Thread: Immigrant deaths in AZ desert soaring in July

Originally Posted by Steve

Not several; two: Vermont and Minnesota, I believe. Neither of those states, and correct me if I'm wrong, have too big a problem with people dying of thirst in the desert. Those states have a "duty to assist" provision in them.

Generally speaking, the good samaratin law states that, if you render assistance to someone in need of assistance, and they die anyway, that you can't be held responsible for the death because of the assistance you gave.

I used to be a CPR Instructor while I was in the Navy. I covered the good samaratin law, because it applied to Joe Six-Pack who might, one day, have to perform CPR on someone. The law protects him from legal action if he performs proper CPR and the person dies anyway...

Its actually 8

Contrary to common law, eight states have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril: Florida,[10] Massachusetts,[11] Minnesota,[11] Ohio,[statute verification needed] Rhode Island,[11] Vermont,[11] Washington,[11] and Wisconsin.[statute verification needed] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]

From Wiki.

And you're right, other than those states there is no law requiring you to stop and render aid (unless you directly caused the incident. thats called "rescue doctrine"). You should still stop and give them a drink and call the cops on them out of basic human decency IMO. Doesn't mean you should set up water stations and hand out maps, nor should you traipse about the desert looking for a thirsty people. Just that should you encounter one, you should extend the basic human kindness of a drink of water.

Originally Posted by Steve

Duty to assist laws are not common.

You can thank the lawyers for that...

Not based on anything negative that lawyers did or anything recent. It's an ancient common law principle based on societal and legal opinions with a sound analysis. Imposing a general duty to assist naturally sounds like a good thing at first blush until one tries to apply that rule where the law of unintended consequences establish that the rule isn't worth the candle.

Originally Posted by reality

You should still stop and give them a drink and call the cops on them out of basic human decency IMO. Doesn't mean you should set up water stations and hand out maps, nor should you traipse about the desert looking for a thirsty people. Just that should you encounter one, you should extend the basic human kindness of a drink of water.

My post was in direct response to the one which stated it would be illegal, because of Good Samaratin Laws, not to render aid. In California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the law states nothing of the sort.

As for human kindness, well, I believe that goes to those who are worthy of it. I just don't happen to believe that illegals are. I believe, by virtue of the fact that there very first action here is to break our laws, that if anyone is going to give them water, it should be the Border Patrol...

Originally Posted by Steve

My post was in direct response to the one which stated it would be illegal, because of Good Samaratin Laws, not to render aid. In California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the law states nothing of the sort.

As for human kindness, well, I believe that goes to those who are worthy of it. I just don't happen to believe that illegals are. I believe, by virtue of the fact that there very first action here is to break our laws, that if anyone is going to give them water, it should be the Border Patrol...

and thats your right I guess. I'd still give a man dying of thirst water or a starving man bread had I any and should I encounter such a person.

Originally Posted by reality

Its actually 8

Contrary to common law, eight states have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril: Florida,[10] Massachusetts,[11] Minnesota,[11] Ohio,[statute verification needed] Rhode Island,[11] Vermont,[11] Washington,[11] and Wisconsin.[statute verification needed] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]

From Wiki.

And you're right, other than those states there is no law requiring you to stop and render aid (unless you directly caused the incident. thats called "rescue doctrine"). You should still stop and give them a drink and call the cops on them out of basic human decency IMO. Doesn't mean you should set up water stations and hand out maps, nor should you traipse about the desert looking for a thirsty people. Just that should you encounter one, you should extend the basic human kindness of a drink of water.

That's correct.

Steve was generally correct and you've picked up on the current status more fully with the wiki page.

It's an ancient common law rule that there is no general duty to assist strangers, even if in perceived or real peril. Obviously, some assume that legal obligation generally or in specific circumstances, like emergency staff, police, etc, but that's because they have specifically consented to to assume that duty with their job choice. But for regular people who haven't consented to that duty, there's isn't one imposed upon them under the common law approach.

It's actually a common trick question on law school and bar examinations because it tugs at the heartstrings and tests to see if the examinees actually know the general law on the subject rather than operating on personal emotional hunches. They'll make it really offensive conduct too to test you, e.g.,

Q: Michael Vick is on his way to a dogfight and sees Susie Pigtails drowning in a pond. Seeing Vick, Susie cries out to Vick to help her. Hearing Susie, Vick shruggs his shoulders, laughs at her predicament and says to himself: "Sucks to be you huh you little brat. You'll last less than my dogs will." Vick proceeds to his dogfight and Susie Pigtails drowns. Applying general common law principles, ...

The answer is no liability.

'Good Samaritan Laws' traditionally have been statutory creations. Traditionally they are meant to shield anyone who does assist someone from being sued by the people they assisted for any alleged mistakes made in such assistance where harms are claimed as a result. A few states have tried to additional statutorily abrogate the common law rule of no general duty to assist others in distress with a fairness proviso of granting them immunity from lawsuits from the people they try to help.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

That's correct.

Steve was generally correct and you've picked up on the current status more fully with the wiki page.

It's an ancient common law rule that there is no general duty to assist strangers, even if in perceived or real peril. Obviously, some assume that legal obligation generally or in specific circumstances, like emergency staff, police, etc, but that's because they have specifically consented to to assume that duty with their job choice. But for regular people who haven't consented to that duty, there's isn't one imposed upon them under the common law approach.

It's actually a common trick question on law school and bar examinations because it tugs at the heartstrings and tests to see if the examinees actually know the general law on the subject rather than operating on personal emotional hunches. They'll make it really offensive conduct too to test you, e.g.,

Q: Michael Vick is on his way to a dogfight and sees Susie Pigtails drowning in a pond. Seeing Vick, Susie cries out to Vick to help her. Hearing Susie, Vick shruggs his shoulders, laughs at her predicament and says to himself: "Sucks to be you huh you little brat. You'll last less than my dogs will." Vick proceeds to his dogfight and Susie Pigtails drowns. Applying general common law principles, ...

The answer is no liability.

'Good Samaritan Laws' traditionally have been statutory creations. Traditionally they are meant to shield anyone who does assist someone from being sued by the people they assisted for any alleged mistakes made in such assistance where harms are claimed as a result. A few states have tried to additional statutorily abrogate the common law rule of no general duty to assist others in distress with a fairness proviso of granting them immunity from lawsuits from the people they try to help.

BUT...Good Samaritan Laws do not shield you from being stupid. As a nurse, I can only do what is in my scope of practice as a nurse. I couldn't do a trach.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

BUT...Good Samaritan Laws do not shield you from being stupid. As a nurse, I can only do what is in my scope of practice as a nurse. I couldn't do a trach.

its more for stuff like cpr or heimlich manuvers that kind of thing. Obviously home surgury isn't covered.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

BUT...Good Samaritan Laws do not shield you from being stupid. As a nurse, I can only do what is in my scope of practice as a nurse. I couldn't do a trach.

You can do a trach, and you know you can.

Originally Posted by reality

Did you even read my post? I was saying that a reasonable person may provide aid to someone they reasonably believe is in danger. they have no way of identifying legality nor do they have that responsibility. Only if they are specifically informed that the person is in commission of a crime can they not aid them. Even then they could still provide what they construe to be life saving aid.
Like both luther and i said, we'd give water to a thirsty man in the desert were we to encounter one. What we would not do is aid and abett EWI by setting up water stations across the desert and handing out maps to said water stations to illegals.

Apparently, you never read what I wrote Reality. The aid stations are not used exclusively to render aid to EWI, but rather to aid anyone in need. They are generally unmanned and water replinished on a routine basis. Access to them are generally to everyone as long as precautions are taken when opening up. The maps can be obtained anywhere or knowledge of their existence can be obtained by a simple phone call. It just so happens that groups who are generally favorable to illegals are the ones footing the bill for these aid stations.

You also stated if someone is specifically informed. Again the problem is no one is specifically informed who is and who is not legal. This would include organizations that favor "open borders" or groups that favor "illegal immigration." Even though they have a different belief or legal premise than you, you and OSB will be hard pressed to prove thay knowingly and willingly aid and abeit.

Originally Posted by Hudson

Even though they have a different belief or legal premise than you, you and OSB will be hard pressed to prove thay knowingly and willingly aid and abeit.

When they're also providing maps, written in Spanish, which show how to traverse the desert to Tucson, it doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon to conclude their intent...

As for human kindness, well, I believe that goes to those who are worthy of it.

And that is a sad sick and disgusting attitude to have. What would you do if you where in DIRE need of help and assistance and someone looked at you and judged you unworthy of help?

Originally Posted by Steve

When they're also providing maps, written in Spanish, which show how to traverse the desert to Tucson, it doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon to conclude their intent...

Providing a map, whether in English, Spanish, or Klingon, does not speficially show how to traverse the desert Steve. It is a map showing where the aid stations are. It is still up to the individual person to deduce whether to utilize those stations or not.

Originally Posted by Steve

When they're also providing maps, written in Spanish, which show how to traverse the desert to Tucson, it doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon to conclude their intent...

indeed. showing the best on foot route from mexicoto tucson is clearly aimed at illegals.