Seinfeld's Good Samaritan Law Now Reality? 735
e3m4n writes "The fictitious 'good samaritan' law from the final episode of Seinfeld (the one that landed them in jail for a year) appears to be headed toward reality for California residents after the house passed this bill. There are some differences, such as direct action is not required, but the concept of guilt by association for not doing the right thing is still on the face of the bill."
Politician's "thinking" (Score:5, Insightful)
Do stupid laws and frivolous lawsuits make you too afraid to help someone in trouble? No problem, we'll just pass another ill-thought law! What could possibly go wrong?
When girls can be raped in public with no 911 call (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the result of more than 20 people watching a minor (15) year old girl being gang raped during a school dance and not a single one calling 911 to report it. Unfortunately a law like this needs to be enacted so that such people can be punished. It's a shame that such basic morality is lacking in society these days but it's come to this point. We have to legislate that if someone is so devoid of such basic morality, that they can't call the police when witnessing a gang rape, that we need to start putting people in jail for not doing such basic acts of humanity, so that there is at least a threat of jail to inspire people to do the right thing if their conscious is devoid of inspiration to do so voluntarily.
Re:A bit late? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not a federal law in the US, but I know certain states require you to give help in life threatening situations if you are capable of doing so.
CPR is a perfect example. In Florida for instance, if someone dies in front of you and CPR had a good chance of saving them, don't let anyone find out you are CPR certified (which every highschool student is at some point) as you will be punished.
I really don't have a problem with it. Too many people will stand by and watch someone die or get mugged and do nothing to help, not even bother to call the cops, but they'll take pictures on their phones. And yes, I've seen that happen, I have pictures! Mind you, my friend was calling the cops while I was snapping pictures of it.
On that same note, let something happen to one of my loved ones while you stand by and watch and you better prey to whatever god you worship that I don't find out. I have no problem with revenge against useless fucks too lazy to do anything to help others. No, I don't expect an unarmed person to go after some guy with a knife or gun, but I do expect an appropriate response such as calling for help or calling a doctor. Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bit late? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
And that's the crux of the matter. The fact that someone SHOULD do something does not mean that anyone (not even the government) has the right to FORCE them to do something.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like that instruction test in school:
1. Read all of the instructions.
2. Clap your hands.
3. Shout out that you are at step 3.
4. Jump up and down.
5. Do not perform steps 2-4
6. Finish test
Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't punish people for following their basic herd instincts as righteous and moral as it might make you feel.
Then let's make gangrape legal too, shall we ? Talk about your basic herd instinct.
The whole point of morality, religion, and by extension laws and such is that we can do better than these stupid instincts. Modern society (or any city with more than 50 people) would be utterly impossible without actively punishing people for following their instincts.
Re:A bit late? (Score:3, Insightful)
Moderation: -1, Too sensible for this forum.
Re:Politician's "thinking" (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the stupid lawsuits that follow helping people are countered by laws requiring you to render assistance. You can't be sued for obeying the law. Most such laws have a built in "out" to them like "if you believe you may do so safely". The only downside is that such laws are dirty hacks to paper over the real problem of a sue crazy society.
Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c (Score:3, Insightful)
Being supposedly "progressive" has nothing to do with it.
Ever heard about long standing tradition of blaming rape victims, for example?
Re:Is-ought problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"But punishing people who most likely didn't even know such a law exists "
Oh, they know. Everyone does. Its called conscience.
"does nothing but give us satisfaction with the thought that we wouldn't do that sort of thing, when of course, we likely would."
Yes we would. We would also speed, cheat on our spouses, not pay our taxes, etc.
Re:This is sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
How many cases have you heard of where some random person, on trying to do the right thing, finds himself tasered/sprayed, cuffed, tossed in a cell overnight, and charged with some absurd law simply for making himself available for the police to take their frustrations out on, having failed to actually do their jobs? Or worse, sued into penury by the very victim they risked their lives to help?
Yeah, I would almost certainly help someone getting raped in the street outside my house. And you can bet your ass I'd vanish before the police showed up. "You okay? Good... See ya!".
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just a test to see who reads the article before sharing their enlightened opinion.
We had a prof do that in college. There were a bunch of instructions, really tough problems, some with labs. Some people spent days working on them before they got to the second page of the instructions and it said, "It's only necessary to turn in question 3." Holy crap were people burned over that. But it was one of the core classes for pre-meds so there wasn't an option. But I bet as doctors they read directions.
It would have gotten me too but I had a lab partner who compulsively read all the directions. She was also traffic stopping hot. Those were great days.
Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but a HUGE difference exists between actively committing a violent crime, and choosing not to report the same.
Try applying this to situations you might disagree with. Failure to report your friend smoking weed? Failure to report your mother speeding? Failure to report your uncle cheating just a bit on his taxes? Failure to report your coworker for circumventing the DMCA to do what your mutual boss ordered?
This amounts to the worst of slippery slopes. Even in the best of applications, someone might simply not have noticed (I, for one, get very disoriented in large social gatherings, and yes, you probably could rape someone in front of me without my noticing). And in the worst, this amounts to criminalizing a refusal to obey potentially intolerable laws (Failure to report anyone who violates the "We love George Bush" law).
Re:A bit late? (Score:3, Insightful)
So not caring about a stranger should be a crime? If I saw a stranger in need of help, I'd probably help, or at minimum call for help. However, the fact that you think I should be arrested just because I don't share your opinions definitely explains why we have so many politicians in office who think it's ok to try to control every aspect of people's lives.
I know, people like you think that free will is a terrible thing, but free will is the most basic of human rights.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just a test to see who reads the article before sharing their enlightened opinion.
Honestly, would it really have surprised anyone if it was true? California seems bent on a destroying itself with stupidity, to the extent that many of the smart and talented people are getting out of Dodge, so to speak. The reason why surrounding states have been more competitive politically this past decade (after mostly being solid GOP) is the sheer number of Californians getting the hell out of their state. Everything from California... costs, product liability laws, fuel standards, etc, is stricter and more expensive than most of the country. Buy a mouse or keyboard, and many of them will have a tag on it warning you not to do something stupid, like eat the cord. The small print explains that this little reminder was brought to you via a product safety lawsuit in California.
California, with it's bust-ass budget and spiraling social program costs is a preview of what might happen to the rest of the country. They're still $21 billion in the hole, and yet now they want to enact a statewide universal health care program, with costs upwards of $200 Billion over the next decade?
Again, when you hear something ridiculous about California... true or not... does it really surprise you?
Re:A bit late? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes. Are you saying you'd have preferred Cheney?
On a more serious note, Bush was a fellow human being, and by many accounts a very goodhearted individual. Regardless of my opinions of his decisions, I would never wish death upon him. In my opinion you discredit the anti-bush/anti-republicans by implying you would, even in jest.
Re:Politician's "thinking" (Score:2, Insightful)
> When I honestly feel that cops are driven by a visceral emotion to do good - their true underlying motivation being only to do good, I will call the cops.
I hate the cops as much as anyone, and avoid interacting with them whenever possible....
But FFS... you would not call the cops on a gang rape? I hope I never become that much of a reptile.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure this law is 'stupidity'. It only applies to violent crime, and it only requires that the witness report it, not intervene, not even make a scene. Just make a discreet phone call. I'd like to see more debate before labeling this a 'bad' law.
That's not to say the rest of your rant doesn't ring true, though.
Re:What, am I now my brothers keeper? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
One armed fat guy and your spree is over.
Re:A bit late? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's actually an excellent example of how crazy it's possible to be.
If someone is in need of CPR, they're eaither not breathing, or their heart isn't beating. Being "exposed" in public is the LEAST of their problems in such a situation.
Infact it's a complaint of the "Yes, he saved both of my kids, and put out the fire which would otherwise have burnt the house down, but you see, he left dirty footprints in the hallway in the process"
i.e. a complaint that doesn't even rise to the level where it could be reasonably called ridicolous.
A law-system that'll respond to such a complaint with something other than laugther, deserves to be shot.
We're all doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
It's days like these when I lose hope in humanity.
The very fact that we need laws to tell us "yes, you can help someone in need and in fact you should" is bad enough, but then we have the typical lazy-bastard response "why should I be forced to help" and even uber-rationalizations like "groups are programmed to no intervene, it's normal" or even "it's a slippery slope..."
My karma is on Excellent so mod me down if you will, but if you think like so many posters, I have this to tell you: have a good look at yourself in the mirror. YOU are a self-centered lazy bastard; no matter how clever you think you are, you're human failure and I hope you won't find out the hard way how is to be ignored by your fellows.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider this test:
Math Test
1. 1+1 = _____
2. 2 * 8 = _____
[next page]
3. Do not write anything on this test
Anyone who passes this test is insane.
Re:Another save the children law (Score:2, Insightful)
> Lets make the assumption that this law existed before this event happened. Would it have been prevented? Of course not.
Prevented? No one is talking about "prevention" here,
10 people involved in the rape. Sounds like it took some time. Average nation-wide police response time for 911 calls is about eight minutes. Seems to me a call would have almost certainly made a difference, if not in stopping the crime, then in catching some of the rapists.
the bystander effect is real (Score:3, Insightful)
and unfortunate. the idea should be to compel people to stop acting like herd animals, not accept the vile reality of the behavior
people also tend to litter. vast parts of german society just shrugged and accepted the rise of the third reich. so we just accept evil? "oh well"
the idea is society is supposed to enforce codes of conduct to elevate us somewhat above that of herbivores, especially when the modification to the behavior is very quick easy and low cost: you can't make a phone call if someone is being beaten? you can't walk to a garbage can to dispose of your trash?
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
As a teacher, may I say, I would have considered stapling your lips shut.
Your science teacher most likely knew you were right. But, if you are smart enough to figure it out, you were also smart enough to know the intent of the lesson. If you really had that much of an issue with being non-literal, then you'd probably find it difficult to get dressed and make it to work. You were trying to prove your point, to prove your point. Now, if the assignment was graded, you'd have a right to be angry. It wasn't graded though. Those tests never are.
pure horsecock bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
"punishing people who most likely didn't even know such a law exists does nothing but give us satisfaction with the thought that we wouldn't do that sort of thing, when of course, we likely would"
i've been in the kitty genovese situation in the new york subway. 10 of us made the call, and the alarm pull, and the alerting of the conductor and toll booth operator. as well as 5 of us guys and a gal holding the sleezebag perp down until cops came. as well as follow up with detectives from the nypd later. sure: some shrieked and ran away, but these were the MINORITY
the kitty genovese story as an outlier, not a definition of human behavior. herd behavior overcoming kindergarten sense of right and wrong is a RARITY, not a definition of humanity. we aren't herbivores. people point to the kitty genovese situation and say "see, that defines us". no, that's not an accurate description of human behavior. the kitty genovese situation was NOT the status quo or average situation. there's a thousand kitty genovese situations every day, and in the majority of them, someone makes the call
besides, it doesn't take knowledge of the law to counteract herd behavior. this supposition of yours is compete bullshit. we're not talking about not knowing vague arcana of the tax code, we're talking about face value obvious judgments from a kindergartener's sense of right and wrong: "someone is in trouble, call for help." if the herd behavior is enough to overcome this simple sense of morality, you SHOULD be punished, because you are truly deficient, and your deficiency resulted in harm, and will likely result in harm again: all you had to do was make a call. you are basically saying that complete bullshit excuses are acceptable
"what? murder is wrong? sorry, i didn't know that, i won't do it next time" or, since we're on the seinfeld kick: "was that wrong? should i not have done that?" its a joke, because its not a serious statement. no one with the slightest amount of functioning brain matter thinks that's a valid excuse for gross negligence. failure to act morally is a failure to act morally, whether by commission or omission, its equally indefensible and most definitely punishable
your position basically excuses evil
1. the bystander effect is a vague EFFECT, felt by everyone, but by no means the final word on your behavior. its not a law of nature like gravity.
2. but you go further than that and that says basically ignorance of the law excuses anything.
3. and even worse, you confuse horrible lack of understanding of simple right and wrong with ignorance of the law
frankly, you are completely full of shit
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Californians, False Accusations are coming to you! (Score:4, Insightful)
And this was without a "Good Samaritan Law".
People are inherently stupid. They see things that simply aren't there. They perceive things though their own past traumas and the like. If they get a silly notion in their heads, sometimes all logic is thrown out if the silly notion really bugs them. Such simple logic as "did I really see this guy do anything?
The "Good Samaritan Law" may have "good intentions", but we all know what the "road to Hell" is paved with!
I have to say, I am now glad I don't live in California, which up till now was looking good as a state I might want to live in. Now, "no way in hell" are the words that come to mind.
Gotta love our culture of hyper-paranoia. A child-abuser behind every door, a terrorist in ever-other plane seat, and now this.
I do have one solution to this mess: expatriation. Even China is beginning to look like a better option.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I only have my own experiences to go by, but when one of your closest friends has been told that he's one of the two kids per class "allowed to fail" by the Performance-based-Pay system implemented by the borough (85% C+ grades, get a bonus), you tend to get on your high horse a little. So yeah, I bit her face off about running a bullshit practical joke intended to teach the importance of reading question papers thoroughly (something we all learned when we got our mock exam papers back) instead of using the time to assist those who were behind with their learning.
Sorry to chew out at you, but I've had my fair share of run-ins with teachers who gave me "holier than thou" at school. It's ironic that I now work for the education system, though as tech support.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
You were trying to prove your point, to prove your point.
So was his teacher. Don't give a dumb test to smart kids and then be surprised when they call you on it.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
Actually, the instructions are contradictory. Why should instruction 5 take precedence over 2-4? It is impossible to comply with all of the instructions, so in programming terms that seems to mean that your specified behaviour is undefined. If the behaviour is undefined then mugging the instructor for his wallet then going to the bar for drinks on him satisfies the conditions.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
The thumb screws, branding irons, electric shocks, waterboarding, forced sleep withdrawal and various other creative measures that are usually involved in "getting" someone to testify against himself.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Not correct -
Consider the following:
1. Read all of the instructions.
2. Clap your hands.
3. Shout out that you are at step 3.
4. Jump up and down.
5. REPEAT steps 2, 4
6. Finish test
And now consider the original:
1. Read all of the instructions.
2. Clap your hands.
3. Shout out that you are at step 3.
4. Jump up and down.
5. Do not perform steps 2-4
6. Finish test
So, at step 5... do anything at all (including nothing) that isn't steps 2-4. Done.
Nowhere does Step5 claim to have scope over the entirety of the process; in fact, giving step5 a global scope flatly contradicts the scope YOU give to the other steps. You stop clapping at the end of 2, you stop shouting at the end of 3, jumping at the end of 4... but 5, well, let's treat that action differently.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Don't do step 1.
3. Do the opposite of step 2.
4. Don't do step 3.
5. Don't do step 5.
6. Do step 5.
7. Skip step 2 and 5.
8. Perform the steps in reverse order.
9. Do step 4.
10. We're just fucking with you, throw the test out.
11. No we're not, finish the test.
12. Clap your hands if you reached this step.
13. Don't clap your hands at any point during this test.
14. There will be cake.
15. The cake is a lie.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
read != execute.
Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose you witness a crime, but for various reasons (like wanting to continue breathing) you don't want to report it or testify about it. Suppose further the cops figure out you were a witness, and you're subpoena'd and ordered to testify. Since you didn't report the crime, and not doing so is a crime, you can now simply take the fifth and not testify!
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
the first instruction is to read all the insctruction: while you are executing it, you read the other but don't execute them.
When you finish reading everything, you finish executing instruction 1, and can safely go on and execute instruction 2.
Re:A bit late? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
As a teacher, may I say, I would have considered stapling your lips shut.
Your science teacher most likely knew you were right.
Knowing the student was right, a competent teacher would never engage in such an abuse of authority and abuse of a child in giving the "test" in the first place. Any teacher with power and control issues should consider a career change and leave the students alone.
Re:No (Score:1, Insightful)
Got I hated teachers like that. /had some great science teachers
Why not simply acknowledge that the kid is correct and ask him to play along instead of denying it and punishing him?
All it would take is a wink and a nod and that troublesome kid pointing out flaws in the tests could become teacher's pet.
Literally all it would take would be a wink to let that kid know that 'yes, you're too smart for this test.' Then you've started to create a bond with a smart kid who may actually help you with the slower students in the future.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
You were trying to prove your point, to prove your point.
Making a purely academic objection to a test in school?!?!? the audacity! beat that student down.
As overbearing as it seems... (Score:4, Insightful)
It has to make you think about what kind of society are we living in today that legislators would even have to consider putting forward a law like this.
Let's review: Twenty teenagers watched the gangrape of a 16-year-old girl outside a high school without doing ANYTHING and your primary concern is a fucking good samaritan law eroding your freedom?
I am a little more worried about the how those spectators will be the future of America.
And if you could, in any way, justify not reporting a violent crime in action (even anonymously), you have some serious issues. That's the problem nowdays, we've been reduced to sheep who don't want to get our hoofs dirty, so we just watch and wait for someone else to fix the problem.
Re:Another save the children law (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit the nail on the head. Pedro Nava wants to be California's Attorney General:
http://www.pedronava.com/ [pedronava.com]
So what's the first step? Some really visible legislation to make himself look "tough on crime".
This isn't his first such foray into feelgood legislation in pursuit of his elective goals. He's been at it for some time now.
Re:It's not the first place to do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget their employers -- the privatized, for-profit prison industry.
But the real story here is Nava's run for Atty.General, and "my new law would have made people report this heinous crime!" will read well on this con artist's resume. That he's being egged on by the prison guard union should shock no one.
What is really scary is how much legislation is passed in CA that contains the words "This would create a new crime". I wonder if it's even *possible* to live here now without committing SOME crime??
Re:A bit late? (Score:1, Insightful)
Keep in mind, everything government does is ultimately done at gunpoint. So:
Why should you rob me of my money to pay for your roads, if I don't drive a car? Or to pay for public education, if I don't have kids? Why should I be taxed to pay for enforcement of your property rights, if I believe physical property is a legal fiction?
Fact is, government is *always* going to take your money to do something someone disagrees with. There is no "natural" set of governmental functions, any more than there are "natural" rights; both exist solely by consensus, and can be changed by consensus.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution is a list of rules. The test is a list of instructions. There is a difference. Instructions are performed sequentially. Rules apply simultaneously.