Social liability laws

Yellowfin said:
^ But would that amount to involuntary servitude?
Click to expand...

Between the hippocratic oath and me not being an attorney, I do not know. I did use the phrase "might be."

I do know that some soldiers are being pressed back into service because they have a skill-set that the government needs.
 
If your area has a Good Samaritan law, a doctor might be held accountable for not rendering aid--it could be looked upon as withholding aid.
Click to expand...

Then everyone is held accountable who did not render aid.

So, if I see a violent crime taking place against another human and I am a licensed gun carrier and the situation is one where I would be legally justified in using lethal force, then do I have to use lethal force as my method of providing aid? To what level of accountability am I being held?

What if I am just a guy with a roll of quarters in my pocket? Am I obligated to use the roll of quarters as a blunt force instrument in a manner capable of being lethal force?

Doctors render aid to a single individual. Application of lethal force may mean rendering aid, but also means doing harm. Under good samaritan laws, doctors are not required to put themselves into harm's way to render aid. Entering into a confrontation would put a CCW person in harm's way.
 
If your area has a Good Samaritan law, a doctor might be held accountable for not rendering aid--it could be looked upon as withholding aid.
Click to expand...

The statute would have to specifically define a class of people who must render aid, and to whom aid must be rendered.

There is no such law in any state requiring a CCW holder to act on behalf of another.

Which is why the premise that CCW holders need to be "worried" is so absurd. This thread is about worrying about a non-existant worry. :rolleyes:
 
A person can be sued for serving drinks at a party and letting a drunk person leave that party, as in the case of a drunk that causes harm to someone. My point, and that of the blog, is not that the current state of the law makes a CCW holder liable but that it is a slippery slope when you conscript people to act on behalf of the govt.

A bartender is selling a perfectly legal beverage to someone, as long as that person doesn't drive. Making that bartender stop the person from driving is to conscript the bartender into acting on behalf of the govt. If the govt can conscript a bartender, or a person throwing a party at their house, what is to stop them from conscripting a CCW holder? See the connection?
 
No, it's a very poor anology.

A bartender voluntarily serves a customer, who voluntarily orders a drink from a bartender. There is a server-customer relationship. A state may have a dram-law that imposes a duty on a bartender to not over-serve a customer and/or to arrange for transportation after serving the customer, and which imposes liability on the bartender for failing to perform the duty owed to the customer.

A CCW holder has no duty (I guess I'll have to keep stating this) to protect a third-person. No duty, therefore no liability. Which is why the Posner blog didn't mention a single word about guns and/or CCW, because Posner wouldn't make such a poor anology. In fact, Posner would likely tell you that your non-existent worry fails to state a legal claim upon which relief can be granted. :p

But if you want to keep worrying about a non-existent worry, then do so. :confused:
 
Recently, a new entrant posted a question there on the best way to sharpen the metal spurs that cockfighters strap to their chickens' feet.
Click to expand...

I would have said to use a rotary grinder at high RPM, hold the blade facing them, and put their eye as close to it as possible as they touch it to the stone...to make sure they get a good view for precision and all.
 
There are NO rights, privileges or DUTIES that a CCW gives you in any crime situation. 0. None. Zip. Nada. You are not even remotely similar to a cop, you are not - nor is anyone - obligated to intervene in a crime and aside from one very, very narrow set of criteria - you are obligated by law not to injure or kill anyone in any intervention you might still decide to take.

The cops especially do not want civilians without police training or backup wandering around with guns in the middle of a "situation".

This is not a legal question.
 
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Biggs1.html

Although it is a 10 year old law review article, it does address the interplay of "duty to aid" laws and concealed carry legislation. While I have to personally disagree with the author's conclusion, he presents very cogent arguments. If anything, this presents valid reason why we should be wary of the continuing trend in the expansion of "duty to aid" legislation.
 
Doe a CCW holder have a duty to render aid under the law? Do the CCW laws provide a defense or exceptions to the laws?
 
My sister-in-law is an RN and I think she's lawfully required to offer assistance to say car collision victims (I don't like to call them accidents, as they usually are not accidental). I think over the years, she's been told at times by her employer that the legal consequenses of rendering aid may be worse than if she didn't. I know they've flip-flopped on the issue a couple of times. I'll have to ask her what her employer's current position on this is and if the government has some expectation.
 
Just me said...
A bartender is selling a perfectly legal beverage to someone, as long as that person doesn't drive. Making that bartender stop the person from driving is to conscript the bartender into acting on behalf of the govt. If the govt can conscript a bartender, or a person throwing a party at their house, what is to stop them from conscripting a CCW holder? See the connection?
Click to expand...

No, it's a very poor anology.

A bartender voluntarily serves a customer, who voluntarily orders a drink from a bartender. There is a server-customer relationship. A state may have a dram-law that imposes a duty on a bartender to not over-serve a customer and/or to arrange for transportation after serving the customer, and which imposes liability on the bartender for failing to perform the duty owed to the customer.
Click to expand...

Not only is it a poor analogy, Justme, but the bartender is serving an intoxicant that negatively impacts the judgment of the person being served. The bartender isn't being conscripted so much as s/he is taking responsibility for a person to whom they provided an intoxicant and who therefore may be unable to make the correct decisions concerning driving.

On top of that, being required to not serve drinks to a person getting drunk does not endanger the bartender.

My sister-in-law is an RN and I think she's lawfully required to offer assistance to say car collision victims (I don't like to call them accidents, as they usually are not accidental). I think over the years, she's been told at times by her employer that the legal consequenses of rendering aid may be worse than if she didn't. I know they've flip-flopped on the issue a couple of times. I'll have to ask her what her employer's current position on this is and if the government has some expectation.
Click to expand...

Your sister may be lawfully required to offer assistance, but she is not required to give assistance that endangers her life. She is not required to go into a burning bus and administer CPR to a person on the bus. A CCW person, by intervening in a violent situation, puts his/her life on the line and assumes a like of physical risk in doing so.

But I am only to new information. If you can provide me the specific laws for your state or others that states a Good Sam must provide aid or offer to render assistance in a situation that is life threatening to the Good Sam, I'll gladly retract my comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top