The Bad Samaritan

S03E20 The Good SamaritanretroNov 7, 2012, 6:58 PM ET21 years later6 posts by 5 posters
📰 News
6 posts
Ubiquitous

In a New York Times op-ed, Jay Sterling Silver argues that there oughta be a law requiring passersby to help people in distress:

	A sensible statute might read like this: "Any person who knows
	that another is in imminent danger, or has sustained serious
	physical harm, and who fails to render reasonable assistance
	shall be fined up to $5,000, imprisoned for up to three months,
	or both." Civil liability could also be established, as in
	other countries.
	A duty to help would not require bystanders to endanger
	themselves or provide help beyond their abilities; it could
	simply require warning someone of imminent danger or calling
	911. It . . . would require us to accept our fundamental moral
	duty to help those in grave peril.

We're pretty sure there is such a law already. Hasn't this guy ever watched "Seinfeld"?

"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg a second time."
David JohnstonUbiquitous

Technically the law they were convicted of was imaginary. Although they could have been fined for failing to report a crime.

UbiquitousDavid Johnston

In article , [email] wrote:

I'd have to look, but I recall the law in the Sinefeld finale was based on a real one that was rather controversial for the obvious reasons at the time.

"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg a second time."
Mason BargeUbiquitous

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:57:00 -0700, Ubiquitous wrote:

IIRC, these laws are actually fairly common in "civil law" countries (as opposed to "Common Law").

I remember, the guys who photographed Princess Diana's wreck were invetigated for failure to render assistance. Don't know what became of them, but it's obviously against the law.

Dimitrios PaskoudniakisUbiquitous

"Ubiquitous" wrote in message news:k7ge6t$89c$[email]...

The cop in the Seinfeld finale indicated he was arresting them because the law required their assistance if not a danger to do so.

Aha! The perp suggested he had a gun in his pocket, so that gets them off the hook. It WOULD have been a danger to try to assist. NOT GUILTY.

Ashton CrusherUbiquitous

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:58:58 -0500, Ubiquitous wrote:

We don't need any more frigging laws telling us what to do. You want to help someone go help them. All you'd get with your new law is people suing other people who failed to help, or didn't help soon enough.