This Is The Most Disgraceful Thing I Have Ever Heard

[Ganolyn]

True in 49 of the 50 states. The one state where this is false is California...where this happened. We have actually had 2 cases where somebody was sued for helping. The state apellate court up held it, the 9th circuit refused the hear appeals so as of now, in california, the good samaritan law no longer applies so no, you can't help others here. You can call 911, have then show up and do nothing. This is also the state where the courst said that the police has no obligation to protect you if you call them for help. So yeah this state is F*ed up.

You mean this?

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/201...NEWS/101119976


Empahsis on bolded parts -


TRUCKEE/TAHOE, Calif. — Apparently the California Legislature reads the Law Review, as they recently passed a new Good Samaritan law as I suggested in April of 2009.

Car crash

Good friends Alexandra Van Horn and Lisa Torti were in two different cars leaving a bar after a night of smoking pot and drinking. Van Horn was in the first car, which crashed into a curb and light standard at 45 mph. Torti, in the second car, rushed up, and believing the first car was going to “blow up,” removed Van Horn. Van Horn ended up paralyzed.

Van Horn was appreciative of the assistance, but that didn't keep her from suing her good friend. The trial court found Torti not liable. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding her potentially liable. Then as we wrote in 2009, the Supreme Court let Van Horn take her case to the jury.

Emergency Medical Care Law

California has several Good Samaritan laws protecting rescuers and emergency caregivers from liability — even if they are negligent. The Emergency Medical Services law reads: “No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.”

For a variety of reasons, despite the literal wording “emergency care” in the statute, the California Supreme Court determined the emergency services immunity is applicable only if emergency medical care is rendered. Torti did not render emergency medical care; she merely pulled Van Horn from the crashed vehicle (“like a rag doll,” Van Horn claimed.)

If Torti had given Van Horn CPR or some form of medical care, a Band-aid would do, she would have been immune from liability even if she were negligent, because the emergency medical care immunity is absolute — no matter how bad the medical care is — there is no liability.

Porter's take on new legislation

I was critical of the decision, saying the Supreme Court got this case wrong. As a matter of public policy we should encourage bystanders to assist in emergencies and not stand by for fear of being sued. Good faith rescuers who risk their lives to help someone should be provided full immunity even if they are negligent, meaning they screw up during the rescue, not just when they render emergency medical care. That was my pitch.

New legislation

As it turns out, the California Legislature heeded my advice and passed new legislation signed by Governor Arnie last year amending the Health and Safety Code. The Good Samaritan law now reads in part: “No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

So a rescuer who is negligent, but not grossly so, is immune from liability from a lawsuit filed by the rescued. A good change in the law.

In sum, while no one has a duty to come to the aid of another unless there is a special relationship between the rescuer and the rescued, if someone volunteers to assist another, that rescuer is not liable unless they are grossly negligent or act willfully or with wanton misconduct. Whatever that is, but you get the drift.

Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter Simon, with offices in Truckee, South Lake Tahoe, Incline Village and Reno. He is a mediator and was the Governor's appointee to the Fair Political Practices Commission and McPherson Commission, both involving election law and the Political Reform Act. He may be reached at porter@portersimon.com or at the firm's website www.portersimon.com.

[ColdNapalm]

Only if your serious misconduct as a professional emergency responder is indicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

Good Samaritan laws are laws or acts protecting those who choose to serve and tend to others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. In Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment. Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as do their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia. In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.

Good Samaritan laws take their name from a parable told by Jesus commonly referred to as the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is contained in Luke 10:25-37. It recounts the aid given by one traveler (from the area known as Samaria) to another traveler of a different religious and ethnic background who had been beaten and robbed by bandits.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. However, in the United States, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

You also don't live in a state where you can sued by the guy breaking into your home. Hell my dad's friend was charged with assault when he clobbered the guy who broke into his home at night. The guy who broke in got off scott free for his testamony. You honestly expect to have GSL protection in a state where the cop and law both ACTIVELY don't?!?

[sephiroth1084]

Pretty sure the "not for compensation" section excludes emergency service workers who are on duty. That is, they are being paid, and therefore don't fall under this legislation.

[fuzzy1guy]

text

Go and actually read those both carefully. Completely. And go beyond the wiki summary.
Doesn't quite work the way you imagine.
Also they are not us federal law. Or even common in all states.

And there are loopholes for both sides as well.

The number of cases these have applied to are far smaller than the number of cases where some poor guy got their life ruined for trying to help someone and got in over their head. did not have the 'proper' training, tools, education, or motivation and were made to pay.

There are also some far more disturbing trends involving children in need of help and grown men with good intentions. Which i wont go into here.


MAJOR failings of our system.

[Ganolyn]

Pretty sure the "not for compensation" section excludes emergency service workers who are on duty. That is, they are being paid, and therefore don't fall under this legislation.

There has to be gross negligence involved. Even the fire chief said he would not have done anything if one of his guys had disobeyed policy and jumped in to help. I doubt he could say that if the spectre of a lawsuit was hanging over his head.

[Ganolyn]

Go and actually read those both carefully. Completely. And go beyond the wiki summary.
Doesn't quite work the way you imagine.
Also they are not us federal law. Or even common in all states.

I believe I covered this above in the article about California law.

[Red_Tlaloc]

Part of me wants to agree, but part of me also thinks that there are many more people living in this world than there are havens safe from all such disasters...or certainly that we don't have the resources to relocate everyone who is at risk.

Ideally, we'd have all those people living in the tornado belt during the tornado off-season to farm or do...whatever it is of value that they're doing there, and then would have them relocate during the tornado season to somewhere safer, but the world doesn't really work like that. Too many people to move at too great an expense. And even if we could accommodate them all, I'm sure many would choose to stay behind. People get attached to their homes, their land, despite the dangers.

I live in NY, where we're relatively free from such concerns, but we still get hurricanes that kill people, the occasional weak-ass tornado that may kill people (or at least ruin their homes), floods, heatwaves, coldsnaps, blizzards... Most are relatively tame, compared to the impact these things have in the places that are known for them, but they claim victims all the same. Where can we go?

You know I can't really get behind the idea that we don't have enough safe havens from flooding in the United States ... if you live in another country, then maybe you do not. Additionally, when you say "we" don't have the resources ... do you live in a flood plain? Because I do not ... so I would think that I'm not part of the "we" you are referring to ... unless you deem it society's job to relocate these people. I'm not sure why my resources would go to move people that do? Those locations that flood often are often as well very fertile farm land ... and can be valuable to some, but are typically cheap due to the risk. I don't see why I should subsidize someone elses risky choices.

I do, however, live in tornado alley. But ... statistically they don't have something like the "two, five, ten and fifty year tornado zones" Tornadoes come every year, but they don't typically hit highly populated regions and cause minimal damage and loss of life compared to a flood for some reason ... even though people can usually tell when a flood in coming days ahead of time.

There is no-place to go that is completely safe ... but you can't just make silly choices all through life and expect it to be someone else's burden. The real root of the problem seems to be people's attachment to their homes ... that is the problem. People love stuff too much ... way too much. They can't use their mind, their words, or their imagination to remember and cherish the things that are important. It's just stuff.

[dingal]

It is not good by any means to watch someone die, and know you could do something about it, but can't.

There are far worse things that have happend and are happening still.

Thanks to Video games ,Youtube, and TV we are as a whole socially less caring of others plight to respond with help rather than watch from afar.

This.

[AMDarkwolf]

As I live in Alameda County I am very disturbed by this. Why does it always take someone dying to change stupid and thoughtless policies? Not one of these guys said "Screw it, there's a life at stake!" They let him sit there for almost an hour and did nothing. A civilian woman had to try it for them and was too late. Just disgraceful.


Emergency Responders Stand By And Watch Man Drown

Policy Changes After Rescuers Watch Man Drown


"(CNN) -- Alameda, California, has immediately changed its policies after first responders watched a man drown in San Francisco Bay and did nothing to rescue him.

The man was apparently suicidal, CNN affiliate KTVU reported. After he entered the bay off Alameda Beach on Monday and stood in neck-deep water, then treaded water, police and firefighters who were called to the scene did not set foot in the bay.

The events of Memorial Day were "very difficult and very regrettable," Alameda Interim Fire Chief Michael D'Orazi told CNN Wednesday.

Two things prevented authorities from taking action, he said. First, because it was a crime scene, the police department was in charge. "They felt that going into the water initially might not be the best idea because they were unsure if this individual was armed, the stability of the individual," D'Orazi said.

Also, "there was a policy in place that pretty much precluded our people from entering the water."

That has been changed, he said. "We will be putting into effect a new policy which allows our commander discretion after these circumstances."

The firefighters on the beach "were incredibly frustrated by this whole situation," he said, adding that "they wanted to get in, they wanted to take action."

Local officials said that because of a lack of funding for shore-to-water rescue, firefighters had no one properly trained to go into the water, KTVU reported.

"It's muddy out there. We don't want them sinking. We don't want them in distress," Alameda Interim Police Chief Michael Noonan said in the KTVU report.

One local resident, addressing officials at a meeting about the incident, said, "It just strikes me as unbelievably callous that nobody there with any sort of training could strip off their gear and go and help this person."

In the interview with CNN, D'Orazi said that if firefighters had chosen to enter the water despite the policies, he "wouldn't have an issue with that." But the situation should not recur, because the policies have been changed, he said.

News reports said a woman ultimately tried to save the drowning man, but was too late, and ended up pulling his body to shore."

Something was a miss when they made the rules, thats for sure, but the man WANTED TO KILL HIMSELF. Enough said> I know it sounds cold, but thats that. he wanted to end his life, I don't think ANYONE has the right to decide otherwise. (HE wasn't putting anyone else in danger but would have if someone tried to rescue him)

But if it was someone who fell overboard, or some other situation, yes, those 'rules' are silly and honestly wonder why it took the 'bystanders' so long to react.(The firemen were at least stopped by the bylaw, but the people gawking, ONE of them finally did something after an hour.)

But ya, end of it all, the man wanted to end his life, I don't think Anyone had toe right to decide any different for him.

[Elucidus]

Much of what I wanted to say was already well put by Sephiroth, but I do want to reply to this latest.

The good sameritan law is great the way it is intended. Let me give you an example.

I am in the military and I receive periodic CPR training. One area we train on is proper use of a difibulator (I can use it, but I can't spell it). Anyway, the one thing they tell you, is if you have to use this on someone who has a nipple ring or two, you DO NOT take them off nicely. You rip them out. You see this goes back to bystanders percieving you as sexually assaulting someone. Your intentions no longer matter, at this point it is only other's perceptions that matter and a court will take action. The good sameritan law will not help you here either.

[sephiroth1084]

You know I can't really get behind the idea that we don't have enough safe havens from flooding in the United States ... if you live in another country, then maybe you do not. Additionally, when you say "we" don't have the resources ... do you live in a flood plain? Because I do not ... so I would think that I'm not part of the "we" you are referring to ... unless you deem it society's job to relocate these people. I'm not sure why my resources would go to move people that do? Those locations that flood often are often as well very fertile farm land ... and can be valuable to some, but are typically cheap due to the risk. I don't see why I should subsidize someone elses risky choices.

I do, however, live in tornado alley. But ... statistically they don't have something like the "two, five, ten and fifty year tornado zones" Tornadoes come every year, but they don't typically hit highly populated regions and cause minimal damage and loss of life compared to a flood for some reason ... even though people can usually tell when a flood in coming days ahead of time.

There is no-place to go that is completely safe ... but you can't just make silly choices all through life and expect it to be someone else's burden. The real root of the problem seems to be people's attachment to their homes ... that is the problem. People love stuff too much ... way too much. They can't use their mind, their words, or their imagination to remember and cherish the things that are important. It's just stuff.

No? Remember that rives are important lanes for trafficking goods and services, and, as you say, often surrounded by fertile arable land. We (society) needs those avenues maintained, and needs those crops grown, harvested and dispersed. Sure, living in a home right on the beach on stilts (for example) is a pretty foolish idea, since it is so susceptible to flooding and storms, but we also have to consider where else people might live. Should the entire west coast be moved elsewhere because it is at very high risk of being decimated by an earthquake?

As for people's ability to move away from the area during the more dangerous seasons, the land may be cheaper, but so, too, may their wages be lower. In any case, it's fairly difficult for most individuals and families to maintain two homesteads, especially if the two are so far apart as for one to be outside of an at-risk from X zone.

Whether it is society's place to subsidize these people is a separate issue, but I'll say that there are many people who perform necessary services or tasks who are at risk from one element or another so that we may be more comfortable, and in many cases they do so for a rather meager reward. Should we be benefiting from their sacrifices as highly as we do without returning something to them?

It is not good by any means to watch someone die, and know you could do something about it, but can't.

There are far worse things that have happend and are happening still.

Thanks to Video games ,Youtube, and TV we are as a whole socially less caring of others plight to respond with help rather than watch from afar.

I disagree. Western society on the whole seems to be more concerned with the plight of random individuals than it had been in the past. We have countless programs in place to aid the sick, the hungry, the poor, the homeless...hell, we spend so much time, money and effort on people we've never seen, on people who don't even live within out own countries, that it's astounding!

You might make the argument that the average person is less sensitive to violence, but I'm not sure that we're less inclined to help others than our forefathers were. Certainly, the upper class is more willing to help those less fortunate than those in power had been in the past. This is not universally true, obviously, but I cannot believe that we've taken the downturn that so many claim we have, unless you're comparing society now to, say, society in something like the 50s, and even then, I'm not so sure.

[GODDEATH]

um tranquilizer, capture, release after treatment...

[Ganolyn]

Something was a miss when they made the rules, thats for sure, but the man WANTED TO KILL HIMSELF. Enough said> I know it sounds cold, but thats that. he wanted to end his life, I don't think ANYONE has the right to decide otherwise. (HE wasn't putting anyone else in danger but would have if someone tried to rescue him)

But if it was someone who fell overboard, or some other situation, yes, those 'rules' are silly and honestly wonder why it took the 'bystanders' so long to react.(The firemen were at least stopped by the bylaw, but the people gawking, ONE of them finally did something after an hour.)

But ya, end of it all, the man wanted to end his life, I don't think Anyone had toe right to decide any different for him.

Maybe so, but why when they knew they couldn't and wouldn't do anything to save him and they weren't going to stop anyone else from trying did they stand around for an hour gawking and wasting taxpayer money? How many police calls were ingnored or put off because the police were sightseeing? How many other emergency calls were not answered or answered late because the fire department stood around feeling sorry for themselves? I support all military, police, fire and EMT's because I believe they provide a needed and important service at the risk of their own saftey, but as I said in the OP: Standing there watching someone die when you have the power to try to stop it is disgraceful.

[MedicMoore]

Speaking as a paramedic and firefighter I can say this. We are taught from day one our safety comes first. Followed by the safety of our partners and then our patients. If it is deemed to dangerous to go into a scene and get a patient we do not. It is a tragedy but if you are untrained in water rescue then entering the water is not safe. If rescuers had entered the water what could have happened? Truly suicidal people do not care about their life do you truly think they would think twice about taking a first responder with them? No.

We had a case of this not long ago where the police department responded to a suicidal patient on the dock of the river. The patient was threatening to jump in and kill herself. One of the officers got close to her trying to talk her away from the edge of the dock. She looked right at him and said I am taking you with me. She grabbed hole of him and pulled him into the river with her. Thankfully he was in good enough shape and had presence of mind to hold on to her and to try and kick for shore. Neither were hurt.

There are many times that we want to enter a scene and cannot. To through ones life away in a reckless situation is a needless waste. I myself have had to stand by and watch several people over the years die because my hands were tied. It wears on you. To watch someone screaming for help in a fire as they burn to death and know that there is no way in the world any human being could save them is a horrible thing. I feel for the men who saw this patient drown. It is something they will have to live with. But they are still alive to return to their families because they did not go into a situation that well could have cost them their lives.

[NaturalHazard]

Sorry, I understand your point ... but my understanding (from the sensationalist media) is that he was clearly and evidently suicidal.

And yes ... many flood victims deserve little compassion. How can you live in what is termed a "two-year" or "five-year" or "ten-year" flood plain and be shocked when it .... FLOODS??? This would not typically apply to flash flood victims and/or visitors ... they get a pass. I'm so saddened that I will forever have the vision of "Flood victim guy" sitting on a roof shooting off rounds a rescue helicopters. That guy really brought on some bad PR for all flood victims.

so flood victims deserve little compasion because they choose to live in what is a 2 year or 5 year flood plain and are shocked!! when a flood occurs? So your assuming that everyone has the choice to live in these areas or not? What about the children? do they have much of a choice as to where their parents want to live? What about the people who are forced by poverty to live in these areas?

Just because some guy was a loon and shot at a helicopter trying to rescue him, you then paint all flood victims with the same brush? Oh does this also extend to people who live in areas where bush fires are a known danger? Earthquakes? Volcanic erruption? Yes sometimes people can be stupid or lack foresight and planning and put themselves in peril but even if it is mostly their fault to say people in danger or suffering deserve little compassion?

[sephiroth1084]

Speaking as a paramedic and firefighter I can say this. We are taught from day one our safety comes first. Followed by the safety of our partners and then our patients. If it is deemed to dangerous to go into a scene and get a patient we do not. It is a tragedy but if you are untrained in water rescue then entering the water is not safe. If rescuers had entered the water what could have happened? Truly suicidal people do not care about their life do you truly think they would think twice about taking a first responder with them? No.

We had a case of this not long ago where the police department responded to a suicidal patient on the dock of the river. The patient was threatening to jump in and kill herself. One of the officers got close to her trying to talk her away from the edge of the dock. She looked right at him and said I am taking you with me. She grabbed hole of him and pulled him into the river with her. Thankfully he was in good enough shape and had presence of mind to hold on to her and to try and kick for shore. Neither were hurt.

There are many times that we want to enter a scene and cannot. To through ones life away in a reckless situation is a needless waste. I myself have had to stand by and watch several people over the years die because my hands were tied. It wears on you. To watch someone screaming for help in a fire as they burn to death and know that there is no way in the world any human being could save them is a horrible thing. I feel for the men who saw this patient drown. It is something they will have to live with. But they are still alive to return to their families because they did not go into a situation that well could have cost them their lives.

And they're alive to save someone else tomorrow.

[PurdueDave]

At least the woman was willing to be the wolf and not the sheep.

To Serve and Protect (when policy permits)

[sephiroth1084]

To Serve and Protect (when doing so isn't totally foolish)

Fixed that for you.

[Ganolyn]

To Serve and Protect (when doing so isn't totally foolish)

Fixed that for you.

Apparently it wasn't totally foolish seeing as how an untrained and unequiped woman did it and is no worse for wear. All of these hypothetical arguments are amusing, but the fact of the matter is that it was perfectly safe to try whether they were successful or not.

[MedicMoore]

Apparently it wasn't totally foolish seeing as how an untrained and unequiped woman did it and is no worse for wear. All of these hypothetical arguments are amusing, but the fact of the matter is that it was perfectly safe to try whether they were successful or not.

Being lucky once is heroic. Being lucky twice is divine. Third time finds a paramedic zipping the body bag stating it is a shame luck ran out. You are not one to dictate that it was safe because a woman jumped in and pulled a body out. She could have just as easily drowned herself. It was her own foolishness that she dove in. Had the patient been alive to thrash and fight her would you still be saying the same thing. Would you be saying how great it was that she drowned trying to save someone else. One of the rules of swift water rescue is that a drowning person will latch on to and try and climb on top of the first thing they can.....the rescuer. Do you honestly think an untrained person could have dealt with a b-med patient that was one actually trying to kill themselves and would have tried to drown her to succeed at it or would have drowned her because she became the first thing he could have latched on too. Before you pass judgement I suggest you walk a mile in our shoes. I have a family to come home to and to provide for. Foolishness is for those who have no regard for their own lives.