driver's ed teacher told us that

he said that the only acceptable reason for being late to our classes was if we had to stop and assist a stranded motorist (or maybe it was only if there was a wreck, not sure) because the law said we had to.

he was probably wrong. trying to understand what a law means is a pretty useless endeavor.

7/17/2009 11:06:16 AM

I believe we do have a good sumaritan(sp?) law, though it isn't used or enforced.

7/17/2009 12:04:32 PM

you dont have to fuckin do shit

you can let someone drown, you can let a kid get hit by a slow moving tractor

the good samaritan law only applies if you are not trained in First Aid response. if you are you can be sued

im actually unclear on wrecks, if you see the wreck do you have to stop and wait for the cops or just hand the parties your information...or can you just go on about your business (if you were in no way involved)

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : f]

7/17/2009 12:15:53 PM

They may have been off duty. I hate it when people call me on my personal phone and ask me to do stuff related to work when I am not working too.

The standard I am applying here is that she was not in any type of danger. Had she been next to the road and the LEO's ignored her that would be different. If pulled off next to the road you are in some level of danger. If you are broken down in a parking lot you are inconvenienced.

I would think it pretty shitty for a cop to ignore a woman who is pulled off the road without at least checking if she needs help, or even helping her himself. Lets face it though if you are at a parking lot and its not even dark, the lot is not unsafe, and cars are not whizzing by you. There is no crisis.

The woman should have called her boyfriend/husband/fuck buddy whatever, AAA or a tow truck. The cops are not on payroll to fix your car due to your own unpreparedness. They are there to keep people safe and enforce laws. If you don't want to shell out $4 a month to put roadside on your cell phone or AAA, then don't expect government employees to fix your car in a parking lot.

7/17/2009 12:17:15 PM

yeah, there's no good samaritan law in NC

7/17/2009 12:21:17 PM

^^^ if you are just a witness you don't HAVE to do anything. If you want you can leave your information for purposes of witnessing (if the case goes to court).

That, of course, won't stop you from being subpoena-ed if a person in the wreck can identify you somehow.




Seems like there is a difference of opinion here that won't get resolved. I think that cops should be expected to serve the people whose taxes keep them around.

I have had very different cop experiences from those of you who have only interacted with good cops. I've gotten like 7 speeding tickets in my lifetime and I always treat the officer approaching my car with respect because he deserves that as a man. I have only ever been treated with respect by one cop, and came to respect that individual cop for his candor. He didn't let me off with a warning, but I understand taking responsibility for my fuck-ups.

I just wish more cops could be like him, when most (all that I've encountered) aren't.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ^]

7/17/2009 12:26:15 PM

Quote :

"I think that cops should be expected to serve the people whose taxes keep them around. "

i'm paid entirely from state and federal tax money...should i be obligated to act as AAA, too, even though there's nothing about it in my job description?

and what's worse is that because part of my pay comes from federal taxes, should i be expected to act as AAA on all US-owned soil? i mean, really, it's stupid to say that because someone pays your salary they have the right to expect everything from you...a cop is paid to ENFORCE THE LAW, not be a greasemonkey

7/17/2009 12:48:41 PM

Quote :

"Protect AND serve... Or it's always seemed to be protect (my own ass) and serve (my own agenda) Those cops were all douchebags"

I hear that most departments are getting rid of the "To Protect and Serve" motto. You never see it anymore and for good reason, their lawyers are watching their asses.

The police are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU. They do not even have to respond to your 911 calls dude. Get real, today's police aren't here to protect people, they're here to arrest people for breaking the law and of course that is mostly for the ultimate purpose of getting their money, lol.

7/17/2009 12:55:15 PM

I don't give a shit about "legal obligations." This is totally a moral opinion on my part. Plus, I am pretty sure they are legally obligated to respond to legitimate 911 calls. I bet you anything I could sue the shit out of the state if they left me hangin like that.

^^ And there's a huge difference between your government job and being a LEO. My idea that they should serve the public doesn't flow from the single fact that they are paid with state money. It has everything to do with what I think an officer of the law SHOULD BE and how it's completely different from what they ACTUALLY ARE

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 2:13:41 PM

^ Look son, nobody said this is a good thing. I am simply pointing out the facts for you. The facts are that they are under no legal obligation to protect you, but they have been given the authority to kill you and some would love to do so given the chance.

And no, they aren't required to respond to 911 calls. You should really look this up, you wont win if you sue them for not responding to your 911 calls or not responding in a timely manner. Like if they get there 5 hours after you report that someone is trying to kill you and you're found dead in your place, that's not their problem.

7/17/2009 2:17:12 PM

You're full of shit. You're gonna have to back that up, cause I'm calling you out. I accept that they can take their sweet time (I've seen it done), but they have to come

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 2:18:29 PM

I'm not going to waste my time finding and reading things I've already read 1000 times and I don't have the sites favorited on my work comp (No internet at home right now either son). Find me the law that says they DO have to respond and you win son.

7/17/2009 2:21:34 PM

this has nothing to do with them being shitty cops. This has everything to do with those individuals being shitty selfish human beings.

also...you could have volunteered right away instead of waiting for someone else.

7/17/2009 2:33:21 PM

Compounded by the fact that they're cops.

And he did it, after he realized the cops weren't going to man up to their moral responsibilities and help out like they SHOULD HAVE

7/17/2009 2:35:43 PM

the better man would have volunteered regardless if there are cops standing around or not. If you see someone needs help, you help. You don't wait around to see if someone else will help them first.

7/17/2009 2:39:00 PM

You would have hesitated too if you were wearing a $500 khaki suit

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 2:52:47 PM

yeah, probably...which could also be the reason why the cops hesitated. Don't want to get whatever they were wearing dirty

7/17/2009 3:04:40 PM

Quote :

"You would have hesitated too if you were wearing a $500 khaki suit "

1.) i'd never waste that kind of money on a suit...i refuse to have a job where people judge me on how much i spent on my clothes (i have several $200 wool specials that look damn good, but i still feel like i paid too much)
2.) i wouldn't have hesitated at all...in fact, i would have decided from the very beginning not to chance getting my expensive clothes dirty and would have gotten in my car and left

i still don't understand why you're arguing this...they have no more responsibility to help her out than you do...BOTH of you have the moral responsibility (if that's something you subscribe to), but that's it...you might think they SHOULD do it, but the FACT is that you and they are exactly the same in this scenario in that neither of you is bound by anything but your ideas of common decency...why should your judgment of them for be any more or less valid than my judgment of you for not IMMEDIATELY volunteering to help her out? how do you know that they weren't on the cusp of walking out there...maybe they wanted to give you, an ordinary and boring citizen, the chance to do something of value

it's all about perspective, but their profession has absolutely jack to do with this whole thing...you are simply using this event to further justify your already-established opinion of a group of people, despite the fact that their profession is completely immaterial

7/17/2009 3:21:55 PM

its not like the bitch was askin them to get a dead baby outta the ashtray

7/17/2009 3:30:52 PM

I'm totally just posting so that you all will continue your bitching.

This is funny.

7/17/2009 3:50:16 PM

really? because it seems that you had some serious sand in your vagina on page one

but haha, you got us!

7/17/2009 3:52:55 PM

This is a new day. I still think that LEO should be held to a higher standard. Agree to disagree.

7/17/2009 4:17:58 PM

I agree we (not LEO's) have the same moral obligation as the LEO's. We're not in exactly the same position as the LEO's though. You're not comparing apples to apples here. We are citizens just like everyone else. They are the badged people given the authority to protect, defend, and serve the public (regardless of whether or not they're legally obligated to do so). I think they aught to act as becomes their position, and in this scenario they didn't.

And response time is completely beside the point here. If no one had offered to help and the lady left, and then one of the cops decided to go help, there wouldn't have been an issue. That you make arguments about not IMMEDIATELY offering to help is not only dumb, it has nothing to do with fulfilling moral obligations. It's simply whether or not it was done. I think that they should have been more interested in offering help, because it would have been the right thing to do. Isn't that what cops should always strive to do, the right thing?

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 5:28:15 PM

I have no problem stopping to assist a motorist. I will call for a tow, taxi or just stand by with my lights on so they don't end up road pizza. I have even pushed cars out of the roadway and changed tires; however, I take a huge risk doing this. If I were to be injured pushing a vehicle (like a back injury or something) and I had to miss work; the city most likely won't cover that as its not duty related. The city would claim that I should have just called a wrecker and let them move the vehicle. Same could be said for changing a tire.

The other point is this. People think that the police should drop what they are doing to assist them on the side of the road. Sometimes you just can't; you need to get to your call. They don't understand that you partner might be at a heated domestic and you are 5 mins out and can't stop to help and every other unit in the city it tied up.

Average Joe Citizen expects you to drop everything and solve their problem but its just feasible.

Also, did anyone stop to think that maybe some of these officers were their on official duty and could not have helped out at that point? Just asking...not defending because I wasn't there.

Lastly, if you call 911, we are obligated to respond to the call.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 7:26 PM. Reason : ...]

7/17/2009 7:25:23 PM

This thread is all

7/17/2009 9:00:48 PM

Quote :

"Plus, I am pretty sure they are legally obligated to respond to legitimate 911 calls. I bet you anything I could sue the shit out of the state if they left me hangin like that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Quote :

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Quote :

"Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability."

There are others, but those two are probably the most well known cases affirming that police have no obligation to protect any one individual from harm.

7/17/2009 10:17:32 PM

Hm, I'll be damned. Thanks for posting that.

And Restricted, I think cops put themselves in harms way all the time to protect people (even though they apparently don't have to) so saying, "I can't help you push your car because it my throw out my back" is a little ridiculous.

Serving the public is an on the job duty.

Also, I understand sometimes cops are doing more important stuff to help out with something like a flat, but these cops totally ignored the girl (and that ain't right).

7/18/2009 11:15:08 AM

Walking into a heated domestic and getting stabbed would be a duty related injury. Falling out of a tree trying to rescue a cat is not.

I am not defending or scolding these officers; I was not there. Just adding my two cents.

7/18/2009 1:07:50 PM

all of you posting up the standard "fear of litigation" and "potential financial responsibility" type stuff are hilarious. really? REALLY? we've got stuff like the huge lack of any obligation exampled above/backed by the supreme court, and you think that fear of having to pay for a broken wheel stud is the real issue? lmao.

let's be clear. this whole "we can't be liable" bit is nothing more than a huge excuse and a scapegoat for departments to deny citizens various services that may or may not have been freely offered in the past. in many cases, i don't disagree that providing these services to the masses would be a huge waste of resources. can you imagine the man power it would require just to answer all the requests for jump starts or retrieving keys locked in cars? however, that doesn't excuse what a big LIE current policy is. what exactly is so hard about just saying "hey, sure, we could do this stuff, but it's going to cost you taxpayers X amount of extra dollars per year.". i'm sure the large majority of people would have no problem with keeping the focus on more "important" duties.

let me offer just a few of the examples of irony at work here. i'll keep it vehicle related for the sake of the original post:

- parking tickets. the danger posed by being parked illegally is definitely worth the risk of some meter maid potentially damaging a windshield wiper to the point that it causes a concern for safety the next time it rains.

- expired registration. so what if a few hundred dollars in paint damage occured to that car just cited for their registration being a month out. it's essential that 27 pieces of equipment be worn on the belt at all times, and each officer must sidle along ninja style against each vehicle. scratches can be of no concern when we're talking about HUMAN lives and more importantly GOVERNMENT money at stake!

- vehicle searches. look, it's just a proven fact that modern plastic vehicle interiors are as brittle as potato chips. it's a good thing that another proven fact is all officers do their training on vehicles made entirely of actual potato chips! this ensures ZERO risk of a citizen's i mean suspect's trim panels being cracked, glovebox latch or seat slide operation being misunderstood/broken, etc. as if it's really necessary, every officer also takes very detailed pictures of the vehicle to prove its condition BEFORE they enter it!

anyway, i guess i'll continue with my next point. since law enforcement/government always gives the real reasoning behind its decisions, it might be silly, though. auto clubs like AAA, manufacturer backed dealership roadside assistance programs, and other services like OnStar couldn't have anything to do with police specifically denying ONLY the services these companies offer, could it? why waste an officer's time referring you to the best family owned tire store around, when Garmin has spent (and received) all that money to get you to the biggest baddest retail chain evAr!

i'm sure i could go on about the actual potential legal (as in law enforcement) issues at work here had they knowingly allowed the person to incorrectly change the tire. or, had no one helped her, and she was allowed to proceed on public roadways with said flat or severly underinflated tire. i'll wrap it up though. constitutional obligation aside (and understood), there are unfortunately little things like the motor vehicle code, federal tire inflation/pressure regulations and guidelines, etc. that all have to be considered here.

7/18/2009 10:12:29 PM

it is basically that if you have a useful skill set then you should probably help out your fellow man/woman...

if i have a heart attack and need CPR i would seriously hope the doctor standing near me would help, even if he was 'off duty'....then when he has the need for a sammich, i will make him one.

7/20/2009 11:11:28 AM

Wow. A cop didn't help change a tire.

I got pulled for going 57 in a 55 once. The officer was kind enough to let me off with a warning.

7/20/2009 12:23:47 PM