>> ^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.

>> ^joedirt:
I totally disagree. If someone is stupid enough to move your after a neck or spinal injury and can't take the basic steps to try and immobilize your neck, they should be sued.
Imagine if I came along and tried to do CPR and cracked all your ribcage and shoved a bone into your lung and you died in 2 mins.


Better getting your ribs cracked than die.. That's what happens all the time but its the lesser of two evils..

No one will help anyone if such a case gets through. Better people helping others and once in a while F*** up..


The world doesn't get better trying to squeeze it into courts.

@JD: The problem is, there needs to be a very clear procedure for determining negligence in good samaritan lawsuits. Quite frankly, the onus of proof NEEDS to be on the victim and neutral medical professionals, and it doesn't just need to be proving that the person who helped them ended up injuring them - it also needs to be proving that they would not have sustained equal or greater injuries had they been left alone.

I have heard of cases where, simply because there was no one else to sue, a good samaritan who actually saved someone's life got sued for helping. There are situations where snap decisions must be made, and the threat of a lawsuit hanging over potential good samaritans just for trying to help is going to mean more people die.

I totally disagree. If someone is stupid enough to move your after a neck or spinal injury and can't take the basic steps to try and immobilize your neck, they should be sued.

Imagine if I came along and tried to do CPR and cracked all your ribcage and shoved a bone into your lung and you died in 2 mins. And maybe you were still breathing but they just thought that's what you are supposed to do. Or someone passes out and a samaritan starts slapping them so hard they give them a concussion. Or you are choking and someone starts jumping up and down on your stomach.

Was the car in this case even on fire? NO? then he deserved to be sued. If it was on fire then probably not.

This was basically me driving up the road and into my driveway tonight. Though some good samaritans helped push me up.

Wonderful kid, and well-meaning to the end. However, taking a child's compassionate wish and turning it into feeding the homeless like dogs in an animal shelter feels to me like they're taking a huge dump on the last of their dignity.
Hey Mr. Homeless guy! You might not have a home, but here's a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich!

The kid had a good heart and meant well, and all the props in the world to him for staying strong and thinking of others. The adults however should know better than to use other people, hard on their luck, to make the kid feel good.
Again, the idea of helping someone else was noble, when still in the kid's heart. But realistically, from a grownup's perspective, the resulting peanutbutter and jelly sandwich isn't helping anyone. And the very real indignity and shame of having to beg for less than one meal, regardless if the good samaritan comes to you or vice versa, is something these grownups should have been able to forsee. It's neither a matter of pride nor ingratitude, to me it's about basic human dignity.
Had it been a stunt pulled by the kid then it'd been heartwarming, Disney-inspired show of compassion and care for other people. Being done by the parents like shown in the clip, it looked patronizing almost to the point of being supercilious. Not in their intent mind you, but in their execution.

Dupe

*discard

http://www.videosift.com/video/Good-samaritans-save-Cops-life

She was to nice when he went for her gun.

I use a one point retention holster(trigger finger pressure lock), it keeps the untrained from disarming me from holster. There are three point retention holsters, down, forward and up is how they work.

She had the option to shoot him at this point.

There is a technique that is called speed rocking, when you short draw the weapon out and shoot with out extending the arms.

The way the good Samaritan levels the pistol pisses me off. Finger on the trigger and barrel sweeps up and then down on to target, bad practice.

Always opt for the level one retention holster for duty weapons, and a closed trigger. Holsters that expose the trigger are the worst inventions I have ever seen.