I read the paper, and found it very interesting. But I'm pretty sure that a duty to rescue doesn't require armed citizens to intervene with their arms; the duty to rescue requires only essentially risk-free rescues, and while a concealed gun would surely make many rescues much less risky, I don't think it would make them risk-free enough to be required even in those few states that mandate rescue.
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Duty to Rescue and Concealed Carry I have not read this paper but I am intriqued how the passage of concealed carry laws impacts this debate? Does the duty to rescue concept encompass an obligation for an armed citizen to intervene to deter or stop a criminal assault upon another citizen? Rich New Article Spotlight: Illinois' David Hyman and the Duty to Rescue LawProf David Hyman of Illinios has posted Rescue Without Law: An Empirical Perspective on the Duty to Rescueon SSRN. Here's the abstract: For more than a century, legal scholarship on the duty to rescue has proceeded on a sophisticated theoretical plane. Proponents of a duty to rescue have argued that it will decrease the frequency of non-rescue without creating undue distortions or other difficulties. Opponents of a duty to rescue have argued that such statutes are ineffective, infringe on individual liberties, may actually discourage rescue, and are likely to be misused by politically ambitious prosecutors. No effort has been made to test any of these claims empirically, even though from a policy perspective, the critical threshold question - how often do Americans fail to rescue one another in circumstances where only a generalized duty to rescue would require them to do so - is entirely factua! l. This article provides the first empirical study of the no-duty rule in action. Using more than twenty independent data sources, the article provides a "law and reality" perspective on rescue and non-rescue that complicates - and sometimes is flatly inconsistent with the positions of both proponents and opponents of a duty to rescue. The results paint a rich and largely reassuring picture of the behavior of ordinary Americans faced with circumstances requiring rescue, and indicate that both more and less is at stake in the debate over the no-duty rule than has been commonly appreciated. Law professors and judges have been fascinated with the no-duty rule for theoretical reasons, but the ongoing debate should not obscure the reality that in the real world, rescue is the rule - even if it is not the law. To obtain the paper, click here <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=796384> . [Mark Godsey] ________________________________ Check out the new AOL <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redi r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
