The Zimmerman rescue hoax

I don't believe I've blamed billy for anything but being billy, jtt.

you are of course entitled to your own vitriolic canadian opinion...

In Post: # 5,397,085, you describe Bill as "a very bizarre human bean" when all he had done was describe the system as it works.

Then in Post: # 5,397,107, you faulted "the examples you choose to cite in support of your argument. if we can call it that...".

And his example, graphic as it was illustrated that his argument was a solid one, yours, not so much, Rocky.

Then, in Post: # 5,397,113, you went completely tangential; Mr Whiner himself offered this sage advice:

"life is what you make it billy"

And ended it up with this on topic comment, which, of course, we all have to note pretty much devastated Bill's entire argument and saw you the winner of another debate:

"yours is obviously very colorful and full of twisted verbs..."



Finally, even after your own words illustrate that the only thing you did with respect to Bill's argument was heap vitriol upon him, just because it was BillRM, you make these lame excuses for yourself.

Bill, I am a firefighter and an EMT. Because of that, I CAN be charged if I do nothing, at least here in KY.

Why all the mystery, Mysteryman? Why didn't you just come out and say it?

"Finally, even after your own words illustrate that the only thing you did with respect to Bill's argument was heap vitriol upon him, just because it was BillRM, you make these lame excuses for yourself. "

kinda like you and Frank.

or Andy.

or...

g'nite eh....

I was going to mention that possibility, but wasn't too sure of my ground.

ETA: I don't know if you would be protected by the Good Samaritan laws that many states have enacted to protect those willing to be helpful in spite of the general lack of obligation.

Not quite the same, Rocky. I admit some vitriol has escaped my mouth, , but I'm more than willing to note anyone's good common sense.

It's Andy's and Frank's nonsense that earns them the scathing remarks.

I'm pleased to see that you've owned up to attacking Bill because he is Bill.

See.



Sweet dreams, Rocky.

**** you too, jtt.

Joe McCarthy was wrong in thinking that there were any non-communists in the state department...

There actually are worse things in the world than communism or communists. No communist ever demolished a dam or shut down a major agricultural region for the sake of a lizard or a fish...

Strange and can they likewise charge a passing doctor for not giving aid?

Oh and you do know that the courts had found that not even on duty police officers have a duty to come to the aid of citizens

roger,
The good Samaritan laws are designed to protect civilians that provide aid in an accident.
For instance, if you come across a car accident and the driver is still pinned inside, he really shouldn't be moved if there is no immediate danger.
However, if you move the driver out of the vehicle and the driver suffers worse injuries, like paralysis because of your actions, you cannot be sued for it.

In my case, because I am an EMT, with lights and siren on my vehicle, that identifies me and if I refuse to offer aid I can be charged.

I don't know about doctors, but the emergency lights and siren on my vehicle identify me.

And I know about the court rulings, but thanks for mentioning them.
Those rulings are the best reason yet for people to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, imho.

Hey, it's MM not answering questions. Whoda thunk such a thing possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

I think this gives a good summation of how different the U.S. is, compared with some other countries. I could be wrong, but the "duty to rescue" seems to correlate, in my opinion, with a "sin of ommission," while the countries that only protect a Good Samaritan with Good Samaritan laws, so a Good Samaritan is not responsible for assistance that turned out problematic, and there is no "duty to rescue" seems to correlate with only a "sin of commission" concept?

Now, would the German "duty to resue" law include the Allied bombing of Germany in WWII, since one can say that the Allies were trying to save Germany from Nazism? Perhaps, even the fire bombing of Dresden falls under the duty to rescue laws? Or, would "no ex post facto" be applied?

P.S.: The casualities in the fire bombing of Dresden would be covered under the Good Samaritan laws, since the intent of the bombing was to end the Nazi regime that Germany was under.

Also, Wikipedia has a thorough article, in my opinion, on the Good Samaritan laws by searching for "good samaritan laws" (put in quotation marks in the search field) at www.Wikipedia.org

You're getting foofier and foofier, Foofie.

You do realize though that your admonishments to the forum's posters about not rallying to your concerns reflects the Anglo laws that limit any duty to rescue. Perhaps, your admonishments should be in German for the European posters?

This is making its way around FB today

http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/george-zimmermans-heroic-car-crash-rescue-appears-to-be-a-fraud/

Is it possible for you to get any foofier, Foofie?