You can't sue someone for not helping; otherwise we'd all be fucked.
in my country you can >>
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeine_Gefahr#Unterlassene_Hilfeleistung
You can't sue someone for not helping; otherwise we'd all be fucked.
This is Florida.
Surely there's enough there for the state to make a case that they be sent to a psychiatric facility?
Is there any word from any of the kids' parents?
Is there any word from any of the kids' parents?
And? You said everyone would be fucked if laws like this existed.
Now you're provided with evidence that laws like this are entirely reasonable and needed.
Just curious, why are you against good samaritan laws?
2. Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance.
Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.
1975, c. 6, s. 2.
49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.
In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.
1975, c. 6, s. 49; 1999, c. 40, s. 46.
Referring to USA not other countries.
The Seinfeld finale sent the main characters to jail for doing this except with a guy being mugged, not drowning. It was called the "Good Samaritan Law", and it clearly does not exist, at least in Florida.
State Exceptions
However, some states have laws that do impose a duty to assist people in need. These laws do vary from state to state:
Wisconsin -- In Wisconsin, if you know that a crime is being committed, and that a victim has suffered or may suffer bodily harm, you have a duty to call police or provide assistance
Minnesota -- If you are at the scene of an emergency and you know that someone has suffered grave physical harm, or could be hurt, you have a duty to give "reasonable assistance." Reasonable assistance can mean calling or attempting to call police or medical personnel.
Rhode Island -- If you know that person is a victim of sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, or armed robbery and you were at the scene of the crime, then you need to report the crime to law enforcement. Failure to do so is punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of $500 to $1,000.
California -- When you reasonably know or believe that a child under 14 years of age has been a victim of murder, rape, or lewd and lascivious acts, you must notify law enforcement. Failure to do so is excused if you feared for your own safety, or you are related to either the victim or the offender.
Florida -- In Florida, if you witness a sexual battery, you need to immediately report the offense to law enforcement. Violation of this law is a first degree misdemeanor.
Other states that have similar statutes include Ohio, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and Washington.
I knew what they were from a CPR class. In the event you crack someone's sternum when doing compressions they protect you. I just responded understanding what they were intending to ask.People are misusing the term Good Samaritan law. Good Samaritan laws don't require you to help. They just provide that you can't be liable if you do try to help and something goes wrong.
I believe the only state that imposes a duty to help is Wisconsin.
Referring to USA not other countries.
That guy was projecting. Some of us make it a point to help when others are in need.Well you're the one who said "we'd all be fucked".
People are misusing the term Good Samaritan law. Good Samaritan laws don't require you to help. They just provide that you can't be liable if you do try to help and something goes wrong.
I believe the only state that imposes a duty to help is Wisconsin.
Please explain why an essential law like this would not work specifically in the USA.
This is disgusting, heartless fucks. Sociopathic.
Section 2 from Québec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a quasi-constitutional law:
Section 49:
It should be exported everywhere.
The state of Florida currently does not have a law where a citizen is obligated to render aid or call for help for anyone in distress.
Calling 911 would have led to someone coming, but it seems very doubtful that they would have arrived in time to help.
You know, I'm not particularly a fan of Good Samaritan laws in general, but these kids certainly went above and beyond the call of duty to be complete pieces of human garbage. Making it a crime to not attempt to call emergency services when you have the ability seems like a possible alternative?
I wonder what kind of civil case you could make in these circumstances.
Not sure what part of "call 911" would net you a lawsuit. I get that people have been sued and injured for helping, but you can be 100% not involved by using the phone. You don't have to put your life at risk to help.Guns and lawsuits.
Not that I disagree with you that helping someone in distress should be law.
Jesus....the internet has led to generation of fucking sociopaths.
That guy was projecting. Some of us make it a point to help when others are in need.
Am I wrong for hoping that someone will release their name and address?
Am I wrong for hoping that someone will release their name and address?
They dont have a good case. All the countries that have duty of rescue laws are civil law countries. It seems pretty well established where the common law position on this issue is.The family would propably win in civil court if they can get the system to take their case. Plenty of countries have a law that says you have to help people who are in immediate danger, so it's not a very good point to bring up repeatedly (that there seemingly doesn't exist laws like that in general).
While it's a good law it seems unlikely that it would have helped the victim in this case. Trying to aid a drowning man would have put the monsters in danger, so they would not have been legally obliged to help. Calling 911 would have led to someone coming, but it seems very doubtful that they would have arrived in time to help.
I don't want to put any sort of defense forward for these kids but they were smoking weed. This may have factored into their hesitance to call 911. More likely they are just assholes though.Not sure what part of "call 911" would net you a lawsuit. I get that people have been sued and injured for helping, but you can be 100% not involved by using the phone. You don't have to put your life at risk to help.
Just how shortsighted are folks in this thread that don't understand this? What is so complicated about calling emergency services? Do tell.
Not sure what part of "call 911" would net you a lawsuit. I get that people have been sued and injured for helping, but you can be 100% not involved by using the phone. You don't have to put your life at risk to help.
Just how shortsighted are folks in this thread that don't understand this? What is so complicated about calling emergency services? Do tell.
Guns and lawsuits.
Not that I disagree with you that helping someone in distress should be law.
They were plenty fucking cognizant to what was happening. Did you not at least READ the story?I don't want to put any sort of defense forward for these kids but they were smoking weed. This may have factored into their hesitance to call 911. More likely they are just assholes though.
That doesn't matter. Calling 911 would have satisfied the obligation.
But it would have accomplished more vs. just watching. It would also allow the police to charge assholes like these people filming.
Isn't there some kind of obscure snuff film law or similar they could try and charge them with?
The legal question here is whether the law should be used to prevent bad behavior or to encourage good behavior - that's a major philosophical difference. The US has always had a laissez-faire view of government intervention, so I'm not surprised there's a different take in Europe.
Not sure where I come out on it. I think I'm opposed to duty to help laws but it's not a strong conviction.
They would at least have found the body immediately instead of five goddamn days later.While it's a good law it seems unlikely that it would have helped the victim in this case. Trying to aid a drowning man would have put the monsters in danger, so they would not have been legally obliged to help. Calling 911 would have led to someone coming, but it seems very doubtful that they would have arrived in time to help.
Filming and taunting a dying man though?
They didnt put the man in that position in order to film him die. They just happened to be there, I dont think thats illegal. I hav no fucking idea whats wrong with these kids, but unfortunately theyre just not liable.But it would have accomplished more vs. just watching. It would also allow the police to charge assholes like these people filming.
Isn't there some kind of obscure snuff film law or similar they could try and charge them with?