Homeless Man Bleeds to Death While People Watch

[Grin]

Is it? Or does it just happen more often?

I wouldn't say so, no. And I have no real reason to believe it happens more often either.

Exactly. We just don't know. But that doesn't take away the depravity and inhumanity of the whole thing.

Laws against vigilantism is one thing, putting a man in jail for trying defend himself against a robber is another.

Oh really? So where do you draw the line? Are you allowed to shoot somebody who just robbed you? Are you allowed to attack someone who robbed you and is running away?

Yes. Yes. Any more questions?

Just stating my humble opinion though, you don't have to agree with me, to each his own I'd say.

It's easy to criticise these laws, but it's a lot harder to actually come up with laws that do work.

Not really my job to come up with laws that work, isn't that what a government is supposed to do?

 

[victor]

Oh really? So where do you draw the line? Are you allowed to shoot somebody who just robbed you? Are you allowed to attack someone who robbed you and is running away?

Yes. Yes.

I would say "No. No."

If the crime has already happened, then it's no longer self-defence, it becomes revenge. But if it's an ongoing crime with physical risk for another person, I think laws should be a little more forgiving.

 

[Grin]

Oh really? So where do you draw the line? Are you allowed to shoot somebody who just robbed you? Are you allowed to attack someone who robbed you and is running away?

Yes. Yes.

I would say "No. No."

If the crime has already happened, then it's no longer self-defence, it becomes revenge. But if it's an ongoing crime with physical risk for another person, I think laws should be a little more forgiving.

I'm a very vengeful person.


But if I look at it from a subjective, lawful point of view, I agree with you.

 

[Silencer]

Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude, otsego: I don't know how fuxed up the American system is in this manner, but here in backwards Polakistan a person is legally immune from prosecution for damages done while performing life-saving actions.

And actually, the "protection of higher good" clause can be called up for defense in court, and your example wouldn't stand; I am not liable if I injure, even paralyze a person if I can demonstrate in court that I acted to save this person's life; I can't be held liable for destroying property, if I demonstrate it was neccessary to prevent loss of life or injury.

This is one of the first thing they teach in DMV classes; In fact, a person is criminally liable if they fail to aid victims of a road accident, and are immunized from liability if they decide to perform this aid.

Similarly, a civil suit would likely not hold up here, although it gets interesting at some points (e.g. woman sued doctors for sterilizing her without informed consent while performing life-saving surgery while she was unconscious; However, this is a "political" case, not a purely civil-medical one.)

In short, Europe > Amerika.

 

[Aphyosis]

The next day you get a call from an attorney, informing you that the man had severely injured his spinal cord during the fall, and your life-saving CPR ended up breaking it; paralyzing him.

He's now suing you.

That shit used to happen in Australia as well. To my understanding they only recently passed legislation that gives you legal immunity if you were attempting to save someones life.

 

[Blakut]

That's the kind of shit that can happen when you're an upstanding citizen. You're better off just dialing 911 and walking away as if nothing had happened.

Only if you're not carefull. I'd stop and think about it first.

Once a guy was beating his wife while drunk. But it was only me and a friend on the street, it was night. The guy stopped when we yelled at him but the wife gave us the MEANEST look i've ever seen on a woman... we slowly walked away...Conclusion? Don't stop a fight between husband and wife unless she sais help!

Another time some guy fell on the tracks in the subway face down, head first, cause he had epilepsy. I remember that i was the only one that knew that there was an alarm for such a thing. After i slashed my hand in the glass cover of the alarm (the hammer had been stolen), i was the only person - me and a security guard that was half my weight, that went down on the tracks. People where staring, and the motherfucking POLICE said they are afraid to come down on the track unless someone cuts the electricity. Fat pussies...

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I am not going to say that I am an expert on legislation and the process that leads to laws being made.
There are probably a lot of people far better on this on this forum.

But what I think is the problem regarding the laws on crime and self defense is a conflict between the 'spirit' of the law and the 'literally written' text.

While I understand that laws to prevent vigilantism have been written to prevent citizens of taking justice in their own hand, them starting going after people they accuse of having done crimes against them without involvement of the police or justice department.

I feel that judges need to look at the spirit in which the law was written when dealing with a case in which someone tried to defend his store for example from an armed robber by beating the said robber.
This wasn't done with the intention of permanently or fatally injure the said robber, but rather to incapacitate them until the police arrives to take him into custody.

If a store owner actually set out on retribution on the said robber I think this should be investigated as an individual case rather than trying to find some rule, some technicality that can speak against or in his favor.
Then again one should look at the spirit in which the law has been written, not the literal words.

Something similar goes to those cases in which someone tries to help an injured person and accidentally ends up permanently disabling him or her in some way.
We can assume that this was not the intention of the person who was trying to help in the first place.

He or she is simply not a trained paramedic and no such person was available or reacted in time and this person felt himself/herself called to do something to assist while others went looking for professional help.


Meh, for all the same I just wrote down a load of bullshit but this was how I felt about it after reading the earlier posts.

 

[SuAside]

It's amazing how a legal system can literally f*ck people who act to what seems like a natural and logical response, self-defense, assistance, etc.

Yes. Because obviously laws against vigilantism are a bad thing.

Vigilantism has NOTHING to do with self-defense or assisting someone in trouble.

I expect better from you, Sander.

He's now suing you.

That's the kind of shit that can happen when you're an upstanding citizen. You're better off just dialing 911 and walking away as if nothing had happened.

Actually, in most european countries you are required by law to help.
If you don't, you're in danger of being sued for not lending aid to a person in need/danger.

Laws against vigilantism is one thing, putting a man in jail for trying defend himself against a robber is another.

Oh really? So where do you draw the line? Are you allowed to shoot somebody who just robbed you? Are you allowed to attack someone who robbed you and is running away?
It's easy to criticise these laws, but it's a lot harder to actually come up with laws that do work.

I've got no qualms with someone shooting a person that's trying to rob you.
Shooting people as they're running away and are no longer a threat is however very iffy. Kinda depends on what happened.

If they threathened your family or if they just raped you, then fuck yeah, shoot them in the back.
If they ran off with your Rolex... Well, I dunno. I wouldn't shoot.

 

[Grin]

If they ran off with your Rolex... Well, I dunno. I wouldn't shoot.

I would. Goddamn hippies.

 

[SuAside]

A Rolex is an overhyped piece of shit anyway.

Anyhow, purely on a personal level, I'd justify shooting them in the leg, but purely legally, you can't say that.

A hit to the head might just be a botched shot to the leg. And vice versa. It'd create an easy way out for doing the wrong thing.

 

[victor]

Well, a hit to the leg could kill if it hits a big artery. If you use a gun on someone you shouldn't be surprised if that person dies, that is the sole purpose of firearms. Better to use "less than lethal" weaponry, even if it can go wrong there as well.

 

[Sander]

Exactly. We just don't know. But that doesn't take away the depravity and inhumanity of the whole thing.

Yet you claimed it was happening more often. It's that jump to conclusions I don't like.

Yes. Yes. Any more questions?

Are you allowed to kill someone because they just took your wallet and then ran off?
See, I would say no and every law in our society also says no. If someone wrongs you that does not give you the right to wrong them. Because that way lies mob justice.

Not really my job to come up with laws that work, isn't that what a government is supposed to do?

That's a convenient excuse. Criticism is useless without a valid alternative.

Vigilantism has NOTHING to do with self-defense or assisting someone in trouble.

Not my point and not the examples being cited. Vigilantism has everything to do with harming a criminal who just harmed you.

 

[Grin]

Exactly. We just don't know. But that doesn't take away the depravity and inhumanity of the whole thing.

Yet you claimed it was happening more often. It's that jump to conclusions I don't like.

I never said it was happening more and more often, I said that I perceived it to get more and more common. If that's because it gets more media coverage, or because it actually happens more often, I wouldn't know.

Yes. Yes. Any more questions?

Are you allowed to kill someone because they just took your wallet and then ran off?

See, I would say no and every law in our society also says no. If someone wrongs you that does not give you the right to wrong them. Because that way lies mob justice.

And I would say yes, but then again, that's just my humble opinion. Would it work? Probably not, but I never said it would.

Not really my job to come up with laws that work, isn't that what a government is supposed to do?

That's a convenient excuse. Criticism is useless without a valid alternative.

I'd have to disagree with you there. In democracy, criticism is always valid.
It's up to the government to review this criticism and build towards a viable solution. On which we vote.

 

[Sander]

I never said it was happening more and more often, I said that I perceived it to get more and more common. If that's because it gets more media coverage, or because it actually happens more often, I wouldn't know.

Don't lie:

Like I said, it's becoming more and more common.

That's what you said.

And I would say yes, but then again, that's just my humble opinion. Would it work? Probably not, but I never said it would.

So you're just making random statements on how you 'feel' without thinking further than the direct incident at hand?

Fine if you want to do that, but then don't whine that the Dutch legal system is fucked up when you aren't talking about the system but just an incident.

I'd have to disagree with you there. In democracy, criticism is always valid.

I didn't say valid. I said 'useless'. And that's what it is. You can criticise all you want, but if you can't come up with something better then destroying which is in place makes no sense.

It's up to the government to review this criticism and build towards a viable solution. On which we vote.

The government has built towards a viable solution. What we have now is a viable legal system where vigilantism is prevented but people are still allowed to defend themselves within reason.

 

[Grin]

I never said it was happening more and more often, I said that I perceived it to get more and more common. If that's because it gets more media coverage, or because it actually happens more often, I wouldn't know.

Don't lie:

Like I said, it's becoming more and more common.

That's what you said.

And I would say yes, but then again, that's just my humble opinion. Would it work? Probably not, but I never said it would.

So you're just making random statements on how you 'feel' without thinking further than the direct incident at hand?

Fine if you want to do that, but then don't whine that the Dutch legal system is fucked up when you aren't talking about the system but just an incident.

I'd have to disagree with you there. In democracy, criticism is always valid.

I didn't say valid. I said 'useless'. And that's what it is. You can criticise all you want, but if you can't come up with something better then destroying which is in place makes no sense.

It's up to the government to review this criticism and build towards a viable solution. On which we vote.

The government has built towards a viable solution. What we have now is a viable legal system where vigilantism is prevented but people are still allowed to defend themselves within reason.

Does this guy ever stop?

You're pulling everything out of context and need a justification for everything I write.

I'm done tussling with you. Let's agree to disagree.


Back on topic guys.

 

[Hoxie]

The people that sue others that save their lives need to be bashed upside the head. I remember a bit back, some woman got into a wreck, got trapped in her burning car, then passed out I think. A man came to her aid, dragged her out of the car and kept her from dying a horrible fiery death, what does he get, a big fat lawsuit. You see, while he was pulling her out of the flaming heap that was her car, she got hurt and crippled, so she blamed it entirely on the guy. I don't remember how the case ended, but it's still just incredibly stupid that we don't have some of those laws, to keep this kind of bullshit from happening.

 

[Aphyosis]

Actually, just remembering now. I knew a dude who had a attempted lawsuit against him because he stripped a hypothermia victim down to her underwear out from wet clothes and bear hugged her under a blanket. Saved her life doing it as well according to the paramedics, but her mother tried to take him to court over it. Winded up falling through after the initial hearing to my knowledge, but fucking hell.

 

[Crni Vuk]

thx god I think we have in Germany laws against such things.

I remember from the time I spend in the firebrigade we asked in training what happens if we do hurt someones ribs or even accidantly fracture them and hurt the loungs during a reanimation (which can happen faster then you think!) and answer is that only trained personal can be eventualy sued cause you can expect from them to know what they are doing. Hence why you can sue a doctor if he accidantly killed someone like using wrong medications but you cant sue a usual car driver when he accidantly killed or hurted someone while he tried to save his life. He's neither a professional nor a trained person.

 

[victor]

I hear that ribcage fractures of some kind are pretty common when performing CPR on someone, even if a "professional" does it. Can someone confirm/debunk this?

 

[Tremer]

I hear that ribcage fractures of some kind are pretty common when performing CPR on someone, even if a "professional" does it. Can someone confirm/debunk this?

No they are not. If you know what your are doing that doesnt happen.

it may happen only if are pressing in the wrong spot and too hard