No duty to rescue

[wingman883]

Fox News had on a story about a lady who was raped in a subway station about two years ago while subway employees looked on. The employees did call the police who arrived ten minutes later after the deed was done. She sued and the suit was recently thrown out because NY does not have a duty to rescue. I am outraged!

First they disarm the people so they can't defend themselves. Then tell others that they have no duty to rescue.

There is a moral obligation to assist and rescue!!! They did call the police but that's all they did. Could they have done anything else that did not put them in direct jeopardy? In my opinion, yes! How can these subway employees and go home and look theirs or anyone elses daughter in the eyes?

 

[JohnK87]

Self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right, that is why the Second Amendment is there.

 

[Ironhorse]

To stand by and watch a woman raped is beyond my comprehension. Screw not being able to look at your daughter/wife, etc. I couldn't stand to look at my own mug in the mirror every day, if that had been me. Those weren't men, they were little rodents scurrying around in the gutter, and they should be treated as such

 

[ronwill]

While I personally feel that standing by and allowing a woman to be raped is beyond atrocious, and would never do so myself, to permit law suits over failure to rescue would be an atrocity also. Far to many people would abuse the system and sue because someone didn't help them locate Starbucks, or help them when they sprained an ankle. The U.S. is already litigation heavy and adding to that would be wrong. Remember also even the police are not required to "protect" you. This is one more reason we need to continue to fight to protect the 2A.

 

[Rick O'Shay]

A lot of those employees are women, so there possibly were no "men" standing around watching. Personally if I were in that situation I would, in the words of a scene in Pulp Fiction, "go Medieval on his ass."

 

[toreskha]

A lot of those employees are women, so there possibly were no "men" standing around watching. Personally if I were in that situation I would, in the words of a scene in Pulp Fiction, "go Medieval on his ass."

Gender is no excuse; they could have intervened. Half a dozen or more angry women can overpower an average human male.

This is a common "onlooker syndrome" that seems to affect large groups of people witnessing an atrocity committed by someone who is not even an authority figure. People don't want to get involved or are simply "frozen to the spot" or whatever. One would think that in this age of media awareness, people would at worst see the opportunity for their 15 minutes of fame.

 

[NDS]

Fox News had on a story about a lady who was raped in a subway station about two years ago while subway employees looked on. The employees did call the police who arrived ten minutes later after the deed was done. She sued and the suit was recently thrown out because NY does not have a duty to rescue. I am outraged!

First they disarm the people so they can't defend themselves. Then tell others that they have no duty to rescue.

There is a moral obligation to assist and rescue!!! They did call the police but that's all they did. Could they have done anything else that did not put them in direct jeopardy? In my opinion, yes! How can these subway employees and go home and look theirs or anyone elses daughter in the eyes?

Here's the SCOTUS view on the "obligation" of the government:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you don't protect yourself, nobody else need protect you!
(I know it's wikipedia--it's an easy link. Post another if you don't like this one)