>> ^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.

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.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
And how exactly is people being shot voluntarily an example of brutality?

It's not.
But you're effectively justifying the rampant use of tasers by police based on the voluntary cooperation of these celebrities.
Your apparent enthusiasm for tasers, based on the fact that you've made about three posts on that subject today alone, is more than a little disturbing, MGR.
It smacks of sadism.
Especially since you are in law enforcement, if I'm not mistaken.


This post has nothing to do with the widespread use of tasers. It has to do with all those videos you see of people screaming bloody murder after being hit with one - acting like it still hurts after the taser is off. (Drama Queen).

My enthusiasm for tasers comes from my hatred of people that disregard the laws around them and act like they're the most important people on the planet. \

Before tasers, cops only had these options:
1) Attemmpt to subdue the criminal, risking life and limb while doing so (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3).
2) Run up to them and beat the shit out of them with a baton, or mace them,.
3) Shoot them.

Very rarely do officer have the chance to jump up to a guy and take him down smoothly and effectively. (Like this)

What the Taser does is open up a fourth option for officers. It allows them to subdue a suspect without putting them in danger. It's not about taser vs. bullets or taser vs. baton, but it just lets them do something they've never been able to do before.

Don't want to be tased? Don't break the fucking law and if you have to deal with the police, be it legit or not, don't resist and do everything the officer says.

Even that left-wing-as-can-be organization, the ACLU says "Cooperate, even if you think you're innocent"

That's no ordinary good Samaritan, that's for sure. He was in it to win it. Bad luck for the bad guy.

Good Samaritan law. Most states have it. Dramatic? Nah, the first trail of the experiment was good any thing after that is suspect.

The good samaritan even slapped away the tall guy who was trying to get some free shots in.

In a society where people sue people for getting their dinner order wrong, I am surprised that YOU people are surprised.

Here in Canada we have what's called a "good samaritan" law, where if you don't do anything you're not trained to do and provided to the injured, you cannot be sued. From what I understand, "y'all" can sue anyone if a judge says it's legal. If you went over to him, and his family decided you shouldn't have, you'd be opening yourself up to damages.

Gawking at a violent act is genetic anyway. Everyone is in shock at one of the other apes getting attacked, but the lions have run off, so there's no personal danger. I'm personally amazed someone didn't poke him with a stick.

That's because you have not yet learned to strike at the core of Google's strength. To find the videos you seek, you must become... a cockpuncher! Have you got the balls?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Trailer-forThe-Onion-Movie

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Wow, that's insane. I'm confident that I have a billionth degree black belt in Google-fu, so that if I can't find something, it simply doesn't exist on the internet. I tried everything under the sun to find that, but I must have been drunk to miss that. Thanks again.

In reply to this comment by Lurch:
Actually, I just looked for "good samaritan saves cop" and it was the only one that came up. Lucky shot I guess.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I saw that you fixed my "good Samaritan" video - thanks a bunch! I tried and tried and tried to find a replacement, but just couldn't. What tags did you use to find it?

Actually, I just looked for "good samaritan saves cop" and it was the only one that came up. Lucky shot I guess.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I saw that you fixed my "good Samaritan" video - thanks a bunch! I tried and tried and tried to find a replacement, but just couldn't. What tags did you use to find it?

Yes it is - and I'm going to do that the next time I want to be a good samaritan.

I posted 4 you, great talk
http://www.videosift.com/video/Daniel-Goleman-Why-arent-we-all-Good-Samaritans