The murder in NYC in 1964 of Kitty Genovese may be what you are describing. See the article at http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs818a,0,7944135.story As I recall, the story was carried nation wide (I read about it in Atlanta) and the editorialist all were asking how the public could be so indifferent to not even call the police.
Phil Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I had the privilege of helping write the eight-hour course used to teach > concealed carry applicants in Kansas. One of the things we emphasized, and > the attorney general agreed to include in the class, is that someone who > holds a license to carry is under no duty to intervene in a situation as a > third party. Intervening with lethal force is more akin to citizens' arrest > powers than saving someone from drowning, where a duty to rescue might > arguably apply. It is nice to have as a justification afterwards, but one > should not get involved in others' problems as a primary plan when one is > armed. We felt that there might be a tendency among a few applicants to try > to intervene in a situation where they did not have complete information, and > a distinct possibility that a bad situation would turn worse with the > presence of an unrelated armed third party. > > Besides emphasizing conflict avoidance for the licensee's own problems, we > focused on it even more with other parties. If you don't know for certain > what is going on, do not point a firearm at someone else who is involved. > You might end up interrupting an undercover arrest, or assaulting the > non-aggressive party who is just then getting the upper hand in a legitimate > case of self-defense. If you don't know, it probably won't get better by > pointing or using a gun. > > My short take on the debate is that there is no duty to rescue, or duty to > intervene, unless someone directly caused a situation. Most people feel a > moral obligation to do what they can to help someone else out, especially > when life or health are at risk. However, as the risk to the Good Samaritan > increases, the tendency naturally is not to put oneself at risk for another, > absent some close familial or other tie. Intervening with firearm in hand is > a risky proposition indeed since deadly force is being used or threatened, > and carries a substantial penalty for misuse. > > If there were a duty to rescue, people would still feel reluctant to put > themselves at risk, and would likely avoid even witnessing a situation in > which they did not wish to intervene for fear of prosecution. A "duty" to > rescue might even have the unintended consequence of reducing the chance of > rescue, as people conveniently forgot to stop. We already see this in > certain cases such as the rape years ago of a woman who was screaming for > help on a fire escape and was heard by 20-30 neighbors who did nothing, not > even calling the police. I'm sorry I can't remember the citation right now, > but I seem to recall it happening in NYC in the mid 70s. A duty to rescue > could likely cause a bigger memory loss than I am suffering now among > potential witnesses. > > Scott Hattrup > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:43 PM > 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. > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check out the new AOL. 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. > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ _______________________________________________ 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.
