>>5971 Well, I assume the logic behind it is that you have a duty to aid your fellow man. As far as criminality, I don't believe it is illegal in the U.S. In fact, we had to pass laws PROTECTING people who tried to save those who didn't want to be. I suppose it doesn't help that the EU is a nanny state. Why does this upset you, did something related to it befall you?

>>5976 If you don't help the person and they die you go to prison but if you do help them and accidently injure them they can sue you in a lot of euro and some non euro countries. You are fucked either way.

>>5985 And you can even be charged with murder if you ignore a dying person despite you not being the person who stabbed them

>>5985 >>5986 Well, fren, that is pretty messed up. As a NEET, I can only advise you avoid normies as much as possible. Sadly, until Christ comes, we are going to be living under retarded laws for quite awhile.

>>5971 The logic is that you could've saved the person but neglected them instead leaving them to die. >>5976 In the US, you are protected under the law if you attempt to help someone in need but injure them, but many people don't care enough to help, don't know how to help, or are afraid to be sued in this sue-happy country. (Even if you tried to save a life and failed, you're fucked if you're taken to court and found guilty of murder and can't sufficiently prove you were being a good Samaritan.) Off-duty doctors also won't usually get involved because good Samaritan laws don't always sufficiently protect them against potential malpractice accusations. If a doctor loses a malpractice case, they'll face fines, jailtime, or even losing their medical license. This isn't an issue for good doctors working within a hospital and having their medical equipment, but on the street on a day off without all their medical supplies? They're fucked in a region that makes no distinction between helping someone on the clock vs off the clock.