Woman purposely drowns friends 6 month old puppy in River

[leyash]

It takes a pretty heartless person to drown a puppy... a fucking puppy. This makes me rage.

[deeply shaded]

I drown them all the time. Not much else to do here, ya know.  :2cool:

[leyash]

[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=21896.msg1593633#msg1593633 date=1271053681]
I drown them all the time. Not much else to do here, ya know.  :2cool:
[/quote]

Oh, you hush. 

[trailerparktrash]

[quote author=Circe link=topic=21896.msg1593414#msg1593414 date=1271044458]
I have been told (although never really researched it myself) that oddly enough, the more witnesses to crime, the less likely someone will intervene. It seems people think that someone else will do something and by the time they realize no one will, it's often too late.  :| I have seen some type of shit on public trans and often regretted not saying something, but it seems like when no one else says anything I have felt I must be crazy to think it's wrong a guy is screaming at a chick and calling her a "fucking whore" while she cries on a trolley filled with 50 other people.

I do think it has something to do with "nerve" though and like I said I regret not having that nerve sometimes, but also, I am thankful for not getting in a brawl with a maniac while my kid is sitting on my lap. I'm not saying all those witnesses had understandable excuses for not stepping in, but I am sure they weren't total assholes, just maybe afraid because no one else was doing anything.
[/quote]

It has a name! The Bystander Effect! From Wikipedia-

"There are in fact many reasons why bystanders in groups fail to act in emergency situations, but social psychologists have focused most of their attention on two major factors. According to a basic principle of social influence, bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since everyone is doing exactly the same thing (nothing), they all conclude from the inaction of others that help is not needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance or social proof. The other major obstacle to intervention is known as diffusion of responsibility. This occurs when observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so each individual feels less responsible and refrains from doing anything.[citation needed]
There are other reasons why people may not help. They may assume that other bystanders are more qualified to help, such as doctors or police officers, and that their intervention would be unneeded. People may also experience evaluation apprehension and fear losing face in front of the other bystanders. They may also be afraid of being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or facing the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance.[citation needed] An example is the limitation of California's Good Samaritan Law, limiting liability for those attempting to provide medical services as opposed to non-medical (extraction from automobile) services.[3]"

Interesting! I've definitely been in situations where this has happened. :|

[AlexaC]

I've never been good at standing by and doing nothing. I once hopped out of my car when I saw a big group of kids beating the shit out of a single younger kid and starting hitting and shoving until it broke up. And it didn't happen again. Sometimes it takes just someone standing up. ( Or they just beat the kids out of my eyesight.  :lol:)

I've also been wondering, where do the good Samaritan laws stand on this issue? Not necessarily in this instance since it wasn't a human being attacked, but with so many instances of people standing around and doing nothing I thought we had laws against that where people can actually be charged with indifference or something? Maybe I watch too much television. I'll read up on it.  :lol:

[deeply shaded]

Good Samaritan laws protect those who do something. I don't think anyone has a duty to act.

Here is an article I found about the duty to act laws. This is for EMTs but clearly if they have no duty to act under certain circumstances neither does the general public.

http://theemtspot.com/2009/06/23/what-is-the-duty-to-act/

This week I’d like to explore two related topics that tend to create a bunch of confusion – the duty to act and the good Samaritan law. If you want to see a room full of EMTs argue with each other, ask a question like, “So, when does an EMT have a legal duty to act?” or “To whom does the good sam law really apply?” These are subjects where myth and confusion are more common than fact so lets jump in to these two, often confusing, legal tenants.

Today we’ll look at the duty to act and on Thursday we’ll dive in to the good samaritan law.

On duty or off duty, paid or volunteer, in or out of uniform, when do you, as a professional rescuer really have a legal duty to act? Once you have a duty to act, what does that mean for your care and your liability? The true meaning of the duty to act can be confusing.

One of the things that make legal definitions like the duty to act so hard to nail down is the fact that they are not elements of federal law. They can’t be applied universally to caregivers around the nation. If they were we could say, “Here in the United States the duty to act is defined as … This is different from Canada and Great Britain where …” But it isn’t that simple. Depending on which country, state or territory you live in, the duty to act can mean very different things.

For the professional rescuer the duty to act is generally inherent to employment. If you are a trained medical professional and you are acting with an expectation of compensation you have a duty to act appropriately and within the scope of your training when called to assist with an emergency situation.

Let’s put that in plain English. If your are on the clock and receiving pay for your service, you have a duty to respond to emergencies and provide appropriate rescue and care. The rescue and care you provide has to be in accordance with your training. It also has to be reasonable and within your scope of practice.

Here are some common situational questions:

What if I’m a volunteer working for an ambulance company or a fire service? Volunteer are not generally recognized as having a duty to act. If you aren’t receiving pay or benefits for your service (remuneration) then your acts remain a voluntary choice and not a legal obligation.

What if I’m not on the clock but I am in uniform? While your failure to act in an emergency may reflect poorly on your organization and stir some public outrage, there is no legal tenant that links your attire to your duty to act. The law could basically care less what your wearing, they care if your being compensated.

What if I receive some compensation other than money for my service? This is where the law gets fuzzy. What does or does not meet the definition of remuneration or compensation (depending on the wording of the code) may ultimately need to be determined by the court.

Some common forms of compensation are occasionally addressed in the actual legal text. For instance here in Colorado (USA), Ski resort volunteers who receive ski passes for compensation, but not money, are still protected under good samaritan protection and do not have a duty to act.

Does this mean that I can’t be sued for not providing care if I’m not on duty? No. This is a common misconception. You can be sued for just about anything. This means that you are unlikely to be found guilty of a crime if you are sued.

Other interesting facts about the duty to act:

Some untrained citizens fall under “duty to act” or “duty to rescue” laws. For instance, in most industrialized nations, spouses have a duty to attempt to rescue each other – including all fifty states of the U.S. Travel industry personnel have a duty to assist their patrons in emergencies. Parents also have a duty to rescue and assist minor children including “in loco parentis” caregivers like school teachers and babysitters.

U.S. common law dictates that there is no general duty to act in an emergency, however, at least eight states have enacted laws requiring citizens to assist strangers in peril. These states include Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rode Island and Vermont. You can be charged with a misdemeanor for not responding to someone in danger. Citizens are never required to place themselves in peril. This allows for so much subjectivity that the laws are generally ignored by law makers and citizens.

In opposition to citizen duty to act laws, Texas has a statute stating that no citizen has a duty to assist another against their voluntary will.

The TV show Sienfeld used the citizen duty to act law as the premise for the series final show in 1998.

European countries tend to have more strongly worded citizen duty to act laws stating that anyone who reasonably capable is responsible for rendering aid to another in peril so long as it does not place them in harms way.

What about when you don’t have a duty to act? If you’re off duty and not receiving compensation are their any protections for you if you attempt to render aid? On Thursday we’ll discuss the good samaritan law.

[deeply shaded]

Here is an article on Good Samaritan laws from the link above.

As we saw with our exploration of the duty to act, much of the confusion regarding the good Samaritan law is the fact that it is a collection of state laws, not a single federal law. When we talk about the good Samaritan law we often become like the blind men feeling the elephant, talking about our own states without understanding that the subject is much larger than we see. We can be correct and wrong at the same time.

So lets start by stepping back and looking at the whole elephant. These are the things that are true about this collection of laws regardless of where you might roam.

1.) Most countries that operate under some form of the English Common Law system have a form of good Samaritan law. Countries where civil law is the legal foundation tend to encapsulate good Samaritan rules into the duty to rescue laws.

2.) Good Samaritan laws are designed to offer some form of legal protection for individuals who attempt to assist others who are sick, injured or in need of rescue. The goal is to reduce a would-be rescuer’s hesitation or fear of being sued for unintended injury or wrongful death if they make a mistake.

3.) Good Samaritan laws are intended to protect individuals who do not have a duty to act. If you, for any of the various legal reasons, have a duty to act, you do not receive protection or exception from liability under traditional good sam laws.

Now things get fuzzy.

Who is a good Samaritan?

Depending on where you live, the good Samaritan law may only apply to trained rescuers. These laws may protect individuals who have completed CPR or basic first aid training. It may cover professional rescuers from the EMT level up through physicians. In some regions only untrained citizens fall under good sam protection and in other areas it only covers the pros. (That’s you and me.)

What protection is a good Samaritan given?

Even when you do fall under the provisions of the good sam laws the protection provided is still limited. If you do something that may have breached the veil of immunity you may still find yourself headed to court to try to prove you did not commit one of these acts:

Gross negligence. - You couldn’t act negligently when you had a duty to act and, guess what? You still can’t under good sam laws.

Willful and wanton disregard. – This suggestive legal verbiage is a lawyers way of saying you can’t do something phenomenally stupid. If you do, you’ll still get charged.

Malpractice. – You can’t operate outside of your scope of practice or the whole good sam thing goes out the window.

Abandonment. – In most areas, once you initiate care you still need to hand off to the same or higher level of care. In some rural areas, this may mean a ride to the hospital.

A federal crime. – The good sam laws, being state specific, offer no protection from federal lawsuits such as civil rights infringements.

Assault or battery. – Victims who do not fall under implied consent must still consent to care for the rescuer to be considered a good Samaritan.

So, as you can see, the good Samaritan laws aren’t a free ticket to legal immunity. You can still get yourself in a ton of hot water for doing things that are medically inappropriate. Even untrained bystanders can still be hauled into court as in the case of Lisa Torti of California.

I found the most troubling aspect of the Torti case was the avalanche of internet commentary it caused. Would be rescuers and citizens alike chimed in from across the country (well outside of California’s legal jurisdiction) to exclaim that they would no longer consider helping another in need. I found it surprising how little risk people were willing to accept to assist another person in need.

I would suggest that if you find legal protection necessary before you are willing to help another person in need, perhaps you should just stay out of the situation. Sometimes doing the right thing involves personal risk. If you help another person when it is not your duty to do so, good Samaritan laws may help protect you and they may not. However, the greatest protection will always be good training, sound judgment and a solid core of medical knowledge. Act appropriately and be an advocate for the patient and you shouldn’t ever have to worry about the good Samaritan law.

And that brings us full circle to the parable of the good Samaritan. He wasn’t worried about the personal risks or liability. He wasn’t worried what his neighbors might think if he showed up in his neighborhood with a wounded Jewish traveler. He knew what was right in his heart. I’d like to think all of us have a bit of that in us as well. That’s why we chose this work.

[AlexaC]

Thanks for the articles, Deep!

[Ron_NYC]

Yea, whatever dude. I restrain some lady, I'm gonna go to jail. :lol:
Pass.

[Flip_Flop]

People who help get sued.

I feel grabbing the puppy, pushing her in, and walking away would have been the way to go. 

[g r ee n ey e s]

I recently tried helping someone and it bit me in the ass hard. I had nothing but good intentions and this little bitch twisted it to her benefit to make my life harder. All for trying to help her.

That being said, I would still punch the chick and then retrieve the dog. The punch should stop the drowning and she deserves it anyways. Sue me.