What bothers ME about this video was that no one was willing to help him. Everyone just sat back and watched him fumble around in the store. Maybe I'm the minority here, but I would help him buy the alcohol, and send him on his merry way, if not give him a ride back to his place, where he would be safe and away from the rest of the public.

What the hell happened to good Samaritans, are we a dying breed? Would you rather watch him make a spectacle of himself and possibly injure himself in the process(maybe even seriously) or help him get back to a safer environment?

>> ^kceaton1:
I agree, but the last question he asked seemed out of place. Maybe he should have brought up the type of car and whether that would have an impact on the prosecutor.
Or, the question for the hacksaw was related to the miracle that befell those fireman. Maybe someone used it to sever the lines? There might be a good Samaritan in that story.
/loves the onion news, a better info source
/than fox!


I'm thinking the hacksaw is to help dispose of the body...

I agree, but the last question he asked seemed out of place. Maybe he should have brought up the type of car and whether that would have an impact on the prosecutor.

Or, the question for the hacksaw was related to the miracle that befell those fireman. Maybe someone used it to sever the lines? There might be a good Samaritan in that story.

/loves the onion news, a better info source
/than fox!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mitchell, webb, sketch, a good samaritan' to 'mitchell, webb, sketch, a good samaritan, sammy lovers' - edited by ponceleon

Bush & Brownie fuck up Katrina. But you're opposed to the fed. gov. disaster relief teams to help literally clean the place up?

Who else is going to do it, just some every day good samaritans?

I can think of a million scenarios where you're completely out of your mind.

Ha, yeah, I said (maybe foolishly) that the only payment I wanted was for him to pay it forward (which he was too wasted to understand the concept).
Anyway, the star point was a bit of cheer. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
That was some *quality good samaritan work.
Sorry about the shit sandwich etc

That was some *quality good samaritan work.
Sorry about the shit sandwich etc

>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Diogenes
"take the lessons from a religious text rather than any literal meaning, that value common sense"
What do you need the lessons of the bible for if you already have "common sense" that you're judging them by?
As far as her smug labeling is concerned it's a proven fact
(see: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED ) that Republicans value being on the same "team" more than Democrats. I think this is the kind of thinking that she's talking about, albeit not in a tactful way, that 'team oriented' thinking doesn't leave much room for individuality especially in matters of philosophy.


because a religious text can impart knowledge or notionally change our understandings (e.g. the parable of the good samaritan or "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" forming the basis for servant leadership), in the same manner that virtually *any* text can do the same - my point here being that not all conservatives are 'christian fundies' and 'creationists' but rather can take some important lessons from *any* religious text in the same manner that a student can increase their understanding from their school texts

by 'smug labelings' i was referring to her ad homs of "cruelty, asshole, dick, and small-minded"

the ted vid doesn't take this tack, certainly - if anything, it emphasizes that the different 'teams' need or rely on each other... rather than saying that one side is "sick"

it would be interesting to me to see a psych study done of the liberal mind by the same methodology as used in the following:

http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/Jost/_private/Political_Conservatism_as_Motivated_Social_Cognition.pdf

keeping in mind its possible failings:

http://www.ironshrink.com/articles.php?artID=070116_jost_conservative_study_methodology

Never considered how ironic it really is that the US being on the far fringes of capitalism and while emanating minimal communal altruism through through its health care and social security system for a developed nation, pretends to be a beacon of religious compassion and good samaritanism.

Society has a vested interest in encouraging people to help each other. Thus a lawsuit against a good samaritan should rarely be allowed to proceed. But, neither should we put the bar on suing them too high. If the guy was drunk and the car never exploded, then it seems like a reasonable case to have proceed to court.

Although I'm not a fan of the litigation culture that is growing in the UK (and seems to have entirely swallowed the US) you can't disregard the consequences of someone's actions just because they mean well. There just has to be a line drawn between unfortunate accident and negligence.

I know sod all about first aid but I know for sure that you never move people with potential trauma if they are not in immediate danger. Similarly, I cringe when I see videos of bikers who have crashed and "good Samaritans" immediately yank their helmet off as if that will help, rather than potentially paralyzing them.

Surely it comes down to intent.

A good samaritan is not going in to "save" someone, poetentially risking their own life and intentionally trying to hurt/injure/make worse the other person.

I just think it's really...sad that it comes to this.

What's next? Do people standing around get sued because they don't go into help???

This video is only half the story. According to another version I heard, the "good samaritan" was likely intoxicated, and dragged the victim "like a ragdoll" from a car that was not on fire. Furthermore the victim was place just outside of the car, not out of range of a potential fire.

Yes, in extreme circumstances where somebody is in danger of imminent death, the good samaritan should be protected from liability of minor wounds. However in this case, they had no clue what they were doing, and as such should not have gotten involved.

As I was taught as a child, saying "I thought I was helping" is not a defense against the damage you do by failing to think things through.

(LA Times Article)

The good Samaritan laws will only protect you if you are performing medical procedures (CPR, first aid, etc) within your level of training.

To simplify: If you don't know shit about CPR and you perform it on someone and end up cracking all their ribs or puncturing a lung because you were doing it too hard, then you are liable.

You don't necessarily have to be doing something medical to be protected. If it's something like pulling someone from a burning car, then you're alright, because it's not a medical procedure. So if someone starts choking and you can't dislodge the obstruction with the Heimlich, don't pull out a knife and try an emergency tracheotomy just because you saw House do it last night. If someone is trapped in a burning car and you drag them out only to dislodge their shoulder, you should be alright because like thain said, they have to prove they would have been better off if you left them there.

I can't watch the video now, but I'll have to catch it when I get home.

if the law passes, how long before 'Good Samaritan Release Forms' get passed out? after all, while someone may be asking for help at the time, who knows what will happen once they get to a point where they're 'better' and are seeking monetary damages.

fight laws with laws. you could throw someone into a fire as long as you have them sign a release form first.