|
On October 19 2011 02:50 MozzarellaL wrote:
This is really no different from the US.
There is no law requiring you to do anything to help someone in danger, (although some states have passed laws requiring you to alert the authorities if you happen across someone in danger), unless you are the source of the danger (e.g., you see someone drowning in a public pool, and you are the only person there besides the unfortunate swimmer. You have no obligation to do anything to help him; but if it were your own pool located on your property then it is your responsibility).
If you decide to help someone in danger (help is construed rather broadly), you immediately take all responsibility for him. Anything that harms or worsens the condition of the victim as a result of your 'help', you are liable for in a court of law. Good Samaritan laws are quite varied in scope and would never have even been passed were it not for public outrage (like what may be happening here in China), ranging from full immunity for anyone providing assistance to immunity only to medical professionals volunteering their expertise, to the more common legal test of determining of whether a rescuer's actions were 'necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury' as a condition to granting immunity, or if they were reckless (and I would posit that helping a person off a road who has just been run over is reckless--if they cannot move by themselves, your touching them could cause further injury because you don't know what the fuck you're doing--far more sensible actions include calling an ambulance or blocking the road so a 3rd car won't come along).
Finally, just like the 'fatality fine' Blasterion pointed out, some states have tort laws which state that recovery of injury damages does not survive death,--once you die your family has no claim for recovery whatsoever. Not entirely analogous but then again, a person helping a victim is never going to be charged with homicide.
OP's cultural arrogance is quite staggering and ignorant. Calling another country's citizens 'barbaric' for not rendering help to a child, when just two years ago an entire school just stood around and watched a middle school girl be gang-raped in this country, is both inappropriate and grossly morbid in an ironic sense.
See I find that interesting, in Canada it's totally different... Our law REQUIRES us to stop, and if we don't we can be fined upwards in the thousands of dollars. This goes for any type of injury, if you see someone hit by a car, you must in some way help them... It's illegal to do the opposite.
Interesting set of values. (I don't mean rip them over your shoulder and run to a hospital, but atleast call 911 and wait for them to get there and tell them what happened)
I remember a old lady got hit by a train beside my house, and me and my father ran out and he ripped his shirt off and took mine and (he usto drive ambulances so he knew what he was doing) literally jammed the clothing into her wounds to stop the bleeding and then tied it off, saved her life though she died some weeks later from a heart attack... point is, he was required to help her, and even if he wasnt he would...
I dunno how people cant just help... I know I would. Moral code > the Law always.
On October 19 2011 02:56 Tuthur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 02:48 MERLIN. wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Did anyone else not feel anything after watching the video? I didnt even get a sick stomach or anything, I guess I'm pretty unsensitive though.
I didn't feel sick or anything either but part of my faith in humanity was definitely shattered as I saw people walking by, if you're not disgusted by the way they ignore her you're probably a psychopath :p
Maybe, though I think its just I have little feelings for subjects such as this, humanity? If I am going to wear clothes from nike and eat at mcdonalds while half the world starves, then who am I to be disgusted by someone doing that? Sure I would help, but in other things I'm not much different, and we are all to blame a little bit for everything that happens.
|
I cant im actually watching this. how HORRIBLE!!! 
|
On October 19 2011 02:58 MERLIN. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 02:50 MozzarellaL wrote:
This is really no different from the US.
There is no law requiring you to do anything to help someone in danger, (although some states have passed laws requiring you to alert the authorities if you happen across someone in danger), unless you are the source of the danger (e.g., you see someone drowning in a public pool, and you are the only person there besides the unfortunate swimmer. You have no obligation to do anything to help him; but if it were your own pool located on your property then it is your responsibility).
If you decide to help someone in danger (help is construed rather broadly), you immediately take all responsibility for him. Anything that harms or worsens the condition of the victim as a result of your 'help', you are liable for in a court of law. Good Samaritan laws are quite varied in scope and would never have even been passed were it not for public outrage (like what may be happening here in China), ranging from full immunity for anyone providing assistance to immunity only to medical professionals volunteering their expertise, to the more common legal test of determining of whether a rescuer's actions were 'necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury' as a condition to granting immunity, or if they were reckless (and I would posit that helping a person off a road who has just been run over is reckless--if they cannot move by themselves, your touching them could cause further injury because you don't know what the fuck you're doing--far more sensible actions include calling an ambulance or blocking the road so a 3rd car won't come along).
Finally, just like the 'fatality fine' Blasterion pointed out, some states have tort laws which state that recovery of injury damages does not survive death,--once you die your family has no claim for recovery whatsoever. Not entirely analogous but then again, a person helping a victim is never going to be charged with homicide.
OP's cultural arrogance is quite staggering and ignorant. Calling another country's citizens 'barbaric' for not rendering help to a child, when just two years ago an entire school just stood around and watched a middle school girl be gang-raped in this country, is both inappropriate and grossly morbid in an ironic sense. See I find that interesting, in Canada it's totally different... Our law REQUIRES us to stop, and if we don't we can be fined upwards in the thousands of dollars. This goes for any type of injury, if you see someone hit by a car, you must in some way help them... It's illegal to do the opposite. Interesting set of values. (I don't mean rip them over your shoulder and run to a hospital, but atleast call 911 and wait for them to get there and tell them what happened) I remember a old lady got hit by a train beside my house, and me and my father ran out and he ripped his shirt off and took mine and (he usto drive ambulances so he knew what he was doing) literally jammed the clothing into her wounds to stop the bleeding and then tied it off, saved her life though she died some weeks later from a heart attack... point is, he was required to help her, and even if he wasnt he would... I dunno how people cant just help... I know I would. Moral code > the Law always.
bro, you are Canadian. what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time.
|
On October 19 2011 03:02 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 02:58 MERLIN. wrote:On October 19 2011 02:50 MozzarellaL wrote:
This is really no different from the US.
There is no law requiring you to do anything to help someone in danger, (although some states have passed laws requiring you to alert the authorities if you happen across someone in danger), unless you are the source of the danger (e.g., you see someone drowning in a public pool, and you are the only person there besides the unfortunate swimmer. You have no obligation to do anything to help him; but if it were your own pool located on your property then it is your responsibility).
If you decide to help someone in danger (help is construed rather broadly), you immediately take all responsibility for him. Anything that harms or worsens the condition of the victim as a result of your 'help', you are liable for in a court of law. Good Samaritan laws are quite varied in scope and would never have even been passed were it not for public outrage (like what may be happening here in China), ranging from full immunity for anyone providing assistance to immunity only to medical professionals volunteering their expertise, to the more common legal test of determining of whether a rescuer's actions were 'necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury' as a condition to granting immunity, or if they were reckless (and I would posit that helping a person off a road who has just been run over is reckless--if they cannot move by themselves, your touching them could cause further injury because you don't know what the fuck you're doing--far more sensible actions include calling an ambulance or blocking the road so a 3rd car won't come along).
Finally, just like the 'fatality fine' Blasterion pointed out, some states have tort laws which state that recovery of injury damages does not survive death,--once you die your family has no claim for recovery whatsoever. Not entirely analogous but then again, a person helping a victim is never going to be charged with homicide.
OP's cultural arrogance is quite staggering and ignorant. Calling another country's citizens 'barbaric' for not rendering help to a child, when just two years ago an entire school just stood around and watched a middle school girl be gang-raped in this country, is both inappropriate and grossly morbid in an ironic sense. See I find that interesting, in Canada it's totally different... Our law REQUIRES us to stop, and if we don't we can be fined upwards in the thousands of dollars. This goes for any type of injury, if you see someone hit by a car, you must in some way help them... It's illegal to do the opposite. Interesting set of values. (I don't mean rip them over your shoulder and run to a hospital, but atleast call 911 and wait for them to get there and tell them what happened) I remember a old lady got hit by a train beside my house, and me and my father ran out and he ripped his shirt off and took mine and (he usto drive ambulances so he knew what he was doing) literally jammed the clothing into her wounds to stop the bleeding and then tied it off, saved her life though she died some weeks later from a heart attack... point is, he was required to help her, and even if he wasnt he would... I dunno how people cant just help... I know I would. Moral code > the Law always. bro, you are Canadian. what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time.
What? I stated I was Canadian, and "what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time" makes no fucking sense...
Please, at least read the post before replying...
|
Disturbing to say the least
|
On October 19 2011 03:03 MERLIN. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 03:02 MozzarellaL wrote:
bro, you are Canadian. what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time. What? I stated I was Canadian, and "what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time" makes no fucking sense... Please, at least read the post before replying...
I did read the post. My sentence makes complete sense.
What it is like in the US -- the content description in my post
was what it was like -- a substantially similar duplicate
in your country for a very long time -- was once an apt description for Canada some time ago, for extended period of time
|
On October 18 2011 23:48 iLikeRain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 23:44 Neurosis wrote:On October 18 2011 23:38 iLikeRain wrote:On October 18 2011 22:57 secretary bird wrote:
You guys are fucked up for even watching something like that tbh. Why do you want to see it, you knew what happened already. Not trying to preach here but I dont understand how that could possibly benefit you. What would not seeing benefit? If you see the video, you have a much clearer picture of what actually happened. Sure you can read reports, but you don't see the way that the bypassers look at the girl, remind themselves that they can suffer financially from helping her, and then carrying on. Stop crying because you don't have the "stomach" to handle something like this. It's horrible and tragic, but insulting people because they feel that watching it helps them understand, is moronic at best. Why the hell would you want a "much clearer picture of what actually happened". I'm not insulting people that watched the video but I know for sure I wouldn't want that image burned into my brain. The world just keeps getting shittier as time goes on. You're not insulting people? Let's quote yourself: No you're right. That's not insulting AT ALL!
I didn't post that. You quoted Secretary bird, not me -_-
|
On October 19 2011 03:08 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 03:03 MERLIN. wrote:On October 19 2011 03:02 MozzarellaL wrote:
bro, you are Canadian. what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time. What? I stated I was Canadian, and "what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time" makes no fucking sense... Please, at least read the post before replying... I did read the post. My sentence makes complete sense. What it is like in the US -- the content description in my post was what it was like -- a substantially similar duplicate in your country for a very long time -- was once an apt description for Canada some time ago, for extended period of time
did you read your sentence?
"what it was like in the Us was what it was like this in your country for a very long time...
So no that made no sense, read again, because apparently third time will have to be the charm, oh btw, obviously not because of the post I quoted with mine and my question... And we have different laws completely, great example is simple things like drinking age being 18-19 in canada and 21 in states.
So please, try again for the third time to derail this thread with your mild attempts to "insult" canada and imply that everythings the same as the states.
Lucky the economys not; )
Anyway, back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION so do you guys dont have to stop and help?
|
Disgusting.
Every bit of it. No one was going to help that kid and why? Plausible explanation, actually, but that doesn't justify anything. People are so desperate for money that they simply sue anyone who helps them. Guess what, that leads to shit like this. I cannot believe that I call those fellow human beings.
|
On October 19 2011 03:11 MERLIN. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 03:08 MozzarellaL wrote:On October 19 2011 03:03 MERLIN. wrote:On October 19 2011 03:02 MozzarellaL wrote:
bro, you are Canadian. what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time. What? I stated I was Canadian, and "what it is like in the US was what it was like this in your country for a very long time" makes no fucking sense... Please, at least read the post before replying... I did read the post. My sentence makes complete sense. What it is like in the US -- the content description in my post was what it was like -- a substantially similar duplicate in your country for a very long time -- was once an apt description for Canada some time ago, for extended period of time did you read your sentence? "what it was like in the Us was what it was like this in your country for a very long time... So no that made no sense, read again, because apparently third time will have to be the charm, oh btw, obviously not because of the post I quoted with mine and my question... And we have different laws completely, great example is simple things like drinking age being 18-19 in canada and 21 in states. So please, try again for the third time to derail this thread with your mild attempts to "insult" canada and imply that everythings the same as the states. Lucky the economys not; ) Anyway, back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION so do you guys dont have to stop and help?
It varies state by state.
|
On October 18 2011 15:00 AudionovA wrote:Fucking fantastic, i literally threw up. What not link 3 guys 1 hammer while your at it? Thats so sickening. + Show Spoiler +im not china bashing, this could happen anywhere, its just he incident.
No, it would not happen anywhere. Where else in the world other than NK would you simply ignore a dying child.
|
On October 19 2011 02:50 MozzarellaL wrote:
This is really no different from the US.
There is no law requiring you to do anything to help someone in danger, (although some states have passed laws requiring you to alert the authorities if you happen across someone in danger), unless you are the source of the danger (e.g., you see someone drowning in a public pool, and you are the only person there besides the unfortunate swimmer. You have no obligation to do anything to help him; but if it were your own pool located on your property then it is your responsibility).
If you decide to help someone in danger (help is construed rather broadly), you immediately take all responsibility for him. Anything that harms or worsens the condition of the victim as a result of your 'help', you are liable for in a court of law. Good Samaritan laws are quite varied in scope and would never have even been passed were it not for public outrage (like what may be happening here in China), ranging from full immunity for anyone providing assistance to immunity only to medical professionals volunteering their expertise, to the more common legal test of determining of whether a rescuer's actions were 'necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury' as a condition to granting immunity, or if they were reckless (and I would posit that helping a person off a road who has just been run over is reckless--if they cannot move by themselves, your touching them could cause further injury because you don't know what the fuck you're doing--far more sensible actions include calling an ambulance or blocking the road so a 3rd car won't come along).
It's the exact opposite of what we have here in Germany. We are required to help people (we can be punished if we ignore people who need aid) as long as we dont endanger ourselves.
And we cannot be held responsible for any damage we cause, while trying to help the victim.
But still, tests have shown, even with these laws in place the majority (ok it was about 50%^^) just ignores people who need aid (the tests were a car accident with "injured" actors lying around).
Now imagine how many people will help when they can get punished for helping. It has nothing to do with "China and it's people". We other countries have the same problems.
|
They don't necessarily need to help physically, but they could've atleast called an ambulance on their way to work. I wonder if they did, their body language tells me different.
It's quite disturbing, I don't think something like that would happen with people ignoring it in my country.
|
On October 19 2011 03:11 MERLIN. wrote:
So please, try again for the third time to derail this thread with your mild attempts to "insult" canada and imply that everythings the same as the states.
Lucky the economys not; )
Anyway, back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION so do you guys dont have to stop and help?
Sigh. you don't get it, do you? Both the US and Canada are common law jurisdictions. The "no obligation to help or rescue" is a common law rule originating from England over 300 years ago.
Wikipedia doesn't even agree with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
"In Quebec, which makes use of civil law, there is a general duty to rescue in its Charter of Rights...the other provinces follow common law"...and the common law states there is no general duty to come to rescue of another. For an extreme statement of the common law: "Defendant had no obligation to help a trespassing boy who placed his hand on a machine and was injured...in fact, boy was liable to defendant for any resulting damages to the machine"
I don't have an interest to investigate your statutes and case law, so I'll give wikipedia the benefit of doubt since if you are in Quebec then your 'statement' of the law in Canada is suspect.
No, we don't have to stop and help. We are a common law country. So is Canada. Why you mad?
|
On October 19 2011 03:16 Trizz wrote:
They don't necessarily need to help physically, but they could've atleast called an ambulance on their way to work. I wonder if they did, their body language tells me different.
It's quite disturbing, I don't think something like that would happen with people ignoring it in my country.
Maybe they didnt? Do you know where they went after seeing it? Did you know they might have called an ambulance? Maybe they dont own a cell phone? Perhaps, in that 3 minute clip, they called and it came later? I didnt know ambulances spring from phones and arrive instantly. Sure they should have helped, but you dont know they didnt call...
|
the pedestrians there have no soul? how can you not help her?stop the traffic call an ambulance do something for christ's sake
|
I don't comprehend the people saying "omg so terrible, remove the video".
Does removal make the incident to not have happened? Do you believe that removal of the video will cause any good? Absolutely not. The culture of this world, as a general rule, is entirely selfish. Nobody gives a fuck about anything until it affects them (omg video so disturbing), and then they want the source of their discomfort removed, rather than doing something to try and remove the reason for the source. Fuck, just at least express outrage at the situation, rather than the ever so self indulgent "find it disturbing, must ban from internet" bullshit.
This is why I hate people.
|
On October 19 2011 03:17 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 03:11 MERLIN. wrote:
So please, try again for the third time to derail this thread with your mild attempts to "insult" canada and imply that everythings the same as the states.
Lucky the economys not; )
Anyway, back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION so do you guys dont have to stop and help? Sigh. you don't get it, do you? Both the US and Canada are common law jurisdictions. The "no obligation to help or rescue" is a common law rule originating from England over 300 years ago. Wikipedia doesn't even agree with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue"In Quebec, which makes use of civil law, there is a general duty to rescue in its Charter of Rights...the other provinces follow common law"...and the common law states there is no general duty to come to rescue of another. For an extreme statement of the common law: "Defendant had no obligation to help a trespassing boy who placed his hand on a machine and was injured...in fact, boy was liable to defendant for any resulting damages to the machine" I don't have an interest to investigate your statutes and case law, so I'll give wikipedia the benefit of doubt since if you are in Quebec then your 'statement' of the law in Canada is suspect. No, we don't have to stop and help. We are a common law country. So is Canada. Why you mad?
All I said was your sentence makes no sense, and the fact you put so little effort in, imagine if you put this up the first time...
I like how you removed that from the quote tho, finally saw through the bolded letters, and yes I did live in Quebec and I have yet to ever hear of a case in Canada where a person helping someone else was sued, and atleast here we are civil when it comes to every human deserves the right to get help...
EDIT:
Did a little bit of looking around on google,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
We have this, so that is most likely why we don't see people sued.
\
Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[26]
|
Holy shit, that video is distasteful and Noone helping is disgusting!
|
On October 19 2011 03:24 MERLIN. wrote:
I like how you removed that from the quote tho, finally saw through the bolded letters, and yes I did live in Quebec and I have yet to ever hear of a case in Canada where a person helping someone else was sued, and atleast here we are civil when it comes to every human deserves the right to get help...
So the laws of Quebec somehow apply to the entirety of Canada which follows a divergently different set of laws? Get off your high horse. The rest of Canada has no such general obligation, just like the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
