So you will understand if your spouse or child or grandchild is injured and bleeds out on the street in plain sight of others who did not want to aid them for fear of being put through the legal grinder.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated. The Golden Rule. Sure there’s a risk. Everything in life has a risk, including doing the right thing.
This is the part of the Utah law…
Effective 5/8/2018
78B-4-501. Good Samaritan Law.
(2) A person who renders emergency care at or near the scene of, or during, an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency care, unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency.
So in this regard, you use your EDC against a threat, but one round ricocheted, or passed through the threat, and hits a bystander. With the threat neutralized the law would not apply for you if you are trying to help the injured person, because technically you caused their emergency.
I am simply pointing out how laws can be easily manipulated by lawyers against you.
The Good Samaritan laws out there are good, but do get misused at times as well.
What should be and how things actually are is two different things.
Now you are changing the scenario. If I’m not mistaken, we’re, a friend and me, driving down a road, see two ppl fighting, a third person walks up, puts a round into one of the two fighting. My family isn’t involved.
Of course if my family is being threatened, I’m out of the car defending and taking any of my family hurt to a hospital. The other ppl have to fend for themselves.
I think he is posing the hypothetical, of your friend or family member is attacked, shot, and left lying there bleeding, and somebody else comes along and calls 911 from a distance and watches as your family member bleeds out, will you understand why the person chose not to [try to and maybe] save their life?
That’s what I am getting from his post, anyway.
No, I asked for clarification if you read up the thread. He comes across two guys fighting.
Say the “two guys fighting” is actually (remember, it’s nearly impossible to fully and correctly judge a third party situation in a blink when you show up during) a male family member of yours who was violently attacked, unlawfully and unprovoked, and was then shot by his attacker. He calls 911 from a safe distance (this is my recommendation BTW remember) and watches, your family member bleeds out and dies.
Are you understanding of why he chose not to actively help and try to save your family member’s life?
I think that is his question
(again, not poking at the choice, it’s my recommendation, the logical answer is yes, I would understand if somebody else chose not to assist my family member other than calling 911…at least that’s what I think in a hypothetical i guess there is no telling if actuality)
I do not disagree. There have been a couple of cases where the Good Samaritan was challenged but if memory serves it was more for what they Didn’t do than for what they did wrong. In either case I believe the good Samaritan was not found to be liable for anything.
Whatever dude. I’m tired of picking fly crap out of pepper and changing scenarios. Have an outstanding evening.
I think this altered scenario is interesting, and actually drives the original question a little deeper.
Because ‘Bystander apathy’ is real. People have died meaningless deaths while folks just stood there and watched, waiting for someone to intervene.
But the flip side of that is we’re talking about an unsecured, potentially active crime scene. Even trained paramedics might have to wait if a crime scene is unsecured, and it’s their job to save lives. If the victim dies and the family demands answers, you have to articulate the scenario properly.
There was a famous video from almost 20 years ago, when a Marine was shot in the street in Iraq. Buddy after buddy tried to save him, but it was an ambush. Each man who rushed to the rescue was gunned down, creating more casualties for other Marines to try to rescue. I remember this video vividly, we had to watch it over and over again to drive the point home that you can’t render aid until it’s safe to do so.
Precisely. And it’s actually the exact same scenario, he just put different people into the roles to make it hit home more.
The person who is shot has a family. Will they see you as just an indifferent observer who could have helped, but did nothing. A replay of the Kitty Genovese affair.
As I said before; I can get myself into more trouble quicker than I can get myself out of it. For me at least, I think we have become a nation of feelings. Not all of that is bad but when it comes to my safety or my family’s safety, my job is to me and mine. Screw anybody else’s feelings. If the situation plays out that I can help you at the same time all well and good. If you’re a brother in arms fighting next to me every day that’s a different story. Some random dude on the street, nah.
You know the sad part of it? When I was in my 20’s and 30’s, I wanted to be that guy that would help some random person in need like this. Probably in certain situations I still might be, however with this crazy turn our society has taken has made me hard to most happenings like this.