Maybe Skinner didn't hear Jose call for help. That's not too hard to envision, either.
Perhaps the cop did call for help but that Skinner didn't hear the call or didn't understand what the cop was saying.
Is he still guilty of not helping the cop?
We don't know because the cop, himself never bothered to ask Skinner. By his own admission, the cop just cuffed Skinner and threw him into the back of the squad car.
Obviously, Skinner is willing to help people who ask because he had just helping a complete stranger (the perp) change a tire on the stolen car. So, it stands to reason that if the cop had asked for help or had Skinner understood exactly what the cop was asking, he would've lended a hand.
If you want to have good police/neighborhood realtions, that is a two way street. There are a few bad cops. But if you want to broad brush all police as liars, we have nothing to discuss.
That's right. It's a two-way street. Submitted for your approval:
San Marcos resident, Dave Newman, was swimming in the San Marcos river on the July 4th holiday weekend when he noticed that another man who had jumped into the river had failed to surface. Police arrived on the scene as Mr Newman attempted to rescue the man, Abed Duamni, a 35 year old from Houston. The officers instructed Mr Newman to swim to the nearest shore and get out of the water but he instead swam to the far shore with Mr Duamni. Upon his emergence from the river, Texas State University police arrested Mr Newman for interfering with public duties. Now free on $2000 bail Mr. Newman is set to appear in court next month.
On July 16, 2005 the University President Denise Trauth and San Marcos Mayor Susan Narvaiz released the following joint statement:
"Mr. Newman was arrested because of his refusal to comply first with pleas, then requests, and then orders to leave the river after his rescue of Mr. Duamni. However, Mr. Newman did perform a heroic act, and we believe the proper course of action is to drop the charges..."
Newman had already saved the drowning man and was in the process of bringing the man to shore when police and rescue personnel arrived on the scene. They ordered him to leave the drowning man where he was and for Newman to come to shore. Because he didn't comply with their orders to leave the drowning man in the water, he was arrested.
The guy had one collar for the day, why bust the other guy if he hadn't asked him for help?
Why bust him at all instead of asking why he didn't answer the call for help? I notice from the article that there was no discussion, just the arrest.
Okay, In the first place I don't believe there should be a law requiring the civillian to help the officer. Being press-ganged seldom leads to anything but resentment, and seldom gets quality assistance.
It is a dumb law, especially when there is apparently a problem with the police/community relations in that state anyway.
Why do I say a problem? It seems everyone here would either run away (OK, that is one choice, although unlikely to be mine), or help anyone BUT a COP IN ILLINOIS.
Here in North Dakota, with the exception of a couple of political hacks, county sherrifs and police chiefs have consistently backed concealed carry laws because they know we are the ones they can depend on for help if they are in a bind. From the attitudes seen here, I wouldn't expect the pollice there to be in a rush to back such initiatives there in Illinois. Especially with the hostility toward the police there--more on that later.
Maybe the "helpful" guy who had helped change the tire on the stolen car is like some other folks around this site and just does not like cops.
I have met a few police officers who were real buttheads, but on balance, most were pretty decent folk--if you were not breaking the law.
I suppose part of that animosity comes from not knowing what new law or regulation you might be breaking at any given time, but rather than direct that animosity at the cops, go after the weasels who have deluged you with laws and regulations which are useless, ridiculous, or just over the top, and get that crap repealed.
I have allready dealt with the idea of rendering unrequested aid to the officer, and how that could be misconstrued as interference (which could be dangerous to everyone involved).
Arresting the guy who had rescued the swimmer in trouble was STUPID on the part of the officers involved.
But if we are seeing a lack of common sense in the police force, then that is just a symptom of a far deeper societal problem, merely a reflection of the lack of common sense in the laws they are duty bound to enforce.
Someone passed the law they arrested this guy for 'breaking', and those nitwits are the ones who should be taken to task. Let them get a real job before you turn them loose in the Legislature again, if ever.
While 'prosecutorial discretion' saved the real abortion of justice, these UNIVERSITY cops (not necessarily the sharpest knives in the law enforcement drawer...) never should have busted the guy.
If Universities have no better rules and regulations than those which would permit this mess, then how can we expect those who graduate from such institutions to have enough sense to pour renal outflow from the proverbial boot, even with the directions engraved on the heel?
When common sense was named, there was a prevalence of such in that part of society which lived to the age of majority. Only the very wealthy or aristocracy could afford to be well enough insulated from the day to day hazards of existence to survive in a time when a mere infection would kill. The stupid were generally weeded out of the working class by their own stupidity or mischance.
Not so today.
As more and more rules are promulgated by those who have been insulated from lifes knocks and dings, and those with deep seated psychological problems which translate themselves into jihad-like agendas, we will see a further departure from common sense. Then, our culture can quit circling the drain and slip down it.
If the rest of us stand idly by and watch, "not getting involved", that will only accelerate the process, not stop it.
Back to whether you feel your neighborhood is worth defending by helping those who defend it: If you do not value where you live enough to assist those who defend your nieghborhood from the criminal element, please don't move here.