No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
While good samaritan laws protect people who help others it doesn't provide immunity. Intentional misconduct or gross negligence are a couple of ways a good samaritan can face legal action. Now, while those are good exceptions to have to protect the victim. Because of a broken/corrupt legal system those exceptions can be used against someone that was just trying to help.
Bottom line: Help others but dont be a hero or a creep. And you reduce your risk of facing charges.
This comes across as if you're on the side of those peddling this (most likely) fake story. While what you said is true, it comes across as unnecessary at best, and malicious at worst to warn others about the "risks" of helping others. Good Samaritans can face legal trouble, but that's exceedingly rare.
Always help others if you're able and do it within a reasonable lens, full stop.
Even if the story is mostly fake, it doesn't absolve the fake guy of being in the wrong.
There's a difference between someone being accused of this if they were legitimately carrying the girl to safety...and someone being accused of this because they grabbed a girl by the arm and held her there for no other reason than to yell at her for not being careful.
Even if your intentions are technically good, you still have to be aware of the consequences of your own actions. This isn't to say, "Don't help people". It's more like, "Are you sure what you're doing is actually helpful?"
I think it might be worth re-reading this comment through the lens of the other comment where you dug up the details of the (alleged) actual story. Not too sure which came first due to the edit in the other comment.
The guy pulled his car over to grab her and lecture her after the incident happened. That's not ok and shouldn't be covered under good Samaritan laws. Really that could be grounds for something like assault charges in some jurisdiction. Potentially if she wasn't a minor she could have even had a decent shot at a self-defense claim if she'd shot him when he grabbed her (this is 'murica after all) he continued to escalate a situation that was already resolved and introduced physical force into circumstances where it wasn't warranted.
What you probably pictured (I know it's what I had in mind) was probably more like someone grabbing a girl to keep her from walking into traffic. That would probably be covered under good Samaritan laws.
But holding onto her after that to yell at her probably wouldn't/shouldn't, that's uncalled for, though there may be a little more leeway there since it would still sort of been in the heat of the moment. Odds are probably pretty good that she wouldn't have even pressed the issue since he just potentially saved her life if that were the case.
As for it being considered a sex offense, I think that's a case of the laws being poorly-crafted, the insane way we craft laws to "protect the children" (except when the rich and powerful are involved apparently) and the justice system being broken because that aspect of it is kind of bullshit and probably should have been thrown out on appeal. What he did was wrong and I think there should be consequences for that, but I don't think there's any reason to think it was wrong in a sexual way unless there are other details to the story that have been glossed over.
And the person you had the conversation with that prompted this either misunderstood the circumstances, possibly because they only got the information second hand themselves, or are trying to twist the details to suit their agenda. The first is probably more likely, but we can't really know for sure.
I dont know anything about this story you mention. What i do know, is that people should understand the risks when they decide to take action. Denying them that knowledge is irresponsible, regardless of how rare those risks occur.
I help if im able and I am happy you do too. But the people that don't help because they are scared of a potential risk of a lawsuit, I dont hold any ill will against them