Quick Legal Question - Good Samaritan Law? Warning about a pedo? Wall o' Text

Rikushix

OK, what's really obvious here is that you really, really don't want to be a part of this, but your incredible bias for your girlfriend is making you support her no matter what. Not only is she being illogical and petty, but she's doing something illegal. We cannot stress this enough. And not only that, but it seems pretty sad on your part if you consider the only other option to talking her out of it being "supporting her in whatever way I can".

It's not your girlfriend's family you have to distance yourself from, it's your girlfriend. Otherwise the both of you are just acting like a pair of obsessive, vindictive vigilantes. Guilty by association and all that.

To be honest, the only person I have any sympathy for in this little tale is the four year old daughter. I'd have some for you, too, but since you seem to confuse "aiding and abetting crime" with "being a Good Samaritan", I'm not sure sympathy is what you deserve right now.

JohnnyCache

splash wrote: »

I was scared and confused when the first 10 replies had so little to do with bringing up the fact that you think an innocent child is being sexually abused and possibly scarred for life and the main topic isn't about how to investigate it and stop it immediately. But then everybody started posting about the true important subject here. So I want to reiterate that.

It's obvious to me that if he had any real evidence or reason to believe what he was saying, he'd have used it.

He's just here looking for validation of an extremely passive-aggressive, shitty, illegal thing that "his GF" did.

And dozens of people have said for him to report any real evidence he has.

CoJoeTheLawyer

Thanatos wrote: »

So, if I understand this correctly, you made a blog post about how a family member you don't like is a pedophile? But you didn't call CPS, or the police, or anything like that, you just put it up on the internet?

How in the world would that make you a good samaritan? It just makes you an asshole, because either you don't actually think this guy is a pedophile and you're making shit up, or you do actually think this guy is a pedophile and all you're doing about it is posting on the internet.

Take down the libelous blog post (because it is absolutely libel), and either report him to CPS or just stop talking to him entirely.

This.

However, three points of note. One, reports made to Child Services or the local alphabet agency of your local government (CYS, FYS, CHS) are kept confidential and/or made anonymously, so if you did report him, the agency itself wouldn't tell him that it was you and/or your girlfriend that filed the report. I'm sure he'll figure it out since you were stupid enough to make a blog post about it, but still.

Two, Child Services is going to take into consideration the source of the complaint. Since you managed to demonstrate in about a half dozen posts here that you don't like the guy at all, and the boyfriend person can point to a libelous blog post, it runs the chance that they may dismiss your complaint. Which will be the absolute shame of the situation if even part of what you are saying is true.

Three, there is a very good chance that if what you are alleging is even partially true, that the children in question will be taken away from your girlfriend's sister in the short-term, and possibly permanently. If you're lying and/or exaggerating the situation, then you will be basically emotionally crippling an entire family out of spite.

Shawnasee

CoJoeTheLawyer wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

So, if I understand this correctly, you made a blog post about how a family member you don't like is a pedophile? But you didn't call CPS, or the police, or anything like that, you just put it up on the internet?

How in the world would that make you a good samaritan? It just makes you an asshole, because either you don't actually think this guy is a pedophile and you're making shit up, or you do actually think this guy is a pedophile and all you're doing about it is posting on the internet.

Take down the libelous blog post (because it is absolutely libel), and either report him to CPS or just stop talking to him entirely.

This.

However, three points of note. One, reports made to Child Services or the local alphabet agency of your local government (CYS, FYS, CHS) are kept confidential and/or made anonymously, so if you did report him, the agency itself wouldn't tell him that it was you and/or your girlfriend that filed the report. I'm sure he'll figure it out since you were stupid enough to make a blog post about it, but still.

Two, Child Services is going to take into consideration the source of the complaint. Since you managed to demonstrate in about a half dozen posts here that you don't like the guy at all, and the boyfriend person can point to a libelous blog post, it runs the chance that they may dismiss your complaint. Which will be the absolute shame of the situation if even part of what you are saying is true.

Three, there is a very good chance that if what you are alleging is even partially true, that the children in question will be taken away from your girlfriend's sister in the short-term, and possibly permanently. If you're lying and/or exaggerating the situation, then you will be basically emotionally crippling an entire family out of spite.

CoJoe = my new hero

SammyF

Since we're talking about the practical application of government policies and statutes, I guess we might as well point out that Good Samaritan laws are limited in scope to possible torts claims (wrongful death/personal injury) that arise out of a specific instance of rendering aid to a victim, made by or on behalf of the victim against the individual rendering aid. There must be consent on behalf of the victim (or "implied consent" if the victim is otherwise unable to give consent -- if a victim is unconscious, you have a legal right to assume that he or she would want aide). In many states immediate peril is also a requirement for Good Samaritan laws to apply -- what this would mean is that the Samaritan would have to have reasonable cause to believe that the consequences of not rendering aid would exceed the possible consequences of offering immediate aid. Without that element of immediate peril, the law states that the Samaritan is liable for any damages caused by reckless and unnecessary aid.

So if you happened to come across the scene of a single-car accident, and a victim was unconscious and bleeding within his vehicle, and the vehicle was ablaze, in most jurisdictions you would not be liable if removing the victim from his car resulted in paralysis:

1. There is a specific victim in a specific instance of danger.
2. There would have been implied consent because the victim was unconscious.
3. There is obvious immediate peril because failure to remove the victim from the car could result in his burning to death.

In the scenario posited here, the OP suggests that Good Samaritan laws can be extended outside of a specific instance (the website is not intended to interrupt a specific crime perpetrated against a specific child; rather it is warning against the nebulous possibility of a crime involving a non-specific victim). In Sheep's eyes, there is no necessity for consent, implied or otherwise, because there isn't a specific victim being aided by the blog; there is no necessity for immediate peril to exist because there isn't a specific incidence of crime being referenced or addressed. He's suggesting that the scope of the law should be extended to cover defamation suits instead of being restricted to personal injury suits. Finally, he assumes that the law can apply to the legal standing of parties other than the victim--it's not a victim of sexual abuse who would have grounds to file suit against the OP and his girlfriend, rather it is the subject of the blog post.

In short, Sheep's interpretation of what "Good Samaritan" laws fundamentally are is what some legal scholars would refer to as retarded.

Your girlfriend is not protected against a defamation lawsuit. In the event that she's sued, the only avenue of winning the case is to prove that the allegations are true.

JohnnyCache

The classic example is not being liable for secondary injuries inflicted by CPR.

Shawnasee

SammyF wrote: »

Since we're talking about the practical application of government policies and statutes, I guess we might as well point out that Good Samaritan laws are limited in scope to possible torts claims (wrongful death/personal injury) that arise out of a specific instance of rendering aid to a victim, made by or on behalf of the victim against the individual rendering aid. There must be consent on behalf of the victim (or "implied consent" if the victim is otherwise unable to give consent -- if a victim is unconscious, you have a legal right to assume that he or she would want aide). In many states immediate peril is also a requirement for Good Samaritan laws to apply -- what this would mean is that the Samaritan would have to have reasonable cause to believe that the consequences of not rendering aid would exceed the possible consequences of offering immediate aid. Without that element of immediate peril, the law states that the Samaritan is liable for any damages caused by reckless and unnecessary aid.

So if you happened to come across the scene of a single-car accident, and a victim was unconscious and bleeding within his vehicle, and the vehicle was ablaze, in most jurisdictions you would not be liable if removing the victim from his car resulted in paralysis:

1. There is a specific victim in a specific instance of danger.
2. There would have been implied consent because the victim was unconscious.
3. There is obvious immediate peril because failure to remove the victim from the car could result in his burning to death.

In the scenario posited here, the OP suggests that Good Samaritan laws can be extended outside of a specific instance (the website is not intended to interrupt a specific crime perpetrated against a specific child; rather it is warning against the nebulous possibility of a crime involving a non-specific victim). In Sheep's eyes, there is no necessity for consent, implied or otherwise, because there isn't a specific victim being aided by the blog; there is no necessity for immediate peril to exist because there isn't a specific incidence of crime being referenced or addressed. He's suggesting that the scope of the law should be extended to cover defamation suits instead of being restricted to personal injury suits. Finally, he assumes that the law can apply to the legal standing of parties other than the victim--it's not a victim of sexual abuse who would have grounds to file suit against the OP and his girlfriend, rather it is the subject of the blog post.

In short, Sheep's interpretation of what "Good Samaritan" laws fundamentally are is what some legal scholars would refer to as retarded.

Your girlfriend is not protected against a defamation lawsuit. In the event that she's sued, the only avenue of winning the case is to prove that the allegations are true.

Sammy, your post is very neat and tidy and it pleases me.

KidDynamite

SammyF wrote: »

Since we're talking about the practical application of government policies and statutes, I guess we might as well point out that Good Samaritan laws are limited in scope to possible torts claims (wrongful death/personal injury) that arise out of a specific instance of rendering aid to a victim, made by or on behalf of the victim against the individual rendering aid. There must be consent on behalf of the victim (or "implied consent" if the victim is otherwise unable to give consent -- if a victim is unconscious, you have a legal right to assume that he or she would want aide). In many states immediate peril is also a requirement for Good Samaritan laws to apply -- what this would mean is that the Samaritan would have to have reasonable cause to believe that the consequences of not rendering aid would exceed the possible consequences of offering immediate aid. Without that element of immediate peril, the law states that the Samaritan is liable for any damages caused by reckless and unnecessary aid.

So if you happened to come across the scene of a single-car accident, and a victim was unconscious and bleeding within his vehicle, and the vehicle was ablaze, in most jurisdictions you would not be liable if removing the victim from his car resulted in paralysis:

1. There is a specific victim in a specific instance of danger.
2. There would have been implied consent because the victim was unconscious.
3. There is obvious immediate peril because failure to remove the victim from the car could result in his burning to death.

In the scenario posited here, the OP suggests that Good Samaritan laws can be extended outside of a specific instance (the website is not intended to interrupt a specific crime perpetrated against a specific child; rather it is warning against the nebulous possibility of a crime involving a non-specific victim). In Sheep's eyes, there is no necessity for consent, implied or otherwise, because there isn't a specific victim being aided by the blog; there is no necessity for immediate peril to exist because there isn't a specific incidence of crime being referenced or addressed. He's suggesting that the scope of the law should be extended to cover defamation suits instead of being restricted to personal injury suits. Finally, he assumes that the law can apply to the legal standing of parties other than the victim--it's not a victim of sexual abuse who would have grounds to file suit against the OP and his girlfriend, rather it is the subject of the blog post.

In short, Sheep's interpretation of what "Good Samaritan" laws fundamentally are is what some legal scholars would refer to as retarded.

Your girlfriend is not protected against a defamation lawsuit. In the event that she's sued, the only avenue of winning the case is to prove that the allegations are true.

Gosh I like this post. I wish there was an after school special that was this clear.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

You are really lucky he hasn't gotten a lawyer and sued you. Take down all your posts and go through the proper channels if you want to really jump on the interfamily drama wagon.