It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Budget cuts force Calif. police and firemen to watch man drown

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
remembering the firemen and police on 9/11 they went in while others went out..they certanly wernt in California..where have the heros gone??




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
To serve and protect.

sad times we live in .



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

A good samaritan in legal terms refers to someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. Usually, if a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured or ill person who is a stranger, the person giving the aid owes the stranger a duty of being reasonably careful. A person is not obligated by law to do first aid in most states, not unless it's part of a job description. However, some states will consider it an act of negligence though, if a person doesn't at least call for help. Generally, where an unconscious victim cannot respond, a good samaritan can help them on the grounds of implied consent. However, if the victim is conscious and can respond, a person should ask their permission to help them first.


See SOURCE for examples of how this applies.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


While everyone is up in arms regarding the cowardice of these police/fire men, you must not forget where we live. While it is appalling that someone could stand by and watch another die, it is also appalling the possible out come of saving said person.


NEW LONDON, Conn. -- A woman is suing the town whose police divers saved her from drowning. Barbara Connors is suing the town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut, saying she was rescued too late to prevent serious brain damage. The Massachusetts woman was in her son-in-law's sport utility vehicle when it jumped a curb, went through a chain-link fence and plunged into the Connecticut River. Connors was unconscious and in cardiac arrest when divers pulled her from the water. The son-in-law escaped the sinking vehicle and was picked up by the crew of a passing boat. Connors is also suing him. Among other things, the suit claims the town failed to provide appropriate guardrails and equipment needed by police divers. It says the 75-year-old woman has brain damage and must be cared for in a nursing home for the rest of her life.



A woman who was pulled from her crashed vehicle by a friend who feared it was going to explode is to sue her saviour after a US court ruled that her actions were not of a medical nature and may have worsened the injuries already sustained. The 2004 car crash on Topanga Canyon Boulevard inflicted spinal injuries to Alexandra Van Horn and it is alleged that by yanking her from the vehicle "like a rag doll", friend Lisa Torti caused further injury, leaving the victim a paraplegic. The case raises issues concerning the liability faced by Good Samaritans who could be sued for saving a person in a way which did not include revival or other forms of lifesaving medical treatment at the scene.




No good deed goes unpunished, or so goes the saying. Such was the case with Lisa Torti, who is being sued for pulling a now-paralyzed friend from the wreckage of a Los Angeles car accident in 2004. The victim's lawyers claim the Good Samaritan bumbled the rescue and caused injury by yanking her friend "like a rag doll" to safety. But Torti -- now a 30-year-old interior designer from Las Vegas -- said she thought she had seen smoke and feared the car would explode. She claims she was only trying to help her friend, Alexandra Van Horn, and her own life has been adversely affected by the incident. "I know [Van Horn] has a lot of financial issues and her life has changed," she said. "But it's not my fault. I can't be angry at her, only the path she has chosen to take. I can only pray it helps her." "I don't have any more fight left," Torti told ABCNews.com, choking back tears. "It's really emotional." The California Supreme Court ruled this week that Van Horn may sue Torti for allegedly causing her friend's paralysis. The case -- the first of its kind -- challenges the state's liability shield law that protects people who give emergency assistance.


Read more about Good Samaritan ruling


edit on 1-6-2011 by Doom and Gloom because: add link



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinavamp
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here, not to say what they did was right by no means. The thing is you can sue anybody in this country for any reason. You can lose your whole livelyhood by saving someone's life. Not too long ago,if I can find it I'll post it, an off duty police officer rescued a woman from jumping off a bridge. In the process she broke her leg. The poor fellow not only lost his job but has to pay this woman an unreasonable amount of money.All these frivolous lawsuits make it hard to want to help anybody. Knowing that your family will suffer because you gave a damn about someone else is wrong.The world we live in is a sad sad place.


If I got sued, I'd still be able to look myself in the mirror.

I don't see how any of these people can lie with themselves.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Vortiki
 


Suicide.
A long term solution to a short-term problem.

Only my opinion.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The guy was suicidal and intent on drowning himself according to the article. In hindsight they simply let him do what he wanted to do.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Doom and Gloom
 


I can undestand and appreciate the laws and the times we live in.

But when does that trump morality?

When should it?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
So, a possibly armed and possibly unstable drowning person is allowed to die because first responders couldn't make a decision about the bureaucracy policies allegedly surrounding doing what is basically the job they are trained to do and there for? Something about this whole story is just whack. Wow. I just don't know what to say anymore.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree that it is $%^#ed up, but in today's times one has to be careful about what they do, regardless of moral dilemmas. The short of it is, you may be able to look yourself in the mirror, but understand it will not be your mirror you are looking into. This entire society has been flushed into the sewers. Monetary gain is first and foremost for everyone it seems.

I have 2 children I have to raise and care for. Me risking my life to save another, only to have them completely destroy any possible future of my children is unacceptable. Quite possibly not a risk I will even consider taking.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Thanks for all the replys.

I just think that there is a moral immperitive that supercedes any and all of this.

It's like we've replaced morality with a damned court ruling.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Doom and Gloom
 


I appreciate your candor. YOUR children get in the way of making that call. Understandable.
A potential LAWSUIT stopped them.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That is very true. As I would not be able to stand by either. I was just pointing out the fact that helping people does and can backfire. Imagine a single father raising his 3 daughters all by himself. He's already working two job's to keep his kids feed and clothed. A man like this has incredible testicular forttude so when he sees a person in trouble he cannot stand idlely by. That person he saves in turns sues him for a ridiculous amount of money and wins. Now he can't afford to keep a roof over his head, feed his family or even afford the gas to drive to his 2 jobs. How is he gonna look his girls in the face. I know you think this is an extreme case but its not. It happens all the time.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Vortiki
 


Suicide.
A long term solution to a short-term problem.

Only my opinion.



While this may be true, and you are by all means entitled to believe whatever you so wish, this man chose what he wanted. I respect his choice to end his own life as much as I respect your opinion. It was his life and his choice what to do with it. He chose to end it, and I cannot help, but feel that even if he were "saved" by someone from drowning, he would have found other means to do the deed.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


While everything being said is true. My question is why did 75 other people stand around for an hour and watch the cops stand around and watch. One would think they would have staring giving them trouble then someone decide to do it themselves. It is pathetic that a young woman was the only one there who had enough courage to retrieve a dead body.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vortiki
While this may be true, and you are by all means entitled to believe whatever you so wish, this man chose what he wanted. I respect his choice to end his own life as much as I respect your opinion. It was his life and his choice what to do with it. He chose to end it, and I cannot help, but feel that even if he were "saved" by someone from drowning, he would have found other means to do the deed.


While this may be true, I'll also play the devil's advocate a bit, suicide/assisted suicide is illegal. These responders neither prevented the commission of a crime and indeed aided and participated in the event. They had a responsibility not only to save the man's life but also prevent him from taking it. If he committed suicide in a way nobody could prevent, either in the privacy of his own home or in such a quick fashion that proper aid could not be given, that's one thing, watching idly as a man slowly kills himself in public is another entirely. The emergency crew's refusal to take action can open them now to both civil and criminal litigation.

I looked further, in California it is not illegal to commit suicide but assisting in the act is still a felony.
edit on 1-6-2011 by j35us because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Speaking as someone who was a first responder and is currently keeping up with the respective certifications despite not working in the field the lawsuit argument is crazy bogus.

Not that some nut wouldnt try to sue you for saving their life because they will and they do.

But no lawsuit like that is going to go anywhere. It'll get thrown out faster than hot garbage.

We were told all through training and our first couple of years of the job and reminded each time we go for recertification that certified or not if you're acting in the best intent on an unresponsive victim you arent liable for anything.

911 operators talk laymen through simple CPR all the time.

If somebody cant ask for help then consent is implied. Unconscious, obstructed airway, gasping in water, or some deaf, mute flipper armed mutant. Consent is implied. The general rule is that people would rather live than die and a dislocated shoulder from a rescue or some broken ribs from compressions are a small price to pay for continuing to live.

Maybe the cops just didnt know how to do anything other than tase or shoot the guy?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by redrose123
 


At least one didn't. A 20 year old woman braved the cold and tried to do the right thing.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


This makes me sick. How pathetic have we become to stand and watch someone drown just because of "certification"?
It's stories like this that make me wish for planet Nirubu or what the hell it's name is!!!

Our society is finished if this continues!!!

What ever happned to Good Samaritan Laws?

What ever happened to human kindness and decency?

Where have all our heros gone?

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Well sadly You see the problem is not those certifications but the fact that for some reason in the USA everybody sues everybody over everything, if they just see a glimpse of a possible payout... Just the way this country works ..

Lets take my country for example, nobody sues over ridiculous things like a hot coffee or a failed rescue attempt because everybody knows that lawyers are very expensive and trials can take up to a few years, so we have a lot more heroes, and nobody would stand and watch somebody drown because they failed to have a certification and were liable for a court case..



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 

Legal reform, fear of lawsuits may be part of it, but I have to come back to the moral issue. Sure, if you're a single father, supporting a sick family member, suffering yourself. . . . I can understand that.

But afraid becase of lawsuits? They couldn't do the right and moral thing because they were afraid of lawsuits.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join