Jason Cisneros Arguments Against The Good Samaritan Law
In an era where laws seek to regulate acts of kindness and assistance, the debate over the proposed Good Samaritan law stirs many peoples opinions about how this law would put people in danger. The Good Samaritan law is a legal protection that protects individuals who voluntarily provide assistance to those who are injured or in danger. However, in the case of 19 year old Jason Cisneros it is obvious that this law would put people in unnecessary danger, Cisneros went out of his way to try to protect a woman but unfortunately because of him steeping up, it would have caused him to lose his own life. HPD: A Bystander. Given this reason, the state of California should not have a law that requires an individual to “report or assist” a person in
…show more content…
Nevertheless, even if they had noticed something going on and didn’t seem to do anything, what if they didn’t see anything leading up to the action, what if they truly didn't believe that there was any imminent danger, or what if they thought it was just a social experiment. A person might have seen a video where they make it look like there is a person in need of help, but in reality it’s just a social experiment. For example, in an experiment performed by students in a school, they pretend someone is lying on the floor unconscious, but in reality it was all an act to get bystanders to take action. The …show more content…
However, some people are very shy and introverted; it goes against their character and how they were brought up to get involved in other people’s business. Even then, most people can’t afford to pay the unnecessary fines, which makes it counterintuitive because they don’t want to intervene because they might put themselves in danger, but at the same time if they don't intervene they can be potentially fined. In the article “Teens Laugh at Drowning Man.” it makes a great claim that the teens are morally responsible for the death of Jamal Dunn and should have been held accountable (Teens Laugh). It has one flaw, and it's that the law is in place to prevent future deaths, and in the case of Dunn it was most likely already too late when the teen found him
Nevertheless, even if they had noticed something going on and didn’t seem to do anything, what if they didn’t see anything leading up to the action, what if they truly didn't believe that there was any imminent danger, or what if they thought it was just a social experiment. A person might have seen a video where they make it look like there is a person in need of help, but in reality it’s just a social experiment. For example, in an experiment performed by students in a school, they pretend someone is lying on the floor unconscious, but in reality it was all an act to get bystanders to take action. The …show more content…
However, some people are very shy and introverted; it goes against their character and how they were brought up to get involved in other people’s business. Even then, most people can’t afford to pay the unnecessary fines, which makes it counterintuitive because they don’t want to intervene because they might put themselves in danger, but at the same time if they don't intervene they can be potentially fined. In the article “Teens Laugh at Drowning Man.” it makes a great claim that the teens are morally responsible for the death of Jamal Dunn and should have been held accountable (Teens Laugh). It has one flaw, and it's that the law is in place to prevent future deaths, and in the case of Dunn it was most likely already too late when the teen found him