Latest on MJJC

By Standers Ignore Dying Woman's Pleas

Sdeidjs

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
3,805
Points
0
Location
Ohio
There is something WRONG with this picture...

AOL: posted: 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES AGO

filed under: Crime News, World News

(Jan. 19) - An 81-year-old mugging victim who had been mugged on the street died of her injuries after passers-by ignored her pleas for help, thinking she was drunk, British newspapers reported Monday.

Molly Morgan, of Harrow, England, was on her way to a library lecture when she was attacked from behind, according to the reports. She suffered serious head injures, a broken left arm and multiple fractures to the left side of her face after being dragged to the ground, the Daily Mail said.






Morgan cried out for help but was left on the pavement for 10 minutes as people walked by before someone finally called emergency services, police said.
"When Mrs. Morgan was attacked she fell to the ground, and we believe she was on the pavement for about 10 minutes before anyone came to her aid,” the Telegraph quoted Detective Chief Inspector Jessica Wadsworth as saying.

Wadsworth said Morgan told authorities that one man "walked right past her and didn’t stop, even when she asked for help."
"It is our belief that this man, and other people in the area who didn't assist the victim, may tragically not have realized that Mrs. Morgan had been attacked and was in considerable pain," Wadsworth said.
"We know from some witnesses that they had assumed she was merely a drunk on the street," the police inspector added.
Morgan was taken to a hospital, where she died the day after her attack. The cause of death was head injuries, officials said.

Police said Morgan’s bag, which was stolen during the mugging, contained only an electrical extension cord and an umbrella.
Police were looking for the man who disregarded her call for help and anyone else who may have seen the fatally injured woman, "since they are vital witnesses and will be able to help me find who killed her," Wadsworth said. Morgan’s daughter, Hilary, pleaded with any potential witnesses to come forward.

2008 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-01-19 16:47:24
 
it's sad but it's social psychology in practice. It's called the bystander effect. The more people are around the less likely you are to help b/c the blame of NOT helping is sort of shared and watered down b/w the other bystanders...

a similar thing happened in the 60's (?) a woman named Kitty Genivise (no clue how to spell it) was attacked and murdered while her entire apt complex watched and not one person called for help.

it's sad but this is true human nature.
 
Good Samaritan Law in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill.

They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'.

Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake in treatment.

[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia[2]. In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.

Source:Wikipedia

:angel:"Should ANYONE "EVER" see someone that is in need of help PLEASE DO NOT ignore them...Its better to call out loud than stay silent and do nothing...for the ramifications of saving a life...far out way the fatality of the great loss of a beautiful human being..!":angel:

Knowledge Is Growth~~~
 
Last edited:
That is very sad indeed. It is one thing to think someone is drunk but for her to have all of those injuries and such...I'm just disgusted. I hope those people know now that they ignored a dying woman and I hope they live with that shame.
 
Sdeidjs said:
Good Samaritan Law in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill.

They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'.

Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake in treatment.

[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.

The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia[2]. In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.

Source:Wikipedia

:angel:"Should ANYONE "EVER" see someone that is in need of help PLEASE DO NOT ignore them...Its better to call out loud than stay silent and do nothing...for the ramifications of saving a life...far out way the fatality of the great loss of a beautiful human being..!":angel:

Knowledge Is Growth~~~
Click to expand...

sadly this law was not upheld recently, and good samaritan's no longer have immunity.

http://overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-good-samaritan-out-of-luck/

i watched a news account of this when it came out. the car was on fire. the good samaritan was afraid that it was going to explode and pulled the victim from the vehicle. she is now a paraplegic and sued the good samaritan saying they should have waited til trained personnel arrived. and the victim won.

i would like to think, i would not let that stop me from helping, but i have a family, and i dont want to put them in peril to help a stranger. the good samaritan is now bankrupt, and will have no way of putting their own children through higher education or have a home they own, etc. etc.

it is very sad in the case you stated above, as it is very different, but just wanted to point out that good samaritan's are not immune of consequences if the victim or their family are not satisfied with the end result.
 
That is so sad :(

I reckon there should be a pentalty for by standers who done help those who are being attacked.
 
friend said:
sadly this law was not upheld recently, and good samaritan's no longer have immunity.

http://overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-good-samaritan-out-of-luck/

i watched a news account of this when it came out. the car was on fire. the good samaritan was afraid that it was going to explode and pulled the victim from the vehicle. she is now a paraplegic and sued the good samaritan saying they should have waited til trained personnel arrived. and the victim won.

i would like to think, i would not let that stop me from helping, but i have a family, and i dont want to put them in peril to help a stranger. the good samaritan is now bankrupt, and will have no way of putting their own children through higher education or have a home they own, etc. etc.

it is very sad in the case you stated above, as it is very different, but just wanted to point out that good samaritan's are not immune of consequences if the victim or their family are not satisfied with the end result.
Click to expand...


QUOTE: "Now a California appeals court has ruled that the state’s Good Samaritan liability shield does not protect Ms. Torti from Ms. Van Horn’s negligence suit because it “only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care. The perceived danger of remaining in the wrecked car was not ‘medical,’ the court ruled.” (”Court: Law may not protect Good Samaritan from suit”, AP/CourtTV, Mar. 23)."

http://overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-good-samaritan-out-of-luck/


We must understand that the United States Court System and the laws that it creates do not take legal complaints lightly. Our legal system has Federal, State, and Local Judicial Branches, Rules, Statues, Jurisdiction (s) ect. that have an Ethical duty they MUST follow.

http://wlwatch.westlaw.com/aca/west/uscourt.htm

Without knowing all the Logistics, Citation of the case that you mentioned I cannot give an accurate personal opinion about it. I will have to see what my legal research comes up with...

:angel:put yourself in the place of the person who needs help...Wouldn't YOU want someone to step up to the plate and help you..?

Despite the "RARE" occasion (s) that the Good Samaritian Law "does not" offer protection for the Good Samaritian...

I would help in any way I could WITHOUT even skippin a heartbeat..!
 
That is a horrible story. I studied something similar to this in psychology. It is called the bystander effect, where people witness something and do not help. For example the case of Kitty Genovse. Its so horrible that people witness this but are too afraid to help! :(
 
Sdeidjs i understand where you're coming from. and the wording you pulled out is that someone won't suffer legal damages if they are giving medical aid. in the case that i referenced, the person didn't render medical aid. they pulled a woman from a burning car they feared would explode. they were sued for that act, in which they put their own life in danger to save the woman in the accident, and she turned around and sued them because tho her life was saved she became a paraplegic. the hero is now bankrupted. nice.

i understand you're wanting people to help, and the story your talking about is one in which someone could have called for help 10 minutes earlier to help save the woman and is different than pulling someone from a burning car.

yes if i was in a burning car, i would hope someone would pull me from it. but the way this case was judged, regardless if it happens to be a "fluke" the hero and her family are now destitute, because she tried to do the right thing. i only brought it up because you pulled out a law saying that those who help won't be held responsible if bad consequences arise from trying to be a good samaritan, when it is true that they can be held accountable, at least in California, and most likely if other would-be victims are saved by good samaritans in other states, and they suffer damages, this ruling will be pulled by the ones doing the suing as precedent. good samaritans are not fully protected, only if they are trying to give medical aid, they seem to be excluded from being sued.
 
friend said:
sadly this law was not upheld recently, and good samaritan's no longer have immunity.

http://overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-good-samaritan-out-of-luck/

i watched a news account of this when it came out. the car was on fire. the good samaritan was afraid that it was going to explode and pulled the victim from the vehicle. she is now a paraplegic and sued the good samaritan saying they should have waited til trained personnel arrived. and the victim won.

i would like to think, i would not let that stop me from helping, but i have a family, and i dont want to put them in peril to help a stranger. the good samaritan is now bankrupt, and will have no way of putting their own children through higher education or have a home they own, etc. etc.

it is very sad in the case you stated above, as it is very different, but just wanted to point out that good samaritan's are not immune of consequences if the victim or their family are not satisfied with the end result.
Click to expand...

horrible. that makes me SICK. so b/c of things like this, a person who sees someone in danger will let them die b/c of the fear of loosing all their money. im sure thinking she was drunk wasnt the only reason those ppl didnt help that poor woman. one one hand, understandable but...


!*%$#@!&*?!! :rant:
 
Bl00dyphynix said:
horrible. that makes me SICK. so b/c of things like this, a person who sees someone in danger will let them die b/c of the fear of loosing all their money. im sure thinking she was drunk wasnt the only reason those ppl didnt help that poor woman. one one hand, understandable but...


!*%$#@!&*?!! :rant:
Click to expand...

i agree. Justice is not always just.
 
friend said:
Sdeidjs i understand where you're coming from. and the wording you pulled out is that someone won't suffer legal damages if they are giving medical aid. in the case that i referenced, the person didn't render medical aid. they pulled a woman from a burning car they feared would explode. they were sued for that act, in which they put their own life in danger to save the woman in the accident, and she turned around and sued them because tho her life was saved she became a paraplegic. the hero is now bankrupted. nice.

i understand you're wanting people to help, and the story your talking about is one in which someone could have called for help 10 minutes earlier to help save the woman and is different than pulling someone from a burning car.

yes if i was in a burning car, i would hope someone would pull me from it. but the way this case was judged, regardless if it happens to be a "fluke" the hero and her family are now destitute, because she tried to do the right thing. i only brought it up because you pulled out a law saying that those who help won't be held responsible if bad consequences arise from trying to be a good samaritan, when it is true that they can be held accountable, at least in California, and most likely if other would-be victims are saved by good samaritans in other states, and they suffer damages, this ruling will be pulled by the ones doing the suing as precedent. good samaritans are not fully protected, only if they are trying to give medical aid, they seem to be excluded from being sued.
Click to expand...

A few years ago, my professor Director of Legal Studies at the University of Akron and a prominate Defense Attorney in Akron, OH were discussing cases/issues that were astoundingly unfair, & totally unjust.

The one thing that I will always remember from this indepth conversation was his inspirational advice...

"The United States Judicial System is NOT perfect but its the best one we got. It is the Legal Professionals and the Legal Students that continue work endlessly to improve it...For it were not for people like us...we would not have accomplished as much as we have thus far..!"

:angel:Knowledge is Growth...Help make that change~~~
 
GiveintomeMJ said:
it's sad but it's social psychology in practice. It's called the bystander effect. The more people are around the less likely you are to help b/c the blame of NOT helping is sort of shared and watered down b/w the other bystanders...

a similar thing happened in the 60's (?) a woman named Kitty Genivise (no clue how to spell it) was attacked and murdered while her entire apt complex watched and not one person called for help.

it's sad but this is true human nature.
Click to expand...

yup that's what I was thinking of as I read the article.

Scorpio said:
That is very sad indeed. It is one thing to think someone is drunk but for her to have all of those injuries and such...I'm just disgusted. I hope those people know now that they ignored a dying woman and I hope they live with that shame.
Click to expand...

Some people who live on the street and appear to be intoxicated (more often then not they are due to their circumstances)... also have injuries and marks on them. Take a good look next time you see a homeless person they probably didn't look any different to this lady at the time. It's a crying shame :(

friend said:
i would like to think, i would not let that stop me from helping, but i have a family, and i dont want to put them in peril to help a stranger. the good samaritan is now bankrupt, and will have no way of putting their own children through higher education or have a home they own, etc. etc.

it is very sad in the case you stated above, as it is very different, but just wanted to point out that good samaritan's are not immune of consequences if the victim or their family are not satisfied with the end result.
Click to expand...

I bolded part of your post because this is what goes through a lot of people's heads.

The Good samaritan law will not save every good samaritan that gets sued after the fact especially if the victim or victim's family get their hands on a skillful lawyer.
This I know because there have been numerous cases where the good samaritan was successfully sued for offering assistance.

8701girl said:
That is so sad :(

I reckon there should be a pentalty for by standers who done help those who are being attacked.
Click to expand...

You can't penalise people for not offering assistance. You open that door and it makes it one step away from penalising those who did offer assistance for not responding fast enough (this includes emergency workers).

The first thing they teach you when you learn first aid, is to protect number 1 (yourself) and if you don't feel you are safe or capable of providing aid you should never feel pressured to feeling you should.

Sure in an ideal world we'd all stop to help a fallen person, but we dont so we work with what we have.

What happened to this woman was tragic, but sadly it's not surprising.
 
Sdeidjs said:
A few years ago, my professor Director of Legal Studies at the University of Akron and a prominate Defense Attorney in Akron, OH were discussing cases/issues that were astoundingly unfair, & totally unjust.

The one thing that I will always remember from this indepth conversation was his inspirational advice...

"The United States Judicial System is NOT perfect but its the best one we got. It is the Legal Professionals and the Legal Students that continue work endlessly to improve it...For it were not for people like us...we would not have accomplished as much as we have thus far..!"

:angel:Knowledge is Growth...Help make that change~~~
Click to expand...

no one is bashing the judicial system. just alerting people of the precedent set by the case i referenced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L.J
friend said:
no one is bashing the judicial system. just alerting people of the precedent set by the case i referenced.
Click to expand...

Dear Friend,
My goodness gracious, no one said anyone was bashing the Judicial System. The United States law process is time comsuming and can be very complex.

Without even having the opportunity to research California Laws, Code or the logistiscs/facts of Torti vs. Van Horn negligence case.

(NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

In general, the law of California declares that '[e]very one is responsible . . . for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person . . . .' Cal.Civ.Code Sec. 1714(a). That, of course means that people are generally liable when they negligently injure others. If the language is a bit quaint, it is because that has been the law of California since at least 1872. The California courts have assiduously enforced that principle and only deviate from it when some powerful public policy dictates a contrary result. See Lipson v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 362, 372-73 (1982).

PRECEDENCE - The right of being first placed in a certain order, the first rank being supposed the most honorable. 2. In this country no precedence is given by law to men. 3. Nations, in their intercourse with each other, do not admit any precedence; hence in their treaties in one copy one is named first, and the other in the other. In some cases of officers when one must of necessity act as the chief, the oldest in commission will have precedence; as when the president of a court is not present, the associate who has the oldest commission will have a precedence; or if their. commissions bear the same date, then the oldest man.

SOURCE: Lectric Law Library Lexicon
www.lectlaw.com

Therefore;
Precedence or Not...It is all about what is ETHICALLY and MORALLY right...NOT the (civil liability) monetary reprecussions of what "COULD", happen if a human being comes to the aid of another...



Parable of the Good Samaritan, Rembrandt, 1632–1633



The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a New Testament parable appearing only in the Gospel of Luke.[1] (Also known as The Good Neighbor). The majority view indicates this parable is told by Jesus in order to illustrate that human kindness and fellow feeling must be available to all, and that fulfilling the spirit of the Law is just as important as fulfilling the letter of the Law, see also Letter and spirit of the law. Jesus puts the definition of neighbor into an enlarged context, beyond what people usually thought of as a neighbor.[2] See the minority view also.

:angel:Knowledge Is Growth...Help Make That Change~~~
 
Last edited:
:mello: k.... thanks for the lesson in law.

ethically speaking, my children come first. that's me. you are free to do as you wish. it is the judicial system that requires us to make that choice between being a good samaritan and being responsible to our families. did they not allow good samaritans to be sued, then it would simply be an ethical matter of right or wrong. it is no longer so simple. it is noble to encourage people to help others. it is prudent to make them aware of the ramifications of being so noble.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: L.J
friend said:
:mello: k.... thanks for the lesson in law.

ethically speaking, my children come first. that's me. you are free to do as you wish. it is the judicial system that requires us to make that choice between being a good samaritan and being responsible to our families. did they not allow good samaritans to be sued, then it would simply be an ethical matter of right or wrong. it is no longer so simple. it is noble to encourage people to help others. it is prudent to make them aware of the ramifications of being so noble.
Click to expand...

Your very welcome..!

:angel:Knowledge Is Growth...Help Make that change~~~
 
MissyLedger said:
I Give up why do humans act so f**kin fake
Click to expand...

yeah human beings can be really careless and cruel. but it makes sense. if something seems wrong..and no one else is helping..that everything should be ok. thats just how were wired to think and react to that kinda thing. but it makes you wonder, doesnt it? i love the complications of human nature. we really are complicated and interesting.

but we can also be selfless compassionette and caring ;)
 
i hate it when friends disagree with each other then just blame one for it all thats acting fake if u didnt want to be involved why disagree in the first place its pretty much like this case

anyways im talking riddles as ive just woke up again 2nd time round
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top