Seinfeld's Good Samaritan Law Now Reality?

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."

Comments

No

[scotch]

I didn't have to read very far to find out that no, the law is not a reality.  Thanks, slashdot!

Re:No

[Cryacin]

It's just a test to see who reads the article before sharing their enlightened opinion.

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:No

[Rophuine]

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:No

[L4t3r4lu5]

Right, so you read the questions through while following no instructions. That means you do not follow instruction 5, start the test from the beginning, and perform tasks 2 to 4, as you have not performed the action of instruction 5. Acting upon instruction 5 negates instruction 1, as you are no longer reading but have started acting upon the instructions.

I had this argument with my science teacher. She firstly took me out of the science lesson for being disruptive (I was quite adamant I was right) so I walked down to the Head of Science and explained the situation. He made the teacher apologise to me.

Unfortunately, this course of action did not get me any tail.

Re:No

[demonlapin]

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

[amoeba1911]

1. Jump off a cliff.
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.

A bit late?

[SlothDead]

I'm surprised that the USA does not already have a bill like this. In other countries (e.g. Germany) helping people in need is mandatory. You are also encouraged to give CPR and if you fail at it and make it worse you are not charged (otherwise people would be too scared of screwingn up and never administer CPR at all).

Re:A bit late?

[BitZtream]

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:A bit late?

[Totenglocke]

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.

Did the submitter do their research at all?

[JoshuaZ]

"Good Samaritan" laws in the sense of Seinfeld already exist in many jurisdictions. It is called a "duty to rescue" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue. Good Samaritan laws also exist, but in legal parlance that means something different, namely protection from liability of people trying to rescue or assist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law. The California law is a variant duty to rescue. This isn't anything new. Seinfeld didn't do their research and apparently neither did the submitter of this post or the editors.

Re:When girls can be raped in public with no 911 c

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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.

Is-ought problem

[SpeedyDX]

Just because it is the case that the bystander effect is normal doesn't mean it ought to be the case that it is normal. This is a very common logical fallacy in moral philosophy called the is-ought problem as it was well articulated by David Hume. The gist of it is that you cannot take descriptive statements as premises and come to a prescriptive conclusion.

The reason why there are such laws is because we feel that we should have a moral responsibility to help those who are in immediate life-threatening danger when we are in a position to help them without (too much) personal sacrifice.

Re:Oblig

[LoverOfJoy]

One armed fat guy and your spree is over.

Are they more dangerous than fat guys with two arms?

Re:Oblig

[SpinyManiac]

One armed fat guy and your spree is over.

Are they more dangerous than fat guys with two arms?

Of course they're more dangerous, with less weight they can run faster.