@padraic: Thanks for clearing that up. I understand now why, but I find a more pressing matter is the twisting of law to enforce activity from off duty personnel, which turns voluntary good Samaritan action into a forced situation, where if something terribly wrong occurs, devolves into a rather unpleasant legal proceeding which attempts to read someone's mind and motives, all while treating them like a criminal.
@chatpilot: I have no need for emotional rants or tautological statements. And your dismissal of my earlier 'pre-existing' condition point holds no water, since examining the situation entails examining all the steps leading up to that incident. Or, of course, you could just focus on the most base facts and appearance of this case and just leave it at that. Let two more people and those who depend on them be destroyed with no real exploration of the circumstances or causes in the first place, all in the name of being bloody minded and angry.
Per your statement about the dispatchers and training, a defending attorney would no doubt explore the aspect that the defendants were confident they'd do more harm than good, to which the reasonable course of action would be to stay away from the victim. Or let us say they were afraid and frozen by fear. Would you still be treating them like criminals? I'd hope not. Sure, if it goes to court, then it will have to explore why they didn't act. It might be that they are total sociopaths, who knows?
Have you ever seen someone you know become violently ill, as in a heart attack, and despite your knowledge, have been unable to act or confused? I have. At that time, it was only by the proverbial "grace of god" or what I call "good luck" that certain someone did not die on me.
In retrospect, I only did not want it to go to trial as I know it will consume on the surface two more people and will most likely not result in change.
@chatpilot: I have no need for emotional rants or tautological statements. And your dismissal of my earlier 'pre-existing' condition point holds no water, since examining the situation entails examining all the steps leading up to that incident. Or, of course, you could just focus on the most base facts and appearance of this case and just leave it at that. Let two more people and those who depend on them be destroyed with no real exploration of the circumstances or causes in the first place, all in the name of being bloody minded and angry.
Per your statement about the dispatchers and training, a defending attorney would no doubt explore the aspect that the defendants were confident they'd do more harm than good, to which the reasonable course of action would be to stay away from the victim. Or let us say they were afraid and frozen by fear. Would you still be treating them like criminals? I'd hope not. Sure, if it goes to court, then it will have to explore why they didn't act. It might be that they are total sociopaths, who knows?
Have you ever seen someone you know become violently ill, as in a heart attack, and despite your knowledge, have been unable to act or confused? I have. At that time, it was only by the proverbial "grace of god" or what I call "good luck" that certain someone did not die on me.
In retrospect, I only did not want it to go to trial as I know it will consume on the surface two more people and will most likely not result in change.
