In yet another bizarre ruling, the California Supreme Court has ruled that a 1980 Good Samaritan law does not protect bystanders from lawsuits if they attempt to render non-medical aid in an emergency. The case in question involves a young lady who pulled her friend from a crashed car which she thought was about to catch fire and explode. The rescue effort aggravated a spinal injury, causing partial paralysis. One of the more clear-thinking judges responded:
“One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim,” Baxter wrote for the dissenters. “Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode.”
But the majority opinion is that you should just watch someone drown, die in a car fire, etc., rather than risk injuring them while saving their life. You really have to admire the logic in that. Just one more reason I’ll never move to the Left Coast.
I have to admit it’s a bit hard to feel much sympathy for the United Auto Workers union. They’ve bullied the Big Three for decades, forcing wages, benefits, and pensions up, up, up. Now it’s payback time.
When the UAW exposed the Big Three to insurmountable competitive disadvantages, it cut its own throat.
Yep. Now the UAW is going to have to accept a package that’s comparable to that received by the non-union workers at foreign auto makers’ plants here in the U.S. Domestic makes have already achieved parity in price, and are often cheaper than imports. To remain profitable, they’re going to have to cut costs, which necessarily means less pay for workers.
It’s disheartening to see the foolishness we humans can’t seem to help perpetuating. India’s government is working on two new anti-terror laws.
One of them proposes setting up a National Investigation Agency with sweeping powers of investigation.
The second strengthens existing anti-terror laws to allow suspects to be detained without bail for up to six months on the orders of a judge.
Yep, I’m sure that if these had been passed a year ago, the (then) would-be terrorists would have chosen a different path. When you’re planning to take as many innocent lives as possible before your own death there’s nothing quite like the threat of a few months in jail to give you a sincere change of heart.
This is what happens when you have a liberal, more-government-is-better mindset. Instead of trusting the populace with their own protection (India has a virtual ban on civilian gun ownership) and fixing the problems with the existing law enforcement organizations (Mumbai police cowered outside while the attacks went on) you create a new government agency to deal with the problem. India already has a number of intelligence and security agencies…none of them were able to stop the Mumbai attacks in advance.
It will be argued that:
– We did the same thing by creating the Department of Homeland Security. That, too, was an unnecessary increase in the size of our government—not surprising since Bush has demonstrated through eight years of overspending and bloating government that he’s not a fiscal conservative except on taxes. We’ve been kept safe not by the DHS, but by our brave armed forces taking the fight overseas. Aargh! Love him and hate him in the same paragraph.
– Our existing agencies didn’t stop 9/11. True, but that’s because we didn’t learn anything (still haven’t, really) from the experience of Israel, which puts armed security on every El Al flight. If we’d had a functional Air Marshal program in place, 9/11 would likely have been averted. Since it would be prohibitively expensive to put AMs on every US flight, it should be noted that the same would be true if we simply allowed people with concealed carry licenses to take their weapons with them onboard. Terrorists simply wouldn’t know who (or how many) are armed and the potential success of such a hijacking would be extremely low.
The UN Secretary General says now isn’t the time to send a peacekeeping force to Somalia.
Mr Ban said the situation in Somalia was too risky and there was no peace to keep.
Of course even if there were, a UN force would do exactly what it has done elsewhere on the dark continent—nothing. UN “peacekeeping” forces have a proven track record of worthlessness all around the world. We wouldn’t really expect anything different in Somalia.
Of what use is an international organization like the UN when it shows such clear lack of spine and moral character? If the nations of the world were truly interested in peace they’d be willing to pony up the troops to not only keep real peace where it exists, but create it through force where it doesn’t. But, as we see, they aren’t.
What a useless body the UN continually proves itself to be. (And Obama wants us to give them more money. I just can’t wait for January 20.)
Think you’ll be safe calling 911 when you’re attacked in your home? Brittany Zimmerman did, but police didn’t show up for nearly an hour. By that time she was dead.
Although the dispatcher claimed later to have heard nothing, the 911 tape captured screams, gasps and what sounds like a struggle, according to the court documents.
Your safety is your responsibility. This poor girl did what she had been taught to do and paid for it with her life. It is truly saddening to see the number of good people who die every day because they believe someone else—like the police—will protect them.
After the recent shoe-throwing incident, a few hundred Iraqis (including the brother of the journalist) demonstrated against Bush, America, and the Iraqi government for arresting the perp. These folks need to buy a clue. Just a few years ago that guy would never have had the courage to even look cross-eyed at a government leader or one of his guests. Under a real tyrant (e.g., the one we deposed and Iraq executed) he’d have been beaten, tortured, and probably fed his own feet for dinner. The prerequisite for this kind of childish display is freedom—something this particular Iraqi didn’t enjoy until the oh-so-evil Bush handed it to him. That irony is, I’m sure, lost on his ilk.
It comes as no real surprise that Obama has selected Duncan as SoE. He is, after all, in charge of Chicago’s public school system. It’s a rather disappointing choice, however. Why would you pick someone who presides over a system whose schools rank in the bottom 20-40% of the nation. The guy is supposed to be a reformer, but what has he accomplished in Chicago? The same thing Obama has accomplished in his short career as a state and U.S. Senator…nada. Why not pick someone from a district that’s actually performing well, like Arlington, VA or Madison, WI? Or, if you’re looking for someone with experience in real change, how about a district like Duval County (FL) which has seen significant—incredible, really—improvements over the last few years? Let’s take a look at what successful school districts are doing and put their superintendents in national positions rather than nominating someone who’s just as much an empty suit as the person who picked him.
A South Korean immigrant whose family was killed in the recent Marine Corps F-18 crash in San Diego has set an example of true Christian grace to which we should all aspire. Despite losing his wife, two daughters, and mother-in-law in this tragedy, his response was truly inspiring:
“I pray for him not to suffer for this action,” Yoon said at a news conference, according to The Los Angeles Times. “I know he’s one of our treasures for our country.”
Thank you Dong Yun Yoon—at a time when our nation is narrowly focused on the economy—for this reminder of what’s truly important. I can only pray that God will help me extend to my fellow man the grace and forgiveness with which He showers me daily, and which you so clearly exhibit.
A small town in Massachusetts is considering the idea of teaching children to fight back against armed attackers in the classroom.
Georgetown Police Chief James E. Mulligan told FOXNews.com the proposed technique was intended to be a “last ditch” thing to be used in cases where a gunman has been able to thwart police and get inside a classroom alone with students.
At least they’re moving outside the victim mentality which hampers real security in our schools. We should certainly teach our kids to defend themselves. This, however, is the wrong tack. A child with a book or backpack has a very low likelihood of thwarting a determined attacker who has a gun. The correct response is to allow concealed carry permit holders—staff and parents—to carry their own weapons on school campuses. As it stands, the only people in our schools who have guns are the bad guys, who ignore gun-free zone laws. Allowing responsible, licensed citizens to be armed on campus will only increase the safety of our children.
A breath of fresh air and sanity from across the pond. It’s sad that it took the massacre in Mumbai to bring about a piece like this in a major British paper. Maybe they’ll come around to reason after all. Some day.
Personally, I’m glad I have the Second Amendment on my side. I exercise it every day and wish more of my fellow Americans did as well.