Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 9 comments on “Necessity pg 10
  1. Bob says

    Doesn’t that incentivize Dylan to do nothing, instead of helping protect people from his little fire gone out of control?

    • It stops him from being guilty of burning down the other five houses.
      Now he’s only guilty of destroying his own, the one he forced Harry to demolish to save others (self defense), and the one he blew up himself.

      • Is Dylan on the hook for the house Harry demolished? Harry’s demolition was not *objectively* necessary to stop the fire from spreading; Harry only demolished it due to a mistake of fact.

  2. mahuja says

    It is meant to disincentivize causing the problem in the first place, I believe.
    He’s committing intentional arson of his own house, and reckless arson of his neighbours houses.
    It could perhaps provide an opportunity for leniency, but it would be measured against the recklessness that caused it in the first place, so not really.

    On the other hand, consider a scenario where you build a campfire and it -accidentally- spreads, causing a fire that would eventually spread to someones house – if you do some damage to his/her property that saves the house… Then it could possibly be considered a factor. Maybe even enough that they’d let you off entirely.

    A lawyer could give better insights on it.

    • (sorry, reposting this as a reply where it should have gone)

      I’m not a lawyer, but I assume that one way or the other, that house was going down, and it was going to be Dylan’s fault (either he blew it up or let it burn). His sentence may actually be less because he doesn’t get charged for the property damage to the rest of the houses further down the road, but because of the fire he started, the house he blew up was destroyed, so that one, at least, still counts against him. He just destroyed two houses instead of ten.

      • Also, we already had a lesson which involved trying to fix things when you realize that you shouldn’ta done what you done did do.

      • Strictly speaking, he’s on the hook for three houses – his own, the one he destroyed for the firebreak, and the one Harry had to destroy to save everyone else’s.

  3. Kereth says

    I’m not a lawyer, but I assume that one way or the other, that house was going down, and it was going to be Dylan’s fault (either he blew it up or let it burn). His sentence may actually be less because he doesn’t get charged for the property damage to the rest of the houses further down the road, but because of the fire he started, the house he blew up was destroyed, so it still counts against him. He just destroyed two houses instead of ten.

Class Participation

___