Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Saving someones life kinda negates logical thinking. All he was thinking was "Get her the **** out."
But there are many angles to this situation. His intent was to get her out because he feared that the car would explode, correct? Did he know that the car was going to explode or did he just think it might? How close were the paramedics/police/firefighters to the scene?
I don't think he should have moved her but I don't fault the guy for doing what probably anyone else would have done.
Originally posted by RölandIn the heat of the moment he probably went on instinct. Guess it'll all come to light in the trial.
True.But there are many angles to this situation. His intent was to get her out because he feared that the car would explode, correct? Did he know that the car was going to explode or did he just think it might? How close were the paramedics/police/firefighters to the scene?
I don't think he should have moved her but I don't fault the guy for doing what probably anyone else would have done.
Originally posted by inimalist
to be honest, we don't know (and it really doesn't appear so anyways) that this woman's life was in danger, only that the person making the rescue thought it was.That judgement is key imho
EDIT: I own the triple post
Exactly, he thought she was going to die. If he stood their and watched her die someone else would have sued him for a lot more. He made the logical, moral and economically sensible decision. There's no reason that should come around to bite him in the ass.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosVery well said. He shouldn't be punished for doing what we think is the right thing, in this case, saving the woman's life. He placed a strangers safety and welfare over his own, therefore he is a hero, IMO.
Exactly, he thought she was going to die. If he stood their and watched her die someone else would have sued him for a lot more. He made the logical, moral and economically sensible decision. There's no reason that should come around to bite him in the ass.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The story was how "Good Samaritans" could be sued if they messed up when trying to help someone and how this fact could affect things in the future, possibly by making people think twice about interfering to help someone...
They made supporting arguments by supplying a non-sequitur example of two completely unrelated car rescuing circumstances.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So really...you were wrong it was news worthy...
Thank you for missing the point and instead, focusing on one tiny sentence intended as cynical hyperbole. (Be honest with yourself, you're arguing about nothing.)
But since you're not arguing very much at all about anything I said, I don't think this warrants discussion.
If it helps, delete that last sentence from that post and then argue with the whole reason I posted.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Also, your non-sequitur thing... why not just say that it didn't make sense (oh which it did) like everyone else?
Because logical fallacies have names. We are not 8 years old. If I commit a logical fallacy, I want a specific example of what I did, and the type of fallacy. Since these are professionals and they literally get paid to write persuasive stories, the should know better than to commit logical fallacies.
Oh, and it makes perfect sense to someone who stops and thinks about the "examples" being given. If they fail to illustrate their logic properly, than I have every right to call their "news worthy" asses on it.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What a c*nt.
WHAT UP! Long time no see. Where have you been these days?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosActually yes, if it was not the correct decision, he should be held accountable, believing to do the right thing does not make it right to screw up royally, and if, indeed, he permanently paralyzed her for an incorrect assessment of the situation, there's no reason why he shouldn't be punished or required to pay reparations to the woman he caused harm. His best intentions don't make her walk.
Exactly, he thought she was going to die. If he stood their and watched her die someone else would have sued him for a lot more. He made the logical, moral and economically sensible decision. There's no reason that should come around to bite him in the ass.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually yes, if it was not the correct decision, he should be held accountable, believing to do the right thing does not make it right to screw up royally, and if, indeed, he permanently paralyzed her for an incorrect assessment of the situation, there's no reason why he shouldn't be punished or required to pay reparations to the woman he caused harm. His best intentions don't make her walk.
There are all manner of reasons why he shouldn't be punished for trying to do the best with what he knew, you just seem determine to ignore them. The law also should not be built on the assumption that people can foresee every possible eventuality and act according to that.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosNo, there actually aren't. If he screwed her life, it doesn't matter that he wanted to safe it.
There are all manner of reasons why he shouldn't be punished for trying to do the best with what he knew, you just seem determine to ignore them. The law also should not be built on the assumption that people can foresee every possible eventuality and act according to that.
Is everyone here gone mad, seriously, a "good samaritan" should freaking think twice before "helping", and if their "help" doesn't help at all but actually severely damages someone they should be held accountable. Their superhero fantasies, really shouldn't be the problem of the people they hurt.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Is everyone here gone mad, seriously, a "good samaritan" should freaking think twice before "helping", and if their "help" doesn't help at all but actually severely damages someone they should be held accountable. Their superhero fantasies, really shouldn't be the problem of the people they hurt.
It's not a "superhero fantasy" it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to thinking someone else is going to die. I'm sure in your version of rationality leaving someone to die is the right course of action but to the rest of us that's a wee bit disturbing.