Good Samaritans' dilemma

[Americanhero1]

Court says Good Samaritan can be sued
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=11186852

[zachor_ve_kavod]

I think she has a legitimate case, and I think he should be sued.

[Ultra Requete]

Yes he shud left her burn bexouse all your deeds will not be left unpanished .
BTW good samaritan woud be a Palestinian helping a Israeli Jew Helping your brother or neighbour is commandment and has nothing to do with this parobole.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

You know, I clicked on this story fully expecting to be outraged, and surprisingly enough, wasn't. Whether or not the "good samaritan" was responsible for the paralysis, it seems pretty clear that she didn't know what she was doing and used brute force to remove this poor accident victim from the car. If she objected to this treatment and the do-gooder yanked her out anyway, particularly considering she had no medical training, then I do think she should be sued. (As should the idiot she was riding with who caused the crash by wrapping the car around a streetlight.)

There are people who do good, and people who are do-gooders (who are motivated primarily by "self-esteem" and ego). The do-gooders are all the white folks who voted for Obama so that they could be part of an "historic moment" and prove how un-racist they all were. I have zero tolerance for these schmucks in general, particularly when their actions cause significant harm to people (as they may have here).

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

BTW good samaritan woud be a Palestinian helping a Israeli Jew Helping your brother or neighbour is commandment and has nothing to do with this parobole.

Not really. I actually studied this parable not long ago. The Samaritans were not actual Nazis who were killing Jews as far as I know (they were just terrible heretics). The best analogy would be a Wiccan or hardcore Marxist helping to save a Jew.

The parable that would deal with an equivalent to Muslim Nazis would be the healing of the Canaanite woman, who was not restored until she acknowledged that her people were "dogs".

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Well, it was really irresponsible for him to try to move her, if he didn't know what he was doing.  I've been qualified for first aid for many years now, and one thing they always tell us, is don't move people unless it is absolutely necessary.  Cars very rarely catch fire after an accident, so I don't know why he though it would.  Also, if you're going to try to move someone, you have to be trained how to do it.  The neck is extremely fragile.  Doing something like that without training is really stupid and dangerous.  He should have known better.  I wouldn't try to perform an emergency tracheotomy, even if I thought a person needed one.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I agree. I thought the person who yanked her out was a woman though (might have misread it).

I really have to question the motives of people who do things like this. There is a difference between true heroes and people with a hero complex.

[Ulli]

I think she has a legitimate case, and I think he should be sued.

It is imo difficult to decide, because there is the action on oppinion towards the people too.

I really don't know.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

I don't know about America, but in Canada (or at least Ontario) the law is clear:  A person is not allowed to help somebody else if he is incapable of helping them.  I am trained in moving people with a possible neck injury, but in that situation I would not have done it, because there is a very slim chance that a car can catch fire after an accident.  I think the example I gave before is a good one.  I am trained in first aid and I could conceivably come across a situation where I can recognize that a person may need emergency or even life saving surgery.  But I am not a licenced medical practitioner and I am certainly not a surgeon.  If I tried performing emergency surgery, even with the best intentions, I would be liable for whatever the outcome would be, and rightly so.

This guy wasn't a good samaritan, even if his intent was to help.  A person has to have the sense to know that they can only do what they are capable of, otherwise it is reckless.  I am actually surprised that this guy isn't facing criminal charges.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I would bet my life's savings (which is trivial) that the "rescuer" in this case is an Obama voter.

[muman613]

What is so good about 'Samaritans'?

I never really understood this concept "Good Samiritans"...

From : http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/230/Q3/

 The Samaritans were non-Jews brought to Israel by the Assyrians to populate the North after the exile of the Ten Tribes. They ostensibly converted to Judaism, but in reality they continued worshipping idols, save for a period when they were mistakenly considered genuine converts; hence the Samaritans were not considered Jews, neither by Jewish law nor by the Jewish people.

They did not accept the Oral Tradition, which forms the overwhelming bulk of Jewish law. They also did not accept any books of the Bible except for the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. Today, the Samaritan version of the Torah manuscript differs from ours by about 800 letters.

The Samaritans often acted as enemies of the Jewish people. They tried to destroy the Temple and to inform against the Jews to Roman authorities. The parable of the "Good Samaritan" was actually an anti-Semitic story intended to discredit the Jews.

[Americanhero1]

What is so good about 'Samaritans'?

I never really understood this concept "Good Samiritans"...

From : http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/230/Q3/

 The Samaritans were non-Jews brought to Israel by the Assyrians to populate the North after the exile of the Ten Tribes. They ostensibly converted to Judaism, but in reality they continued worshipping idols, save for a period when they were mistakenly considered genuine converts; hence the Samaritans were not considered Jews, neither by Jewish law nor by the Jewish people.

They did not accept the Oral Tradition, which forms the overwhelming bulk of Jewish law. They also did not accept any books of the Bible except for the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. Today, the Samaritan version of the Torah manuscript differs from ours by about 800 letters.

The Samaritans often acted as enemies of the Jewish people. They tried to destroy the Temple and to inform against the Jews to Roman authorities. The parable of the "Good Samaritan" was actually an anti-Semitic story intended to discredit the Jews.

Question Muman
What does your post have to do with the topic?

[muman613]

What is so good about 'Samaritans'?

I never really understood this concept "Good Samiritans"...

From : http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/230/Q3/

 The Samaritans were non-Jews brought to Israel by the Assyrians to populate the North after the exile of the Ten Tribes. They ostensibly converted to Judaism, but in reality they continued worshipping idols, save for a period when they were mistakenly considered genuine converts; hence the Samaritans were not considered Jews, neither by Jewish law nor by the Jewish people.

They did not accept the Oral Tradition, which forms the overwhelming bulk of Jewish law. They also did not accept any books of the Bible except for the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. Today, the Samaritan version of the Torah manuscript differs from ours by about 800 letters.

The Samaritans often acted as enemies of the Jewish people. They tried to destroy the Temple and to inform against the Jews to Roman authorities. The parable of the "Good Samaritan" was actually an anti-Semitic story intended to discredit the Jews.

Question Muman
What does your post have to do with the topic?

Well, not much I suppose... I just dont like the term 'good samaritans' because of the facts which I presented. Many people think that the Samaritans were very good because of this saying. Im sorry if it was off topic.

Without having watched the video I will make the following observations.

A person should always be responsible for their actions. I think there are many laws in our Torah which prove that the L-rd is very concerned with our actions between each other. Laws which include keeping fair measures and not charging our fellows interest are some of these statutes. Saving lives is also a very important factor, which is why the only reason one can legally transgress the laws of Shabbat is to save a life. It is important to balance the desire to save a life with the ability of the person to actually save it without damaging it.

I dont think that a person should be sued for attempting to save a life. But since I do not know the true facts in the case it is wrong to come to a decision about this. I think a more just recourse would be for the person 'good samaritan' to get some training in how to save peoples lives with more knowledge. It is wrong for a man to rush into a burning building to save some children without any protective fire gear if that gear is available. That is foolishness.

Im sorry about my rant about Samaritans. I am sure they are good people.