Say that you are walking through the parking lot of Walmart. You see the usual people walking to their cars, putting their groceries in the trunk of their cars and then leaving. But, what would you do if one of those people got shot and was near death? Would you help them? Would you igm? Call 911? That could be you laying there, fatally shot. Wouldn’t you want someone walking by to help you?
In the Unitenore thed States, there is no civil or criminal law that says that a bystander has to go to the aid of another. Although, in France, they have a law called the “Good Samaritan” law which states that people are required to assist others in distress (Allred and Bloom 334). This law has both pros and cons in many ways. Requiring a citizen to help another person in distress could lead to many financial and personal battles. If the supposedly injured person dies at the hands of a bystander that tried to help people could assume that they killed the injured person. Also, if a bystander worsens …show more content…
Think of it like this, that person laying on the ground could be your husband, mother, sister, brother, etc. You would do anything to help them. Why is it not the same for people that you have no relation to? The United States should avoid making a good samaritan law because it is human nature for any person to come to the aid of the injured. If this law was to go into place it would most likely not affect any human to still try to help the injured. In the article Good Samaritans U.S.A. Are Afraid to Act, it states that “Instead of compelling reluctant or even incompetent people to intervene, we should concentrate on protecting Good Samaritans who act now, without force of law” (Sjoerdsma 336). Even if the United States enforced a law like this one it would not make people help the
In the Unitenore thed States, there is no civil or criminal law that says that a bystander has to go to the aid of another. Although, in France, they have a law called the “Good Samaritan” law which states that people are required to assist others in distress (Allred and Bloom 334). This law has both pros and cons in many ways. Requiring a citizen to help another person in distress could lead to many financial and personal battles. If the supposedly injured person dies at the hands of a bystander that tried to help people could assume that they killed the injured person. Also, if a bystander worsens …show more content…
Think of it like this, that person laying on the ground could be your husband, mother, sister, brother, etc. You would do anything to help them. Why is it not the same for people that you have no relation to? The United States should avoid making a good samaritan law because it is human nature for any person to come to the aid of the injured. If this law was to go into place it would most likely not affect any human to still try to help the injured. In the article Good Samaritans U.S.A. Are Afraid to Act, it states that “Instead of compelling reluctant or even incompetent people to intervene, we should concentrate on protecting Good Samaritans who act now, without force of law” (Sjoerdsma 336). Even if the United States enforced a law like this one it would not make people help the