Remix.run Logo
alienthrowaway 17 hours ago

> In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

There's video from a few years back that shows very American cops standing outside a burning house at night, knowing there was a young child still in it. A passing pizza delivery dude[1] rescued the 6-year old, handed her to cop, and ended up requiring hospitalization. In the online discussion, everyone called the rescuer a hero, but I don't recall seeing a single condemnation of the cops (a "first-responder") who didn't enter the burning house.

edit: 1. the hero's name is Nick Bostic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlE52qKKuw

kstenerud 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It gets tricky when professions, insurance etc are involved.

Example: After a missile attack on a Dnipro gas station in 2022, my wife and her team arrived to see the station burning and 3 people already confirmed dead, but the paramedics would not go inside (they actually weren't allowed to, due to the danger). Her team was military, however, so it was OK to go in and check for survivors.

bmacho 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A burning house is not "a pool".

In my country you can't watch a kid drowning in a pool* but you are not obligated to help anyone in a burning house, since that would put you in danger too. I assume it is the same ~everywhere in the world, including the US.

* assume rescuing would be fairly safe, you are a good swimmer, you have lifeguard education, the weather is nice and the kid is small. AFAIK rescuing drowning people is dangerous as they can pull you down.

mikepurvis 9 hours ago | parent [-]

A drowning child is of fairly limited threat to an even halfway competent adult swimmer. Even at maximum panic/flailing, they just don't have the mass or strength to prevent you from at least treading water.

sdwr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm a good swimmer, and 50 pounds of thrashing, scratching and climbing feels dangerous.

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
randomNumber7 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is a very clear difference, if you need to bring yourself into danger (enter a burning house) vs just looking it drown in a pool.

s1artibartfast 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Cops have no legal obligation in the US to protect people from crime. They can watch you be mugged without lifting a finger. They might be fired, but the victim isn't entitled to protection.

It basically comes down to positive and negative rights. Someone is at fault if they harm you, but nobody is required to help you, even the government.

ecb_penguin 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If police had a legal obligation to protect people from crime, everyone would have recourse if the police failed to protect them. Bar fight? Sue the police. Domestic violence? Sue the police.

It would literally lead to the collapse of the justice system.

betenoire 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Really? You don't think there is a middle ground? Are the cops watching this fight or hearing about or later?

alienthrowaway 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>[...] but the victim isn't entitled to protection.

Which is the my point. If cops don't have an obligation to save anyone from a fire, then why would random Joe get into trouble for similar inaction. GP was mistaken about the laws in America.

s1artibartfast 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed, we are in agreement. they were in disbelief responding to my parent post.

ClumsyPilot 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> nobody is required to help you, even the government

Seems very convenient, what am I paying taxes for then?

krapp 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You're paying taxes because your government forces you to under threat of violence.

mschuster91 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem is, as always, insurance. Entering an unsafe building in an employment context without adequate PPE will kill off any claims for workplace injury. The pizza driver however will most likely be covered by some kind of government scheme, because him getting injured is not tied to his employment.

It's the same why store clerks are explicitly banned from intervening with thefts or fights among unruly customers. When they get injured because they willfully entered a fight, they have zero claims to make (other than trying to sue a piss poor drug addict, which is pointless) - only a security guard is insured against that.

darkwater 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But there was a fire, so the risk of themselves dying was pretty high! There is a reason why they get extra, literal medals if they go above and beyond. Hell, there are situations in which even firefighters would not go easily.