Morally obligated?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, once we complete the CPR training and get the cards, we (in the Military) are told that we are obligated to assist. So long as we are the most trained individual there. If someone with more experience/knowledge is available we must back out and allow them to proceed.
The UCMJ and the military may hold you accountable for your act of ommission in this instance. Chances are, you would not even receive NJP. At least that was my experience.

There are no such laws for the civilian. If anyone knows of any, please cite them.
 
Mr. White, Sheeple is exactly the correct term for those that have
not exercised a right to protect themselves. Do you not understand
the basis for the word?

Call me Jeff, Mr. White was my father. I know where the term sheeple came from. And I disagree that it's the correct term for someone who chooses not to be armed. It's an insult. That's the bottom line. It's a way for one person (the armed citizen) to put down someone who chooses not to be armed. It doesn't matter if he uses the term to make him feel better about himself or to kick sand in the face of someone who didn't make the same choice he did, it's an insult and not appropriate for THR.

Carrying a firearm is an intensly personal choice. It's not one to be made lightly. It involves a decision to take on a lot of responsibility. And none of us has the right to insult anyone who doesn't make the same choice we do. Not here.

Jeff
 
And about LEO's and obligations, the SC has found there is no obligation to individuals at all.
Again, not quite true--no legal liability for failing to protect any given individual from crime, but a definite legal obligation to intervene whenever a crime is witnessed. I really couldn't be any other way; otherwise every crime victim could sue their municipality for damages, and we'd all be broke. All of us except the criminals and their victims, that is.

This talk of moral obligation is interesting, because if there really is a moral obligation to intervene, then it exists whether or not you are armed. Your weapon just increases your odds, not the extent of your moral obligation.
 
The Gruesome Facts of the Case: In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a.m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a.m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" -- it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

This case IS one of intervetion of a crime, that the police DIDN'T intervene. The SC ruled against the victims and in favor of the police here. So the fact is the police usually investigate AFTER a crime and rarely are there to stop/prevent one.
 
It wasn't the Supreme Court, it was a D.C. municipal court. And the officers did not witness the crime--although that is owing to the fact that they were apparently blind, deaf, and terminally stupid.

No argument from me--those cops and the dispatcher screwed up royally and deserve to be canned and maybe charged. But the fault comes from failure to follow SOP, not from "failing to protect." It's not a perfect world, and if you start to hold police (and other emergency personnel) legally liable for any tragedy that occurs on their watch, you are going to bankrupt municipalities all across the country. Police are a deterrent, not a cure-all, and an individual right to police protection is an impossible order to fill. Everyone with a deathwish and a cellphone tuned to 911 would be lining up for the million-dollar payouts. Are you going to sue firefighters if they fail to save a building? Sue military officers when men in their units are wounded or killed? Those things have to be handled internally if the various services are going to continue to function.

I think we're arguing the same side here, really--that you are ultimately responsible for yourself, and that although the institutions of society can help you, they can't do it all for you. And that the one of the best things society can do for you is leave you free to defend yourself. Even then, tragedies will happen. It's part of life.
 
I think we're arguing the same side here, really--that you are ultimately responsible for yourself, and that although the institutions of society can help you, they can't do it all for you. And that the one of the best things society can do for you is leave you free to defend yourself. Even then, tragedies will happen. It's part of life.

Well said and yes we are stating the same thing. I wouldn't say arguing, since we agree! lol
 
claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.
Emphasis mine.

What is contained here are the exact protocols that I was speaking of in post #85 (AKA reasonable and prudent guidelines using the equipmet available).

The difference is the added responsibility that comes with added authority. A professional striving to save a life using the skills he employs or trains with on a day to day basis is well within the scope of his practice, whether it is a policeman shooting an armed robber, or a cardiovascular surgeon slitting an intercostalspace to get at a heart. Things become a lot more difficult when an accountant starts shooting terrorists to save tangos, or when an attorney performs coronary artery bypass grafts in the mall. Likewise though, I would not ask the surgeon to do my taxes, or the policeman to defend me in court.

When it comes to saving lives, especially when you save some lives by taking other lives, the seriousness of failure demands that accountability be accepted. To protect the practioner failure in any way must be judged impartially. When there is a logical progression of events, as in medicine, then that can be judged pretty clearly. Criminal acts often do not follow logic though. Thus, an algorithm for action against a criminal can be used as much to prosecute the practioner as protect him, as soon as the erratic criminal deviates from expectations.

Damien, There are "rules" of what ethical physicians, nurses and EMTs expect from each other, but there are no laws that can be enforced. There are not even any compelling standards of intervention that can be enforced on an off-duty physician, nurse or EMT by their respective state boards. Thus, the act of medical intervention by the off-duty health professional is automatically voluntary, meeting one of the criteria of the "Good Samaritan Law".

Good and interesting argument here! I'm off to work.
 
I don't even remember how long a certification is good for - And if 200,000,000 people were to get/stay certified, that'd be what, at least 800,000,000 hours of classroom time? The red cross would have to quit dealing with little things like blood...

I think a lot stuff really revolves around use of common sense.
 
I don't think I could say it as strongly as Moral Obligation.

I would be more inclined than most to intervene - I don't have a wife or kids, so I have no other moral obligations than my own limited moral compass. (as in, do I have a right to be a bystander while others are victimized? Do I LET MYSELF have that "right", armed or not?)

If I had a family, well, the family IS the moral obligation. As much as I think it is the right thing to do to intervene, such as all heck they will be left high and dry if you get yourself killed for strangers.

You could argue the moral obligation is to be aware of your environments, and if you see a chance to defuse a situation before bloodshed, and you are confident in its success then the obligation may be to try. That also means if you fail there is good odds you are victim #1.

I don't think there is one good answer. I am more disposable in terms of being able to put my ass a little more out for risk if needed, but my Brother with his wife and 2 kids sure as all heck is not.

Accept any apologies on the lack of simple concrete answer, but that's life.
 
When I got my CPR/First Aid, they told me that if I did not intervene where I could have possibly done some good, I'd be liable in a wrongful death suit if the next-of-kin found out I was there and certified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top