The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Dirty Deeds?

72 Comments

March 20, 2008 by Kathy McManus

It’s possible to be a Good Samaritan. 

But is it possible to be a not-good-enough Samaritan? 

A Canadian woman was recently confronted with that question when two killers accused her of not doing enough to save a man they had beaten and left for dead.

The woman was driving her car when she saw the two men viciously kicking and stomping a third man in the street. The assailants then fled, leaving their victim—who they had robbed—lying unconscious in the road. The woman called 911. But before police or paramedics arrived, an unsuspecting driver ran over the victim. He died. 

The woman testified in court, and the two men were convicted of manslaughter. The woman was hailed as a Good Samaritan. But when the killers returned to court for a sentencing hearing, they stunned the Samaritan by claiming she was responsible for the victim’s death. Lawyers for the two men argued that the woman had a responsibility to get out of her car and pull the victim to safety. Had she done so, the lawyers insisted, the victim wouldn’t have died. 

The Samaritan had previously testified that she was too scared to leave her car, even after the assailants fled. “You always want to try and help a person as much as possible,” she said. “But you also have to worry about what could happen to you.”

A judge considered and then rejected the argument, telling the lawyers they could raise the issue on appeal for the two men. 

“The question is, should they be held responsible?” the men’s lawyers ask. “And we say no.” 

The Samaritan was reflective: “In a situation like this, you always think back and wonder whether you could have done something different.” 

Could she?

72 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• March 20, 2008 by terrance tattrie

  She could have pulled the victim out of the road or parked her car in a position with her hazards on to protect the guy from oncoming traffic, but we can't judge her because she was probably in shock from what she had just witnessed.

  Reply

  • April 9, 2008 by Joyce B.

    I totally AGREE!

    Reply

    • April 19, 2010 by T. H. California

      I am so glad there are still people out there who are willing to help. Not knowing all the facts, how many other people reached out to 911 to help this man? What if she was one of those people who just continued to drive by without doing anything? So because she choose to help, this good women is dragged through court, blamed for the death of this man and no doubt going through much more grief then we can imagine.

      This fine women needs to be applauded not scrutinized - and most certainly not blamed for the complete malice inflected by the 2 who rightfully contributed to this man's death.

  • December 24, 2008 by

    It is virtually impossible to be a good Samaritan when you are in a bad situation like that. I believe she did the right thing. She was probably just as scared for her life as the victim was. Although it could be viewed different ways and people deal with things differently I would have to ask myself just how I would deal with that situation. I mean after all, it's not like she left him there without calling the authorities. It was a very unfortunate situation and I am sure she lives with the decision she made everyday. Put yourself in her shoes, that's all I am saying!

    Reply

• March 21, 2008 by Luna Santin

  Sure, she *could* have done something differently, but I don't see how that's very relevant. The (apparently convicted?) defendants assaulted their victim and maliciously created a situation that led to someone's death. If random passersby are obligated to save their victim, surely the defendants have an even greater obligation to do the same, given they're the ones who created the dangerous situation in the first place.

  Reply

  • June 4, 2009 by jen snyder

    She could have pulled him out of the way. Half of my junior year in high school, I was in criminal justice. At one point, we had to pull a 7-foot log 100 feet. If she couldn't pull a man weighing at least 150 pounds, at most 300, then she couldn't. But I understand that she was scared. I would be too in her position. Would I be so scared as to leave him lying in the street? No. But there are too many people who just drive by something like that happening and don't even call 9-1-1. I think she was right and did well. There are too many times when the assaulter comes back to finish what they started.

    Reply

    • August 15, 2010 by barbie biggs

      In most states in the U.S.A. there are no actual "Good Samaritan Laws". Rather, there are laws that support persons who help others in critical situations. We do not know if this woman had a disability and could not move anything heavier than, say, 10 pounds. Also, if the victim needed CPR for instance, then the law would require a rescuer to have a current CPR certificate in order to safely give CPR. Without a certificate the rescuer can be held responsible for wrongful death. This woman did what she could. If you want to hold someone responsible for running over the victim, how about the driver who wasn't looking at what was in front of them? And keep in mind that that person now has to live their life remembering that they killed someone accidentally. It really is not a good idea to ask the court to make us all responsible for knowing before it happens, what might or could happen.

• March 21, 2008 by Lisa Staley

  Could this woman have the strength to pull a couple hundred pounds of dead weight across pavement? Hmmm. Even so, she claimed that she was frightened. Rightfully so. However, a more astute person might have parked his/her car in front of the victim 'til help arrived. She didn't do all she could have done. Regardless, the victim's death is not her fault.

  Reply

• March 21, 2008 by Dani O'Malley

  This woman did the right thing. Sure, she could have parked in the street, but someone else could have run into her car and hurt her and themselves, and then the guy would still be no better off, and I feel the two assailants would be responsible for that. These two men need to man up and take responsibility for what they did, rather than pass the buck onto the next available victim. How rude can you be?

  Reply

• March 26, 2008 by James Allard

  But... to stop, and put herself in jeopardy? That would have been irresponsible. Should she have put her live and/or health at risk? No. She did the right thing to the best of her capacity.

  Reply

• April 1, 2008 by Mary Duval

  This woman did the absolute right thing by calling for police. If she had interfered or even parked her car in the way who to say she would of not become a victim herself? The nerve of these two to claim she is at fault for the victims death is just disgusting and shows their lack of remorse for their actions. I hope this case never makes it to appeals court.

  Reply

• April 5, 2008 by Judith Clark

  I believe it is appalling that lawyers would even consider taking such a case! Where does the buck stop anyway??? The judge is not doing justice any favors by making such as esoteric ruling over such a ridiculous premise.

  Reply

• April 11, 2008 by Kina Barnum

  This woman did the right thing. She didn't know if she would be safe IF she stepped outside her car, there's her ability to pull someone to safety to consider, and even if she could pull him to safety, if she didn't do THAT the right way she could of damaged the guy more,which SHE could of been sued. Oh and parking the car in front of the guy c'mon she could of been victim number two. I for one would not of gotten out of the car I have two children, newborn and two year old no way would I have stepped out of my car, calling 911 was the best she could do, and those killers need to be held accountable for their actions.

  Reply

• April 16, 2008 by Justin M

  The woman in question 'could' have done something that saved him, or she 'could' have become another victim or 'could' have injured him further by trying to move him. I feel this is a case of desperate men willing to sacrifice others to save their own necks... and I mean the lawyers, not just the defendants.

  Reply

• April 23, 2008 by charlie bucket

  While I agree with everyone morally, the lawyers have the law on their side. Sure, the killers did play a big part leading to the man's death, but the woman could have done more. I'm not saying that she could be expected to; it's just that she might have been able to save the man's life.

  Reply

  • April 24, 2008 by Kina Barnum

    I'm sorry but I have to consider my own life. And the only reason these "lawyers have the law on their side" which I don't agree with,is because of a lawyer that was creative in finding a loophole, I believe the woman has the law on her side as well, I'm sure her lawyer could be creative and say that his client was suffering from vertigo or was temporarily mentally incapacitated at the time due to the amount of stress she underwent with the situation. I mean that could be a long shot but c'mon let's be real.

    Reply

    • April 24, 2008 by charlie bucket

      I completely agree with you, I'm just pointing out the fact that the lawyers have a point.

  • May 19, 2008 by juan mendez

    Through this inane logic, the women can argue that the car that hit the man is at fault and that driver could argue that the freeway conditions didn’t allow him to stop. Therefore, it’s the cities fault, and so on and son. By allowing these types of arguments to take precedent, all we are doing is condemning good people and letting criminals have their way in court. These men committed a crime that led to a man’s death, case closed.

    Reply

    • May 23, 2008 by charlie bucket

      While I agree that these people should be punished severely, the law says that there has to be trial (even if it’s obviously their fault), and they could tip the rules their way. That’s all I'm saying.

    • August 15, 2010 by barbie biggs

      I agree and keep in mind that the lawyers are talking about changing the law so that anyone who helps can be held responsible for anything that happens. This will likely encourage people to stop helping as the price becomes too high. Who wants to try to save a life that someone else injured only to be held responsible if that life isn't saved due to unforseen circumstances? These lawyers know this. They just don't think it will happen to them.

• April 29, 2008 by Mia

  You can't blame witnesses for the perpetration of crimes if they are not the criminals. Lololol. At least not if they do their civic duty and report the crime. That's like saying someone watched a woman get raped and called the cops but didn't stop the man -- then the witness is the one really guilty. That basically just misplaces ownership of all wrong-doings to people to see them and frees the actual crooks. Simply preposterous... No this woman isn't responsible for the poor man's death.

  Reply

• May 1, 2008 by Purelabor

  Those statements made by the lawyers only made the lady a victim. She should have never heard that statement. This is not fair to her. She put her life in danger by just stopping. Many criminals would have hurt her just for that.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.