Posted on March 20, 2008 by Kathy McManus in All, Altruism, Ethics, Law Comments (21)
Samaritan or Killer?
It’s possible to be a Good Samaritan.
But is it possible to be a not-good-enough Samaritan?
A Canadian woman was recently confronted with that question when two killers accused her of not doing enough to save a man they had beaten and left for dead.
The woman was driving her car when she saw the two men viciously kicking and stomping a third man in the street. The assailants then fled, leaving their victim—who they had robbed—lying unconscious in the road. The woman called 911. But before police or paramedics arrived, an unsuspecting driver ran over the victim. He died.
The woman testified in court, and the two men were convicted of manslaughter. The woman was hailed as a Good Samaritan.
But when the killers returned to court for a sentencing hearing, they stunned the Samaritan by claiming she was responsible for the victim’s death. Lawyers for the two men argued that the woman had a responsibility to get out of her car and pull the victim to safety. Had she done so, the lawyers insisted, the victim wouldn’t have died.
The Samaritan had previously testified that she was too scared to leave her car, even after the assailants fled. “You always want to try and help a person as much as possible,” she said. “But you also have to worry about what could happen to you.”
A judge considered and then rejected the argument, telling the lawyers they could raise the issue on appeal for the two men.
“The question is, should they be held responsible?” the men’s lawyers ask. “And we say no.”
The Samaritan was reflective: “In a situation like this, you always think back and wonder whether you could have done something different.”
Could she?
Comments (21)
Skip comments
good samaritan
She could have pulled the victim out of the road or parked her car in a position with her hazards on to protect the guy from oncoming traffic, but we can’t judge her because she was probably in shock from what she had just witnessed.
RE: good samaritan
Hindsight is 20/20
I totally AGREE!
It's irrelevant
Sure, she could have done something differently, but I don’t see how that’s very relevant. The (apparently convicted?) defendants assaulted their victim and maliciously created a situation that led to someone’s death. If random passersby are obligated to save their victim, surely the defendants have an even greater obligation to do the same, given they’re the ones who created the dangerous situation in the first place.
Hindsight is 20/20
Could this woman have the strength to pull a couple hundred pounds of dead weight across pavement? Hmmm. Even so, she claimed that she was frightened. Rightfully so. However, a more astute person might have parked his/her car in front of the victim ‘til help arrived. She didn’t do all she could have done. Regardless, the victim’s death is not her fault.
Ridiculus
This woman did the right thing. Sure, she could have parked in the street, but someone else could have run into her car and hurt her and themselves, and then the guy would still be no better off, and I feel the two assailants would be responsible for that. These two men need to man up and take responsibility for what they did, rather than pass the buck onto the next available victim. How rude can you be?
The responsible thing was to call for help
But… to stop, and put herself in jeopardy? That would have been irresponsible. Should she have put her live and/or health at risk? No. She did the right thing to the best of her capacity.
She could of been another victim
This woman did the absolute right thing by calling for police. If she had interfered or even parked her car in the way who to say she would of not become a victim herself? The nerve of these two to claim she is at fault for the victims death is just disgusting and shows their lack of remorse for their actions. I hope this case never makes it to appeals court.
Lawyers Lack Sense of Responsibility
I believe it is appalling that lawyers would even consider taking such a case! Where does the buck stop anyway??? The judge is not doing justice any favors by making such as esoteric ruling over such a ridiculous premise.
Untitled
This woman did the right thing. She didn’t know if she would be safe IF she stepped outside her car, there’s her ability to pull someone to safety to consider, and even if she could pull him to safety, if she didn’t do THAT the right way she could of damaged the guy more,which SHE could of been sued. Oh and parking the car in front of the guy c’mon she could of been victim number two. I for one would not of gotten out of the car I have two children, newborn and two year old no way would I have stepped out of my car, calling 911 was the best she could do, and those killers need to be held accountable for their actions.
I agree
The woman in question ‘could’ have done something that saved him, or she ‘could’ have become another victim or ‘could’ have injured him further by trying to move him. I feel this is a case of desperate men willing to sacrifice others to save their own necks… and I mean the lawyers, not just the defendants.
It hurts to say this, but...
While I agree with everyone morally, the lawyers have the law on their side. Sure, the killers did play a big part leading to the man’s death, but the woman could have done more. I’m not saying that she could be expected to; it’s just that she might have been able to save the man’s life.
RE: It hurts to say this, but...
I’m sorry but I have to consider my own life. And the only reason these “lawyers have the law on their side” which I don’t agree with,is because of a lawyer that was creative in finding a loophole, I believe the woman has the law on her side as well, I’m sure her lawyer could be creative and say that his client was suffering from vertigo or was temporarily mentally incapacitated at the time due to the amount of stress she underwent with the situation. I mean that could be a long shot but c’mon let’s be real.
RE:
I know
I completely agree with you, I’m just pointing out the fact that the lawyers have a point.
RE: It hurts to say this, but...
Inane logic
Through this inane logic, the women can argue that the car that hit the man is at fault and that driver could argue that the freeway conditions didn’t allow him to stop. Therefore, it’s the cities fault, and so on and son. By allowing these types of arguments to take precedent, all we are doing is condemning good people and letting criminals have their way in court. These men committed a crime that led to a man’s death, case closed.
RE: Inane logic
Not so
While I agree that these people should be punished severely, the law says that there has to be trial (even if it’s obviously their fault), and they could tip the rules their way. That’s all I’m saying.
What the heck?!?!
You can’t blame witnesses for the perpetration of crimes if they are not the criminals. Lololol. At least not if they do their civic duty and report the crime. That’s like saying someone watched a woman get raped and called the cops but didn’t stop the man — then the witness is the one really guilty. That basically just misplaces ownership of all wrong-doings to people to see them and frees the actual crooks. Simply preposterous…
No this woman isn’t responsible for the poor man’s death.
Another Victim
Those statements made by the lawyers only made the lady a victim. She should have never heard that statement.
This is not fair to her. She put her life in danger by just stopping. Many criminals would have hurt her just for that.
First Aid 101
You never move a victim unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. You may damage the spinal cord or neck, leading to paralysis or even death. Furthermore, if they hadn’t beaten the poor man and left him for dead, he wouldn’t have been in the position to be run over. She is a Good Samaritan.
Is the defense going to accuse anyone else who passed on that road and didn’t even stop?
Ridiculous
The argument that this woman could have saved this victim should not be considered. Maybe she did not possess the strength to move him; maybe he could have died if she did, depending on the way he fell. She did the right thing by calling 911. The criminals should be punished severely and the appeal, if any, quashed.
Pointing the Blame Elsewhere
This is a classic we see acted out almost daily in our society. In order to abrogate responsibility for their actions, people point the blame elsewhere or lie. In this case on the good Samaritan.
For all of the reasons previously mentioned the woman who stopped to help is to be lauded. Many would not have. The judge should have not even entertained the motion.
So ridiculous.
Blaming this woman is totally stupid. It’s because of things like this that others don’t bother to help out at all. I can understand her being scared. What if one of the attackers had seen her getting out of their car and attacked her? I mean if these guys had not robbed and beat this man almost to death, then she would not have had to stop and the other driver would not have to live with the fact that he ran the man over. The man’s death is totally the fault of the men who beat him.