• meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Except if you are actively dying and I refuse to help in my personal capacity, I’m not threatening to harm you. I’m just not helping you from imminent harm (presuming I didn’t cause that imminent harm). Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help. But if you’re in a gunfight with someone and you’re asking me to render aid as they are still a threat, sorry pal.

    E: Apparently some ignorant idealists don’t like making a distinction. Tough shit. From a legal standpoint, that’s how it works.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      Now if you’re on fire and I’m currently watering my lawn with the hose when you ask for help, it’s shitty of me to not help.

      Inaction is still an action. If you have the ability to save someone and you let them die, you may as well have started the fire yourself.

      The only real point you have is that you don’t render aid when there’s an active threat.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 days ago

      I’m just not helping you from imminent harm

      Doesn’t the law protect that in some way? I thought medical professionals were compelled to save lives first and then “worry” about costs later with the Hippocratic Oath and all. Or maybe it’s limited to some instances? Idk, I’m not from the US and our system works way differently.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 days ago

        That is a “good Samaritan” law. They can compel you to help, but that could be calling law enforcement. That’s also why in my examples the gunfight still had a deadly threat. No laws compel you to put yourself in danger to help.