Selective interpretation won't save him - Part 1

So really, when a RLSVs come out with blogs where they claim to have spoken with law enforcement officials how much credibility should one put in it? I mean when the email address of some of these folks includes things like "King0Nazi" then how can one not question their moral or ethical stance? When some of them seem to be mentally unbalanced in their dogmatic crusade against one particular RLSH then questioning their sanity is not such a difficult thing. When a former RLSV comes out and openly states that members within the RLSV organization pushed, prodded, and attempted to coerce him into doing things that were very close to true criminal behavior then what right do RLSVs to take some high and mighty holier than thou moral stance? It's the same hypocrisy that they have and always will practice but ultimately they will be met with failure. And a word to the wise since some of them enjoy tossing out the law card so much. Perhaps when making accusations of involuntary manslaughter against a RLSH they should look up the laws on slander and how one can be prosecuted for it.

As for Good Samaritan laws well they vary from state to state, some offering a more narrow interpretation of what kind of help a person can give. Some states are as narrow as allowing Good Samaritan laws for only "medical care" while others are broader and allow a regular citizen (including a RLSH) to do more. One stickler found about Good Samaritan laws in many states is that many will not protect a regular citizen/RLSH if they are performing a Good Samaritan act with the expectation of compensation. Well since RLSH do what they do without expectation of pay then they need not worry about this condition. Again it depends on the state you live in when it comes to Good Samaritan laws. Now before the RLSV start jumping up for joy WHILE WEARING THEIR MASKS AND COSTUMES perhaps they need to get a hold of themselves. If the RLSH activity was so blatantly illegal and persistent across a national level then the Good Samaritan laws would be both uniform and ironclad in their interpretation. The fact that their is so much variance from one place to another shows that there is still a healthy debate on the issue of Good Samaritan laws.

Here is an example of the Good Samaritan law for the state of Hawaii:

"Any person who in good faith renders emergency care, without renumeration or expectation of renumeration, at the scene of an accident or emergency to the victim of the accident or emergency shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from the persons acts or omission, except for such damages as may result from the persons gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions."

On even the most basic level a person with any shred of conscience should feel the desire to help a person who is in danger. If you see someone trapped in a house that is engulfed in flames and you feel compelled to help them do you resist doing so because they might burn their hand while you drag them out of the house or do you put the preservation of the victims life itself ahead of the potential for a non-life threatening injury. In a recent Emergency Medical Dispatch course I took the instructor was very clear in the following - more often than not, if the actions of an individual, as long as they were not egregiously beyond the scope of what was necessary to save a life, result in further harm of death of a person then the laws generally work in favor of the person attempting assistance not against them.

As to the use of objects like tazers or pepper spray I had to laugh when I read a blog from this obsessed RLSV, you know the guy with the "King0Nazi" in his email address where a cop he "supposedly interviewed" said that using tazers or pepper spray could still be problematic. If tazers and pepper spray were so "problematic" then why are they so readily available for sale to the public? Why are there no laws as in the purchase and license/permits for carrying and using firearms for pepper spray and tazers if they are such a problem? Why make them so accessible to the average citizen? This alone makes me question the veracity of the blog in question, not withstanding the nature of the person who wrote it.

A few points to make before I move on to Part 2 of the blog regarding citizens arrest.

The "cop" is quoted as saying "sometimes doing the right thing will cost you if you are unqualified". Well guess what, sometimes not doing the right thing leads to the loss human life and suffering. I would not hesitate to push a victim out of the path of an oncoming speeding car because I am afraid she will end up with a bruised hip. I push her out of the way because a vehicle in excess of 1 ton moving at even moderate speed will probably kill her upon impact. Secondly, this cop sounds like a goofball when he describes the RLSH patrolling as "vigilantism". Vigilantism is associated with acts where people place their actions above the importance of the laws in place. The vast majority of RLSH work in conjunction with law enforcement and abide by their respective local laws. But before I crack on the "cop" to much I have to consider the nature of the person supposedly interviewing them so I am inclined to be somewhat sympathetic.