U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 09:43 PM
 
54,075 posts, read 24,524,840 times
Reputation: 6749
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
PGH you have to sounding as crazy as you are on PURPOSE! Seriously!

All this debating we've been doing I've repeated time and time again was that THE PERSON WOULD NOT GET CHARGED!
And you post a case that actually validates MY POINT. This person was arrested AND NOT CHARGED with anything relation to helping someone out!

The police wrongfully (and admitting later to have f*cked up) arrested her but she was never and will never be charged with anything relation to helping someone out!

Keep talking please because you keep proving my point
Ahh, yes she was.
Good Samaritan case postponed in Roselle Park | Star-Ledger Updates - NJ.com
The session relating to charges filed by police

How about this story,
&#34Good Samaritan&#34 Charged with Felony | TriCities (http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/good_samaritan_charged_with_felony/26978/ - broken link)
And here is one even involving children involved and the good samaritan went on trial
Box Turtle Bulletin Gay Good Samaritan Acquitted of Kidnapping


I'm sure you'll come back with another attempt at spinning the fact that indeed, sometimes individuals are arrested and even charged for taking actions which were intended to help others.

btw, what happened to your argument that intention is 99% of the law? Did I prove that one wrong with this thread? Black guys help little white girl after many caucasians stood by and done nothing!

Seriously, stop while you are behind. Its one thing to be embarassed over working for DOJ and not knowing the laws, but its another to keep reminding people of this fact over, and over, and over..
Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 10-17-2009, 09:49 PM
 
448 posts, read 241,080 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ahh, yes she was.
Good Samaritan case postponed in Roselle Park | Star-Ledger Updates - NJ.com
The session relating to charges filed by police

How about this story,
&#34Good Samaritan&#34 Charged with Felony | TriCities (http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/good_samaritan_charged_with_felony/26978/ - broken link)
And here is one even involving children who went on trial
Box Turtle Bulletin Gay Good Samaritan Acquitted of Kidnapping


I'm sure you'll come back with another attempt at spinning the fact that indeed, sometimes individuals are arrested and even charged for taking actions which were intended to help others.

btw, what happened to your argument that intention is 99% of the law? Did I prove that one wrong with this thread? Black guys help little white girl after many caucasians stood by and done nothing!

Seriously, stop while you are behind. Its one thing to be embarassed over working for DOJ, but its another to keep reminding people that an employee at the DOJ continues to think things dont happen that do.

First of all I edited my post
From what ive read on this story is the police alleged that she got irate and would not calm down therefore arrested and charged for resisting arrest

The arresting officer said "Because she was out of control, and I felt that she may be a danger to herself and me, I forcefully took her to the ground to control her and then handcuffed her"

Again what does that have to do with saving someone PGH????


And now you post a link to where again it is proven that she was not arrested in the process of helping someone out. She was arrested for disobeying police orders
She went into a crowd asking for a cellphone to call her daughter, by her words provided by your link
"Montoya said police told her to stay, and that she asked to use one of their cell phones. The woman said she was denied, and that she walked toward a group of onlookers to borrow a phone to arrange for her daughter to be picked up."

ONCE AGAIN THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTEMPTING TO SAVE SOMEONE IN IMMINENT DANGER!
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 09:53 PM
 
448 posts, read 241,080 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ahh, yes she was.
Good Samaritan case postponed in Roselle Park | Star-Ledger Updates - NJ.com
The session relating to charges filed by police

How about this story,
&#34Good Samaritan&#34 Charged with Felony | TriCities (http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/good_samaritan_charged_with_felony/26978/ - broken link)
And here is one even involving children involved and the good samaritan went on trial
Box Turtle Bulletin Gay Good Samaritan Acquitted of Kidnapping


I'm sure you'll come back with another attempt at spinning the fact that indeed, sometimes individuals are arrested and even charged for taking actions which were intended to help others.

btw, what happened to your argument that intention is 99% of the law? Did I prove that one wrong with this thread? Black guys help little white girl after many caucasians stood by and done nothing!

Seriously, stop while you are behind. Its one thing to be embarassed over working for DOJ and not knowing the laws, but its another to keep reminding people of this fact over, and over, and over..
PGH THE ONLY PERSON WHO SHOULD BE RESIGNING is YOU from City-Data

THE SECOND CASE YOU FIND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE BEING CHARGED FOR HELPING A VICTIM IN IMMINENT DANGER!!!!

It it because someone found a wallet and money was missing once it got back to the original owner. SOMEONE HAD TO GET CHARGED BECAUSE MONEY WAS MISSING, which is the crime! (Theft! And again that is not helping someone in imminent danger)

Geez dude you cannot be serious!

HOW THE HECK IS THIS RELEVANT TO OUR DEBATE!
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 10:07 PM
 
448 posts, read 241,080 times
Reputation: 197
I'm done man if you can't see now that you were wrong hours ago

You're not going to no matter how much I prove to you

Good discussion nevertheless, which I always enjoy
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 10:11 PM
 
8,193 posts, read 7,125,636 times
Reputation: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Is that what happened here ? No.. There are 60,000 + children a year which goes missing in america, to use one as an example for what takes place in all cases is rediculous.

Did you get in a vehicle today and drive?

I bet you will tomorrow even though this takes place daily on the road, wont you?
What does driving have to do with this thread? Oh, thats right -- not a damn thing.

What is relevent to this thread is the absence of public involvement in a possible abduction. Elizabeth Smart is entirely relevent as she was abducted yet noone acted on suspicions of her circumstances. Jaycee Dugard is another one. Thank god two university policemen thought something was off about a guy dragging around two girls who were unusually quiet. As it turns out those two girls were the mans daughters -- of course their mother was kidnapped at eleven and held captive by this man for 19 years. Had those two university cops not followed through and acted even though they didn't have conclusive proof that something was amiss Jaycee Dugard would still be held in that backyard.

But somehow driving is more applicable to this thread?

Face it - you prefer a cowardly society and thats fine. Don't get involved. Look the other way when something doesn't look right. Pretend you don't see whats happening in front of you if it makes you uncomfortable. You aren't the first to take this position. I mean, here is an example of the society that you would like to see:

A person who did not know Dewayne ushered his six year old son to a seat on the train, took a hammer out of his backpack and, without provocation, attacked the sleeping Dewayne with a hammer. Ten adults moved out of the way or stood by while he was beaten.
Bystander Behavior on the Philadelphia Subway | Facing History and Ourselves

Personally, I don't care for that type of society. I don't care for the type of people who ignore another human being victimized. But thats just me......and they call conservatives heartless b#strds
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 10:16 PM
 
54,075 posts, read 24,524,840 times
Reputation: 6749
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
First of all I edited my post
From what ive read on this story is the police alleged that she got irate and would not calm down therefore arrested and charged for resisting arrest

The arresting officer said "Because she was out of control, and I felt that she may be a danger to herself and me, I forcefully took her to the ground to control her and then handcuffed her"

Again what does that have to do with saving someone PGH????
Ahh, see thats not what you said, let me quote you for accuracy..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
I want you to show me a law that would charge or a case that has charged an individual for attempting to help a child (or any person) in distress (or what the person believed to be distressed)?

Again prove me wrong by citing any case
I've listed numerous cases where not only were individuals charged while in the process of helping someone else, (even a child) but several where they went on trial. You claimed it NEVER happens.. WRONG

Then you claimed that, wait, let me quote you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
99% of a crime is the intent!
And then when I proved you wrong, you completely ignored that comment, wait, let me quote where I proved you wrong..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Is that what they taught you in law class? Please sight your source for for this babble. Its nice to say, its nice to believe, but prisons are full of individuals who "technically" broke laws without intent.

People downloading songs from locations they believed to be legal, only to find themself in jail and/or huge fines for the source being illegal.

People who are lied to about their partners age, can find themself in jail for underage rape, regardless of their intent if their partner is underage.

You can have stolen property in your possession, known or unknown, and still be charged with receiving stolen property.

You can walk out of a store, get sidetracked and forget to pay for a product, and your intent to pay does not mean you are not guilty of retail theft.

Whoever taught you that intent is 99% of the law should be shot. Sounds good, but only in lala land.
Of course this is after you claimed, wait, let me quote you..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
DudTake a nice look at the Good Samaritan laws (which addresses many things) but also points out things that are relevant to our discussion. For example
"prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake"

Read through Good Samaritan law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and educate yourself please
And then of course I had to school you on the fact that Good Samaritan laws dont apply,
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I know all about the good samaritan laws, who protect people who are INJURED OR ILL. The girl is not injured or ill. the good samaritan law also protects an indivividual from civil liabilities, not criminal prosecutions.

Also in many jurisidictions, the protection only applies to trained individuals. For example, if you dont know how to do CPR, and you conduct CPR on an individual while trying to save them, which results in their actual death, you are not protected.

Claiming to work for the Department of Justice, and then bringing up the Good Samaritan laws might really prove that someone needs to take your postings to your boss to review for employment qualifications.
Dont you get tired of trying to jump from one argument to another? Considering you work for the DOJ, I would think that you would get your story straight before starting..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
THE SECOND CASE YOU FIND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE BEING CHARGED FOR HELPING A VICTIM IN IMMINENT DANGER!!!!

It it because someone found a wallet and money was missing once it got back to the original owner. SOMEONE HAD TO GET CHARGED BECAUSE MONEY WAS MISSING, which is the crime! (Theft! And again that is not helping someone in imminent danger)
There goes that guilty until innocent attitude, I call BS on your claims of being a DOJ employee
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy View Post
I'm done man if you can't see now that you were wrong hours ago

You're not going to no matter how much I prove to you

Good discussion nevertheless, which I always enjoy
I have read back through your statements, you have proven nothing other then the fact that you dont know that individuals are innocent until guilty, you dont know about good samaritan laws, you dont know about false imprisonment, you dont know that there are tons of people in jail for violating laws despite their itent, and any DOJ employee would be able to sight cases of individuals that they dont want to prosecute, but the law says they need to because technically laws were broken.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 10:27 PM
 
11,130 posts, read 7,893,996 times
Reputation: 3648
Just a reminder that we have a topic here and once again, this topic doesn't have a single members name in it, so lets not make it about each other shall we. Mellow out, take a chill pill, index finger touches the thumb, ohm... Are we ok now?
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 10:29 PM
 
54,075 posts, read 24,524,840 times
Reputation: 6749
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping! View Post
What does driving have to do with this thread? Oh, thats right -- not a damn thing.
About the same relevance as Elizabeth Smart. You want to lump all cases together about children missing, (or potentially missing) as "Elizabeth Smart", then obviously everyone driving can be lumped together with car accidents right? The fact that you recognize that the car accident has nothing to do with it, neither does Elizabeth Smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camping! View Post
Face it - you prefer a cowardly society and thats fine. Don't get involved. Look the other way when something doesn't look right. Pretend you don't see whats happening in front of you if it makes you uncomfortable.
not at all, I'm all for a gun totin, rootin tootin society where you can shoot individuals for walking across your yard, or when they wreck their car into yours you can get out and bang their head against their windshield to call it even..

Seriously though, reality is that just because you see a guy walking down the street holding a girl yelling "your not my daddy", this does not always mean that there is a kidnapping going on.

Am I qualified to determine what is going on?
Do I have the propert training to question or even detain the man in question?
If there was a real obduction going on and I was to appoach the man, what would happen if he runs off and gets away?

Yes, obviously the girl would be safe but my preference is the man gets apprehended so he doesnt go kidnap another child the next day.

Even worse, what if you approach the man and he pulls out a gun or knife and holds it against the girls head, turning it into a hostage situation? I'm surely not qualified to resolve that issue and then obviously we HAVE to call the police and wait for their arrival, provided of course the man doesnt get in the vehicle and get away.

I would much rather call the police while the man is walking down the street where I can keep an eye on him, know where he's going, make him think no one is paying attention, and assist the police to apprehend and gathering information to properly prosecute so other children can be protected rather than approaching an individual and possibly allowing him to get away.

I can see why some individuals would deem that safety the girl is the most important issue, but watching the video she is not in any imminant danger. Surely she's unfortable with a stranger holding her coat walking her down the street, but I would consider her discomfort not "unsafe". Obviously, if they were getting out of my range where I couldnt see them anymore she could be in imminant danger at which point I most likely would step in, but my priority would be apprehension and consider the discomfort acceptable for the next 3-4 minutes until the police would arrive.

If I was a parent in the neighborhood, would I feel better with my child being held by the coat by a stranger who got away, or would I feel better knowing that a stranger grabbed my child, walked them down the street, but was apprehended and taken off the street for years? I think the latter

Last edited by pghquest; 10-17-2009 at 10:49 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
1,775 posts, read 2,690,174 times
Reputation: 1481
It is easy to judge these actions from the comfort of our Laz-y-Boys. I think that my reponse would be two-tiered. The first is a function of what exactly was transpiring in front of me, what I actually absorbed, and where my head was at the time. On the first, a passer-by observes a snippet of the staged scene. What is absorbed from the snippet is also partial. Finally, if I am busy, I tune out to many things around me.

The second tier then is what action to take based on the first tier. I really have no idea how I would react. We are all heroes in our minds, but only a few step up in real time (like the three guys).

I would like to think that if I actually heard, "You are not my Dad," I would have responded immediately. I would be ashamed if I didn't. Hopefully, I would be solo at the time, with my own kids elsewhere. However, if I heard nothing, the kid's voice sounded like a spoiled kid, or perhaps the man did not seem like he was harming her, I may not have done much at all. Lots of gray area real-time analysis required.

The thing that disturbs me is that it "seems" that many bystanders had a reaction that acknowledged that something was wrong, yet did nothing. Can you say Kitty Genovese redux?

S.

Last edited by Sandpointian; 10-17-2009 at 11:43 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 10-17-2009, 11:04 PM
 
448 posts, read 241,080 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ahh, see thats not what you said, let me quote you for accuracy..

I've listed numerous cases where not only were individuals charged while in the process of helping someone else, (even a child) but several where they went on trial. You claimed it NEVER happens.. WRONG

Then you claimed that, wait, let me quote you.

And then when I proved you wrong, you completely ignored that comment, wait, let me quote where I proved you wrong..

Of course this is after you claimed, wait, let me quote you..

And then of course I had to school you on the fact that Good Samaritan laws dont apply,

Dont you get tired of trying to jump from one argument to another? Considering you work for the DOJ, I would think that you would get your story straight before starting..

There goes that guilty until innocent attitude, I call BS on your claims of being a DOJ employee

I have read back through your statements, you have proven nothing other then the fact that you dont know that individuals are innocent until guilty, you dont know about good samaritan laws, you dont know about false imprisonment, you dont know that there are tons of people in jail for violating laws despite their itent, and any DOJ employee would be able to sight cases of individuals that they dont want to prosecute, but the law says they need to because technically laws were broken.
"I've listed numerous cases where not only were individuals charged while in the process of helping someone else, (even a child) but several where they went on trial. You claimed it NEVER happens.. WRONG"

You havent done that PGH thats my point every case you've pointed had NOTHING to DO WITH TRYING TO SAVE SOMEONE IN DISTRESS (as the case in the original post where you said the two young men would be charged)
You can post all the irrelevant cases you want
1st case you posted-not arrested for anything related to saving someone in distress, she was arrested for disobeying officers while trying to grab a cellphone to call her daughter

2nd case-Again nothing to do with someone being arrested to save someone. Someone was charged for theft because money was missing (I guess that to you is the same as a distressed young girl looking like she is being kidnapped lol!)

3rd case-Again nothing to do with someone being arrested trying to save someone in distress. The gay guy who got beat up was charged for taking the ppl kids into his home without the parents permission. The kids were not in imminent danger. Had he called for police or returned the kids to their parents house immediately he would not have been charged.

You call B.S. that I work at DOJ. Again dare me and I will post my ID online. Dont say you dont care. I'm calling your bluff. If you dont believe me Ill prove it

Again the Good Samaritan Law would've applied in this case. "Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake"

Like I said I will cite a case similar to this one as soon as I find it. I know for a fact the case with the Two guys trying to help the young girl would've been thrown out under the Good Samaritan Law had they been charged for any wrongdoing. I'm 100% positive!

Lastly you did not prove me wrong when I said 99% of criminal charges is its intent. You cited a few cases which is why I didn't say 100%, because I know you can be charged regardless of your intent in certain crimes (like illegal downloading etc....) But every crime you cite I have 100 more that is based on your intent to commit the crime. You obiviously dont understand math because 99% is not 100% of the time

So what exactly did you prove me wrong on? Nothing! You're just babbling in circles and have yet to prove that someone helping a victim in distress can be charged with a crime related to helping the victim....

You wont be able to.

Last edited by y2flyy; 10-17-2009 at 11:21 PM..
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top