This makes me sick!!

[samthedagger]

This is really disturbing. You have to be evil to just let someone lay there and die like that. I can kind of understand the guy on the bicycle, as he might have been going by too fast to realize that he was lying there in a puddle of blood as opposed to just lying there (there are a lot of homeless people in NYC), but the guy who took a picture with his cell phone then just walked away... that's sick, really really sick.

[Ystradmynach]

I was actually reading up on the bystander effect recently, the reason it exists is because of group think. Our natural instinct is not to do anything until there is a group consensus, the larger the group the larger it becomes to reach a consensus, and the more likely we are to believe that someone has the situation under control, that someone has called the cops, and so on.

And the bystander effect is really just the tip of the iceberg concerning how groups effect our behavior. Group think is also why kamikaze pilots, cultists and terrorists kill themselves to protect the group, and why during 9/11 one floor on the wtc would completely evacuate after the first plane hit while the floor above it would keep working until it was too late.

To say that anyone of those people who walked by were evil is to misunderstand the situation. Probably all of them would have helped out if there was someone bleeding to death in their living room. But the public nature of the event absolved themselves of any responsibility, that in their mind it was being handled by "someone else" and thus they walk by with a clean conscious. It just didn't occur to anyone that they were suppose to be the summon else.

Also, another thing to take into consideration is that it was a homeless man. New Yorkers are use to walking over sleeping and drunk homeless all the time from their way to and from work. I'm betting at least a few of the people who walked by didn't even notice that the man was bleeding from a chest wound, especially given the limited nature of human perception to only notice a few details out of our environment at once.

[EustaceTrevelyan]

This is incorrect, good samaratin laws protect people that try to help injured people, they can however be prosecuted for doing nothing(last I knew).

Either way, you can't be sued for dialing 911, which no one did. He for sure could've been saved. Sad that if he'd been more like a typical New Yorker and let the woman get mugged/stabbed/raped, he'd still be alive.

[Zippo]

The laws covers the rendering of medical assistance. I.E. you would actually have to try and treat the individual. The act of calling 911 is not the same as

GO back and read that entire post. You conveniently let out the second half of the post that clearly states EXACTLY who is covered under New Yorks Good Samaritan law. You will see that theirs only covers medical professionals acting outside the scope of a normal workday and not expecting compensation. So you are incorrect on that point.

As for calling 911 or in this case not calling 911, I have said ti several times already that it should of been handled much differently. So I am now saying it again.

[uhgungawa]

SNIP

THis should be changed. What an awful law.

It has, some people don't follow up on their research

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?def...tions=Y&Memo=Y

• A07717 Summary:
  
  BILL NO A07717
  
  
  
  SAME AS No same as
  
  SPONSOR Weisenberg (MS)
  
  COSPNSR Mayersohn, Koon
  
  MLTSPNSR Galef, Magee, McDonough, Morelle, Sweeney
  
  Add Art 3 Title 7 S3-701, Gen Ob L
  
  Establishes as complete defense to a tort action for damages based upon
  personal injury evidence introduced by a defendant, proved by a preponderance
  of the evidence that the injury plaintiff sustained arose during commission or
  attempted commission by the plaintiff of a crime specified herein, and further
  provides that such a plaintiff shall be deemed to assume all risks of injury
  arising from encounter with crime victim, family of victim or good samaritan;
  defines "crime victim" and "good samaritan".
  Go to top
  A07717 Actions:
  
  BILL NO A07717
  
  04/22/2009 referred to judiciary
  12/14/2009 enacting clause stricken
  Go to top
  A07717 Memo:
  
  BILL NUMBER A7717
  
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the general obligations law, in relation
  to exoneration of certain crime victims and good samaritans from certain
  tort liabilities
  
  PURPOSE: This bill would retain the assumption of risk doctrine in civil
  lawsuits, where the plaintiff has committed or attempted certain premed-
  itated felonies and the victim's resistance injured the perpetrator.
  Prior to the enactment of CPLR 1411 the assumption of risk doctrine was
  a clear bar to any civil lawsuits by criminal perpetrators against their
  victims. Now, the language of CPLR 1411 does not clearly foreclose them.
  This bill would furnish a defense to crime victims sued for damages
  growing out of a criminal confrontation.
  
  SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: This bill adds a new section to the
  General Obligations Law which would allow crime victims and good samari-
  tans to be exonerated in a civil lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff
  where the defendant shows that the plaintiff's injuries were sustained
  by the plaintiff during the commission or attempted commission by the
  plaintiff of certain enumerated crimes.
  
  JUSTIFICATION: Before the enactment of CPLR 1411, a criminal clearly
  could not recover civil damages from his victim for injuries sustained
  during the commission of a crime. A person who initiated a forcible
  criminal confrontation assumed the risk of his action and could not
  recover.
  
  The 1975 comparative negligence statute was adopted so that accidental
  injury claims such as those arising from the negligent operation of a
  motor vehicle or a defective consumer product would not be completely
  barred by some contributory negligence on the part of the injured party.
  In that context, the statute provided that degrees of unintentional but
  culpable conduct would be apportioned.
  
  Technically, a criminal plaintiff could urge that the court allocate
  relative degrees of "fault" for the injury as between him and his
  victim. The comparative negligence statute was not enacted to allow a
  criminal a "windfall."
  
  This bill would prevent the benefits of the comparative negligence stat-
  ute from being bestowed upon criminal activity. An unreasonable
  response by a victim would continue to be covered by the Penal Law.
  
  This bill closely parallels present justification rules of the Penal
  Law, which permit the use of force, including deadly force, to prevent
  or terminate violent crimes or to arrest a perpetrator in immediate
  flight from the commission of a violent crime.
  
  This bill was drafted in response to the growing numbers of cases
  brought by criminals seeking civil negligence damages awards against
  their victims in states which have adopted comparative negligence rules.
  
  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
  2008 - A.7540 - Assembly Judiciary Committee 2006 - S.3240 - Senate
  Judiciary
  2004 - S.557 - Passed Senate/Assembly Codes
  2003 - S.557 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary
  2001/2002 - S.401 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary
  1999/2000 - S.907 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary
  1991-1998 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary.
  
  FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
  
  EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the 180th day afte which
  it shall become law.

EDIT Text version. Same thing though.

• A07717 Text:
  
  S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
  __________________________________________________ ______________________
  
  7717
  
  2009-2010 Regular Sessions
  
  I N A S S E M B L Y
  
  April 22, 2009
  ___________
  
  Introduced by M. of A. WEISENBERG, MAYERSOHN, KOON -- Multi-Sponsored by
  -- M. of A. GALEF, MAGEE, McDONOUGH, MORELLE, SWEENEY -- read once and
  referred to the Committee on Judiciary
  
  AN ACT to amend the general obligations law, in relation to exoneration
  of certain crime victims and good samaritans from certain tort liabil-
  ities
  
  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
  BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
  
  1 Section 1. Article 3 of the general obligations law is amended by
  2 adding a new title 7 to read as follows:
  3 TITLE 7
  4 EXONERATION OF CERTAIN CRIME VICTIMS AND
  5 GOOD SAMARITANS
  6 SECTION 3-701. WHEN CRIME VICTIMS AND GOOD SAMARITANS MAY BE EXONERATED
  7 FROM CERTAIN TORT LIABILITIES.
  8 S 3-701. WHEN CRIME VICTIMS AND GOOD SAMARITANS MAY BE EXONERATED FROM
  9 CERTAIN TORT LIABILITIES. 1. IN ANY TORT ACTION FOR DAMAGES BASED UPON
  10 PERSONAL INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHERE THE DEFENDANT SHALL
  11 FURNISH PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT: (I) THE INJURY
  12 SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF AROSE DURING THE COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED
  13 COMMISSION BY THE PLAINTIFF OF A MURDER, ROBBERY, BURGLARY, ARSON,
  14 FORCIBLE RAPE OR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, OR KIDNAPPING IN THE FIRST DEGREE;
  15 AND (II) THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT WAS JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO APPLICA-
  16 BLE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE THIRTY-FIVE OF THE PENAL LAW; THEN THE PLAIN-
  17 TIFF SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ASSUMED ALL RISKS OF INJURY ARISING FROM
  18 THE ENCOUNTER WITH ANY VICTIM OR GOOD SAMARITAN DURING THE COMMISSION OR
  19 ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF SUCH CRIME, AND SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE A
  20 COMPLETE DEFENSE TO THE ACTION.
  21 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE THE TERM: (A) "CRIME VICTIM" MEANS
  22 THE VICTIM OF THE OFFENSE OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE; AND (B) "GOOD SAMARI-
  23 TAN" SHALL MEAN A PERSON WHO ACTS IN GOOD FAITH (I) TO APPREHEND A
  
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
  [ ] is old law to be omitted.
  LBD11145-01-9
  A. 7717 2
  
  1 PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED A CRIME IN HIS OR HER PRESENCE OR WHO HAS IN
  2 FACT COMMITTED A FELONY, (II) TO PREVENT A CRIME OR AN ATTEMPTED CRIME
  3 FROM OCCURRING, OR (III) TO AID A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN EFFECTING
  4 AN ARREST.
  5 S 2. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after
  6 it shall have become a law.

[Zippo]

It has, some people don't follow up on their research

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A07717%09%09&Summary=Y&Actions=Y &Memo=Y

• A07717 Summary:
  
  BILL NO A07717
  
  
  
  SAME AS No same as
  
  SPONSOR Weisenberg (MS)
  
  COSPNSR Mayersohn, Koon
  
  MLTSPNSR Galef, Magee, McDonough, Morelle, Sweeney
  
  Add Art 3 Title 7 S3-701, Gen Ob L
  
  Establishes as complete defense to a tort action for damages based upon
  personal injury evidence introduced by a defendant, proved by a preponderance
  of the evidence that the injury plaintiff sustained arose during commission or
  attempted commission by the plaintiff of a crime specified herein, and further
  provides that such a plaintiff shall be deemed to assume all risks of injury
  arising from encounter with crime victim, family of victim or good samaritan;
  defines "crime victim" and "good samaritan".
  Go to top
  A07717 Actions:
  
  BILL NO A07717
  
  04/22/2009 referred to judiciary
  12/14/2009 enacting clause stricken
  Go to top
  A07717 Memo:
  
  BILL NUMBER A7717
  
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the general obligations law, in relation
  to exoneration of certain crime victims and good samaritans from certain
  tort liabilities
  
  PURPOSE: This bill would retain the assumption of risk doctrine in civil
  lawsuits, where the plaintiff has committed or attempted certain premed-
  itated felonies and the victim's resistance injured the perpetrator.
  Prior to the enactment of CPLR 1411 the assumption of risk doctrine was
  a clear bar to any civil lawsuits by criminal perpetrators against their
  victims. Now, the language of CPLR 1411 does not clearly foreclose them.
  This bill would furnish a defense to crime victims sued for damages
  growing out of a criminal confrontation.
  
  SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: This bill adds a new section to the
  General Obligations Law which would allow crime victims and good samari-
  tans to be exonerated in a civil lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff
  where the defendant shows that the plaintiff's injuries were sustained
  by the plaintiff during the commission or attempted commission by the
  plaintiff of certain enumerated crimes.
  
  JUSTIFICATION: Before the enactment of CPLR 1411, a criminal clearly
  could not recover civil damages from his victim for injuries sustained
  during the commission of a crime. A person who initiated a forcible
  criminal confrontation assumed the risk of his action and could not
  recover.
  
  The 1975 comparative negligence statute was adopted so that accidental
  injury claims such as those arising from the negligent operation of a
  motor vehicle or a defective consumer product would not be completely
  barred by some contributory negligence on the part of the injured party.
  In that context, the statute provided that degrees of unintentional but
  culpable conduct would be apportioned.
  
  Technically, a criminal plaintiff could urge that the court allocate
  relative degrees of "fault" for the injury as between him and his
  victim. The comparative negligence statute was not enacted to allow a
  criminal a "windfall."
  
  This bill would prevent the benefits of the comparative negligence stat-
  ute from being bestowed upon criminal activity. An unreasonable
  response by a victim would continue to be covered by the Penal Law.
  
  This bill closely parallels present justification rules of the Penal
  Law, which permit the use of force, including deadly force, to prevent
  or terminate violent crimes or to arrest a perpetrator in immediate
  flight from the commission of a violent crime.
  
  This bill was drafted in response to the growing numbers of cases
  brought by criminals seeking civil negligence damages awards against
  their victims in states which have adopted comparative negligence rules.
  
  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
  2008 - A.7540 - Assembly Judiciary Committee 2006 - S.3240 - Senate
  Judiciary
  2004 - S.557 - Passed Senate/Assembly Codes
  2003 - S.557 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary
  2001/2002 - S.401 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary
  1999/2000 - S.907 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary
  1991-1998 - Passed Senate/Assembly Judiciary.
  
  FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
  
  EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the 180th day afte which
  it shall become law.

EDIT Text version. Same thing though.

• A07717 Text:
  
  S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
  __________________________________________________ ______________________
  
  7717
  
  2009-2010 Regular Sessions
  
  I N A S S E M B L Y
  
  April 22, 2009
  ___________
  
  Introduced by M. of A. WEISENBERG, MAYERSOHN, KOON -- Multi-Sponsored by
  -- M. of A. GALEF, MAGEE, McDONOUGH, MORELLE, SWEENEY -- read once and
  referred to the Committee on Judiciary
  
  AN ACT to amend the general obligations law, in relation to exoneration
  of certain crime victims and good samaritans from certain tort liabil-
  ities
  
  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
  BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
  
  1 Section 1. Article 3 of the general obligations law is amended by
  2 adding a new title 7 to read as follows:
  3 TITLE 7
  4 EXONERATION OF CERTAIN CRIME VICTIMS AND
  5 GOOD SAMARITANS
  6 SECTION 3-701. WHEN CRIME VICTIMS AND GOOD SAMARITANS MAY BE EXONERATED
  7 FROM CERTAIN TORT LIABILITIES.
  8 S 3-701. WHEN CRIME VICTIMS AND GOOD SAMARITANS MAY BE EXONERATED FROM
  9 CERTAIN TORT LIABILITIES. 1. IN ANY TORT ACTION FOR DAMAGES BASED UPON
  10 PERSONAL INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHERE THE DEFENDANT SHALL
  11 FURNISH PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT: (I) THE INJURY
  12 SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF AROSE DURING THE COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED
  13 COMMISSION BY THE PLAINTIFF OF A MURDER, ROBBERY, BURGLARY, ARSON,
  14 FORCIBLE RAPE OR CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, OR KIDNAPPING IN THE FIRST DEGREE;
  15 AND (II) THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT WAS JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO APPLICA-
  16 BLE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE THIRTY-FIVE OF THE PENAL LAW; THEN THE PLAIN-
  17 TIFF SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ASSUMED ALL RISKS OF INJURY ARISING FROM
  18 THE ENCOUNTER WITH ANY VICTIM OR GOOD SAMARITAN DURING THE COMMISSION OR
  19 ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF SUCH CRIME, AND SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE A
  20 COMPLETE DEFENSE TO THE ACTION.
  21 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE THE TERM: (A) "CRIME VICTIM" MEANS
  22 THE VICTIM OF THE OFFENSE OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE; AND (B) "GOOD SAMARI-
  23 TAN" SHALL MEAN A PERSON WHO ACTS IN GOOD FAITH (I) TO APPREHEND A
  
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
  [ ] is old law to be omitted.
  LBD11145-01-9
  A. 7717 2
  
  1 PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED A CRIME IN HIS OR HER PRESENCE OR WHO HAS IN
  2 FACT COMMITTED A FELONY, (II) TO PREVENT A CRIME OR AN ATTEMPTED CRIME
  3 FROM OCCURRING, OR (III) TO AID A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN EFFECTING
  4 AN ARREST.
  5 S 2. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after
  6 it shall have become a law.

Except your bill does not change the definition of good samaritan. So my assertion still stands. The good samaritan law in regards to this only applies to medical professionals.

Edit: This bill also only seems to be applying to cases where the offender gets injured and tries to sue. In this case this ball would apply if the man who had died was the attacker.

[uhgungawa]

Except your bill does not change the definition of good samaritan. So my assertion still stands. The good samaritan law in regards to this only applies to medical professionals.

Edit: This bill also only seems to be applying to cases where the offender gets injured and tries to sue. In this case this ball would apply if the man who had died was the attacker.

I guess it all depends on what NY state defines a Good Samaritan as.I spent 13 years on a Fire Dept in MA and here a Good Samaritan covers the general public as well.

[Stamp3de]

Guess he couldn't roll high enough to stabalize.

Yes, to hell I go.

[D-molisher]

Well that law definately sux.

I live in Danmark ... and here we got opposite law of US:
If you see someone injured, its your duty to help - call 112, or do first aid ( if trained ).
If you do not: Then under severe circumstances, you risk 1 months pay as fine or up to 3 months in jail.
But mostly people get fine of 250 $ ++

Even here we are turning the US way, and alot off it is no good & people turn way too ego-centered.

P.S I am volenteer fireman, pays around 300 $ a year, besides my official work.

[Phidius]

There are others who do go out of their way to help, though. My family and I were driving home and saw a young woman walking down the sidewalk who looked to be getting harrased by the occupants of a car that was pacing her down the street.

We turned the van around, and asked her if she needed help. She said no, so we assumed she was having a relatively innocent argument with friends, and went on our way.

If she was actually getting hurt, I'd of sent the family home and gone back alone.

...Sad that if he'd been more like a typical New Yorker and let the woman get mugged/stabbed/raped, he'd still be alive.

I'd rather be in his shoes than in theirs.

[Zippo]

I guess it all depends on what NY state defines a Good Samaritan as.I spent 13 years on a Fire Dept in MA and here a Good Samaritan covers the general public as well.

Yeah New York for some reason doesn't cover the general public. Only trained medical professionals and company's that make and or have life saving devices on property (AEDS) are covered.

Still doesn't excuse not calling 911 but that is another issue in and of itself.