Originally posted by Bardock42Sure, so next time he will go "Hey **** them".
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.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThat's the point though. If he actually did safe her life, fair enough, if he just deluded himself into thinking he'd "help" her, while actually making things a lot worse, she has every right to demand reparations
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42He didnt "delude" himself, he acted on instinct. He thought her life was in danger and acted as if he gives a shit about his fellow man.
That's the point though. If he actually did safe her life, fair enough, if he just deluded himself into thinking he'd "help" her, while actually making things a lot worse, she has every right to demand reparations
Re: Good Samaratin being sued....
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah this blew me away:http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news
That reminds me of the Vietnam scene in Forest Gump when Gump rescued Lt. Dan from the air-strike, and because he lost both legs he was ungrateful that he was saved. I can't understand that mentality; do they honestly expect the person to let them lay there and die. They're alive, be thankful.
Anyways, that would not have happened in AZ because we have the Good Samaritan Law that states that any passersby that witness an automobile accident have to "offer any assistance possible". Every other state should adopt this.
In the scene in Forrest Gump, Forrest actually did safe the Lieutenant's life, though, at the insistence of not doing so, which is obviously questionable. He came around thanking him for it in the end, still it's not necessarily that black and white.
Regardless, the question here is even whether he did help at all and not just added to the already bad situation.
Originally posted by Bardock42Well what if Dan had sustained a neck injury? And Forrest, despite his good intentions, ended up paralyzing Dan while humping him out? What then? Hmm? Is Forrest then a villian, and is Dan righteous in suing him?
In the scene in Forrest Gump, Forrest actually did safe the Lieutanent's life, though, at the insistence of not doing so, which is obviously questionable. He came around thanking him for it in the end, still it's not necessarily that black and white.Regardless, the question here is even whether he did help at all and not just added to the already bad situation.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well what if Dan had sustained a neck injury? And Forrest, despite his good intentions, ended up paralyzing Dan while humping him out? What then? Hmm? Is Forrest then a villian, and is Dan righteous in suing him?
As I said, Dan told Forrest very straightforward that he didn't want to get rescued...so, yes, kinda. But it is still a different situation to the one we are looking at here.
Forrest on the other hand would have a hard time being a villain as that does impliy intention.
Originally posted by Bardock42No, it is the same. Two people, both in trouble, both with rescuers who thought that they were risking their lives to save them.
As I said, Dan told Forrest very straightforward that he didn't want to get rescued...so, yes, kinda. But it is still a different situation to the one we are looking at here.
Forrest on the other hand would have a hard time being a villain as that does impliy intention."Intention." Lets think about that for a second. Do you think the man in the article had any intention of causing the victim bodily harm?
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the point though. If he actually did safe her life, fair enough, if he just deluded himself into thinking he'd "help" her, while actually making things a lot worse, she has every right to demand reparations
But of course since it's impossible to know what would have happen otherwise the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. He acted to save (not safe) her life and succeeded. Being human he couldn't see the future and had no certainty that a) she was a ***** and probably deserved to be left in the car to die and b) his actions might harm her to a greater extent than doing nothing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In the scene in Forrest Gump, Forrest actually did safe the Lieutanent's life, though, at the insistence of not doing so, which is obviously questionable. He came around thanking him for it in the end, still it's not necessarily that black and white.
Was it still an easy decision? I still would've saved him. This guy lost a lot of blood so he isn't thinking straight, and maybe wants to die "a hero's death", but I can still save him. So I don't think I can leave him in good conscious. That was Gump's dilemma.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Regardless, the question here is even whether he did help at all and not just added to the already bad situation.
She just wants money. I guess some people just can't be pleased.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But of course since it's impossible to know what would have happen otherwise the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. He acted to save (not safe) her life and succeeded. Being human he couldn't see the future and had no certainty that a) she was a ***** and probably deserved to be left in the car to die and b) his actions might harm her to a greater extent than doing nothing.
He deserves the benefit of doubt, yes. Not because he can't see the future, though. Generally him having the "good" intention, doesn't excuse his actions if they are dangerous and rationally unjustified. Which is what the court is out to determine, I'd presume.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No, it is the same. Two people, both in trouble, both with rescuers who thought that they were risking their lives to save them."Intention." Lets think about that for a second. Do you think the man in the article had any intention of causing the victim bodily harm?
No, there are a few difference, which make it very different situations, even though some issues are the same.
Also, I never implied that the guy is in any way the villain, so, lets not think about it too long, as you are obviously going off on an unrelated tangent.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Was it still an easy decision? I still would've saved him. This guy lost a lot of blood so he isn't thinking straight, and maybe wants to die "a hero's death", but I can still save him. So I don't think I can leave him in good conscious. That was Gump's dilemma.She just wants money. I guess some people just can't be pleased.
I agree it's a thing worthy to think about, I just don't find it implies or clarifies anything for this situation.
And, to be fair, she just might want to walk again...or at least be able to deal with the consequences of his "rescue"...
Originally posted by Bardock42
He deserves the benefit of doubt, yes. Not because he can't see the future, though. Generally him having the "good" intention, doesn't excuse his actions if they are dangerous and rationally unjustified. Which is what the court is out to determine, I'd presume.
People looking at a crisis situation can't be expected to make the best possible decisions on a moment's notice. He did what seemed to be the best course of action with every intention of helping her. There was no way to know the proper risk assessment of the situation at that moment as he lacked the aid of statisticians, a computer and about three hours.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People looking at a crisis situation can't be expected to make the best possible decisions on a moment's notice. He did what seemed to be the best course of action with every intention of helping her. There was no way to know the proper risk assessment of the situation at that moment as he lacked the aid of statisticians, a computer and about three hours.
Again, it doesn't and shouldn't give them a total absolution from all their behaviour in the situation. Just because it might, or might not be a crisis, does not negate the consequences of their actions, that they and others will have to live with. As such they can be expected to behave up to certain standards. Whether the person in question has done that or not, I have no idea (and unless you all read up more and continued to pursue the case, I figure you don't either, as the video just really doesn't tell us anything much at all), so, blindly siding with him, as many seem to do, feels knee-jerky to me, though.
Re: Good Samaratin being sued....
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah this blew me away:http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news
Los Angeles...why am I not surprise?
You know this is why Batman keeps his identity a secret. Can you imagine how many ungrateful jerks or bitches out there would sue Batman the minute they knew it was Rich Millionare Wayne?
Gawd! Some people!
Originally posted by Bardock42Villian, scapegoat, whatever. you seem to think his heroic actions should go unnoticed. As Mota said, the ***** just wants money.
No, there are a few difference, which make it very different situations, even though some issues are the same.Also, I never implied that the guy is in any way the villain, so, lets not think about it too long, as you are obviously going off on an unrelated tangent.