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?
Add Comment Share This
Comments
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.
charlie bucket | 1 year, 10 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Fontana
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.
Kina Barnum | 1 year, 10 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
I know
I completely agree with you, I’m just pointing out the fact that the lawyers have a point.
charlie bucket | 1 year, 10 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
juan mendez | 1 year, 9 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
charlie bucket | 1 year, 9 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Mia | 1 year, 10 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Purelabor | 1 year, 10 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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?
Lila DuPratt | 1 year, 9 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Judith A. Eisner | 1 year, 8 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Jan Newman MD | 1 year, 7 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
< 1 2 3 4 > Last » (6 pages)