>>why did the rescuer put the victim down “next to the car” if the reason for her instant action was fear of explosion? Did she attempt to communicate with the victim before moving her? What did the other three people present say, or recommend, or do, or not do?<<
The reason your argument looks so foolish is that none of these things should matter. When someone is trying to rescue another, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what was going on in their mind and just how well informed they are. Otherwise you will end up killing thousands by striking fear in the heart of any would be rescuer. Don’t you see that basic point???
“The reason your argument looks so foolish is that none of these things should matter.”
You’re the one who looks foolish. Whether you like it or not, the law at times requires individuals to exercise judgment, even in very difficult situations. So far, the court has ruled that the rescuer did not exercise sufficient judgment. Too bad you can’t grasp that concept. It’s a difficult situation, and it might later be overturned, but anyone on either side of this issue acts like this is some simple, clear cut case is not dealing with reality.