwide was Fort Riley, Kansas.
If you can't rule something out mathematically, it will happen. A viral epidemic that kills half the US military and debilitates the rest would be just what our Machiavellian C In C would order. Add into that a good portion of the West and East Coastlines are "Gun Free Zones" negating the 'Yamamoto Effect' (Japanese Admiral Yamamoto allegedly told his fellows on the Japanese Imperial Staff during the planning stages for Pearl Harbor that they could never hope to invade America because they would be met by a rifle behind every blade of grass) and you have all the ingredients necessary for an enemy to invade the United States. The Devil himself could not do a better job of weakening America than Obama has.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you are demonstrating a remarkably narrow view of this situation--and doing the old standby of blaming Obama for this is very near complete idiocy. Partisanship is one thing, but you go too far on this.

I voted for Obama, twice. This is about a deadly-dangerous disease and how it's being imported into the New World. What the hell does politics have to do with it? ANY person who does this should be charged with homicide.

 

[hoosier88]

As CinC he can send troops wherever he sees fit, bound by the ability of Congress to Declare War. This isn't a war so the second part is moot.

A ton of countries already have people going to the Hot Zone, and in a far more disorganized way. The Army has been training to work in a Bio/Chem hot zone for decades, and are well equipped to handle it. if a solider does get infected, the previous airlift of two Doctors back here with zero subsequent infections shows it can be done.

(My bold)

Yep, government acting within its purview is normally immune to legal actions, & this is one of those. Our troops (male & female, BTW - this is construction/logistics/training cadre, plus security - not direct-care personnel) will be behind the lines, so to speak.

For all of me, what we ought to do is empty out a nuke CVN (worse case, a fleet of CVNs), refit it with RORO cargo containers kitted out as a MASH, staff & supply up, send a flotilla of hospital ships, command & control ships, a Marine ACV assault carrier (for the helos & ACVs, to move heavy equipment & cargo & security elements), supply ships for replenishment, & simply park them offshore of Monrovia. Rotate troops, personnel, supply PPE, clean water. It's doable - whether or not somebody will make it happen depends on how serious we are about leading the fight to contain Ebola to Africa.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What if an outbreak happens here as a result of one if the 3000 soldiers brings ebola here to the US?

FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!

We should have a chart to keep track of it like...a color coded threat chart!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is sending the troops to fight Ebola over there, so we don't have to fight it here

 

[martybegan]

As CinC he can send troops wherever he sees fit, bound by the ability of Congress to Declare War. This isn't a war so the second part is moot.

A ton of countries already have people going to the Hot Zone, and in a far more disorganized way. The Army has been training to work in a Bio/Chem hot zone for decades, and are well equipped to handle it. if a solider does get infected, the previous airlift of two Doctors back here with zero subsequent infections shows it can be done.

(My bold)

Yep, government acting within its purview is normally immune to legal actions, & this is one of those. Our troops (male & female, BTW - this is construction/logistics/training cadre, plus security - not direct-care personnel) will be behind the lines, so to speak.

For all of me, what we ought to do is empty out a nuke CVN (worse case, a fleet of CVNs), refit it with RORO cargo containers kitted out as a MASH, staff & supply up, send a flotilla of hospital ships, command & control ships, a Marine ACV assault carrier (for the helos & ACVs, to move heavy equipment & cargo & security elements), supply ships for replenishment, & simply park them offshore of Monrovia. Rotate troops, personnel, supply PPE, clean water. It's doable - whether or not somebody will make it happen depends on how serious we are about leading the fight to contain Ebola to Africa.

Carriers have the space, but are not designed for that type of habitation. And actually we do need them to make sure other people don't get frisky in other parts of the world. the Norks, the Chinese, and the Iranians come to mind.

As long as you control a perimeter, practice decontamination when going in and out of the camps, and monitor everyone religiously for signs of infection, there is no issue with being on the ground during one of these outbreaks.

 

[hoosier88]

Then add to that

200,000 from Ebola countries have visas to enter U.S.
So it is not a matter if Ebola comes to the US, it is only a matter of when, Thanks to our policy that fails to protect America Citizens.
200 000 from Ebola countries have visas to enter U.S. WashingtonExaminer.com

(My bold)

Too late to bleat about it, read The Hot Zone, a factual history of the Ebola outbreak near WADC in 1989. ASAMARIID saved the day, as they & CDC likely will again & again. Your terror is drily & duly noted, & dismissed as non-productive.

See The Hot Zone - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia for the details. I recommend reading the book, it's an excellent primer on Ebola, & lots of background for understanding HIV/AIDS, & other viral hemorrhagic fevers endemic to Africa. Information is the basis for good decisions, as opposed to screaming & breathless headlines in the 24/7 mass media.

 

[martybegan]

Then add to that

200,000 from Ebola countries have visas to enter U.S.
So it is not a matter if Ebola comes to the US, it is only a matter of when, Thanks to our policy that fails to protect America Citizens.
200 000 from Ebola countries have visas to enter U.S. WashingtonExaminer.com

(My bold)

Too late to bleat about it, read The Hot Zone, a factual history of the Ebola outbreak near WADC in 1989. ASAMARIID saved the day, as they & CDC likely will again & again. Your terror is drily & duly noted, & dismissed as non-productive.

See The Hot Zone - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia for the details. I recommend reading the book, it's an excellent primer on Ebola, & lots of background for understanding HIV/AIDS, & other viral hemorrhagic fevers endemic to Africa. Information is the basis for good decisions, as opposed to screaming & breathless headlines in the 24/7 mass media.

The key to all this is to stop this outbreak BEFORE we get to the point of aerosol transmission or vector transmission via mutation. That involves risk, always does. But while slim, the chance of this bastard mutating to something worse increases every new generation of infections.

 

[hoosier88]

What if an outbreak happens here as a result of one if the 3000 soldiers brings ebola here to the US?

Oh, I know. Could never happen. Of course not. Right. I wonder why no other country would even THINK about sending any of their people (let alone 3000) to an area that is experiencing the worst outbreak of ebola in history.

So, here is the question. (I know this would never ever happen, but there could be a case based on the way this law reads.)

Could Obama be charged with murder by depraved indifference?

Depraved Indifference Law Legal Definition

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition




To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983),while exploring the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" the Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

"to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274.


---------------------------------------------

Yeah, I think a case could be made. Let alone with a mass outbreak happens here as a result of one of these soldiers bringing it here.

The short answer to the OP's question is "Yes". Obama seems hellbent on importing a 90% fatal infectious disease to the New World that we don't fully understand.

For instance, animals carry and/or succomb to it. We aren't sure which ones. We aren't even sure if things like fleas or other arthropods can transmit it by biting sick, then healthy people. We aren't even sure how long after the lucky 10% who recover from it remain infectious in all their bodily fluids and secretions. Nor do we know the number of people who don't get sick but instead who carry the disease [the worst case scenario of all]...

The patently-insane policy seems to be, "import it now and we'll just wing it as it cuts through our population like wildfire".

(My bold)

The 90% fatality rate is much too high. The figure I've seen here & there is 40% - @ 90%, given the speed of progression of the disease, we'd never have heard of the disease.

Yah, the animal reservoir of Ebola may be monkeys, possibly birds or bats. We need to pin that down, but we need to stop the current outbreak first. There's a lot to study, unfortunately, & we haven't put all our (the West nor the US) resources into the arena because Ebola seemed to be limited to Africa, & some of the most isolated parts of Africa @ that. Now that the disease seems to be breaking out of isolation, we're seeing more & more attention - medical, health, governmental - as well as the health/medical NGOs that have been in the front lines fighting the disease all this time - being paid to it.

We can hope that the focusing of resources will generate a better understanding & vaccines or cures for the disease. We'll just have to wait & see.

 

[Desperado]

The question is why do we permit people from these countries to enter the United States?
Seems the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" So let's start with that ounce of Prevention, and close our borders to
Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria.

 

[hoosier88]

The question is why do we permit people from these countries to enter the United States?
Seems the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" So let's start with that ounce of Prevention, and close our borders to
Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria.

Much too late. Ebola has been in the US since @ least 1989. Read In the Hot Zone. USARMIID & CDC have samples & cultures in hand, working on vaccines & cures. & as we've seen, there are several experimental vaccines in trial, in varying stages of development, in the US & in Canada, that we know of. Human trials are underway, & CDC & USARMIDD are working on ramping up production of the experimental drugs, just in case they are effective against Ebola.

 

[Desperado]

The question is why do we permit people from these countries to enter the United States?
Seems the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" So let's start with that ounce of Prevention, and close our borders to
Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria.

Much too late. Ebola has been in the US since @ least 1989. Read In the Hot Zone. USARMIID & CDC have samples & cultures in hand, working on vaccines & cures. & as we've seen, there are several experimental vaccines in trial, in varying stages of development, in the US & in Canada, that we know of. Human trials are underway, & are working on ramping up production of the experimental drugs, just in case they are effective against Ebola.

CDC & USARMIDD
Very big difference when the virus is in the controlled environment of the CDC & USARMIDD as opposed to 200,000 visa holders and possible carriers roaming free in our country.