Bystander Cases

Everyday humans are presented with new opportunities and situations. These events can change the way they think and make decisions. But it's the way it can change ones relationships that can really hurt one's ability to care. There is a total of 7.442 billion people alive today. Yet only a small portion of that are people one truly cares about. For many people, a specific setting, situation or emotion can alter the way people can think rationally.

In the book Bystander, Eric, the protagonist, was a bystander, who noticed about bullying but, never did anything about it. Eric learned to take action for what is right to prevent from bullying and not be a bystander. As Eric realized that he was a bystander, he learned to stand up and confront the bullies.

Police officers are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to accept gratuities. This dilemma is an aspect of police discretion and an example of the choices that officers are forced to make. Police officers have discretion when confronted with choices such as whether or not to charge an individual, how to handle certain situations, or whether to accept a gratuity. This purpose of this article is to inform readers that police discretion not only encompasses use of force, police profiling, or domestic violence responses, but that police officers also have discretionary choices when gratuities are offered to them. Should police officers accept a gratuity,

In the book “Bystander by James Preller the main character Eric is a thirteen year old 7th grade boy who faces difficulties that change him as a person and how he views things. Eric’s parents get divorced causing his little brother Rudy, his mom and himself to move to Long Island from Ohio. Eric’s mom then enrolls Eric into a new school in which he does not fit into and he when he eventually fits in he finds the wrong friends.

An accomplice (Etzweiler) can only be held liable for a crime that he intended to facilitate negligent homicide, in which this case he did not have

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

It is the government’s ordained and foremost right to provide its citizens with reliable protection and security, especially in the face of an emergency. However, the government’s failure to provide equitable care, causing damage, injury, or death, results in legal negligence, or a person not acting to their given standard resulting in damage. In the case of Riss v. The City of New York, Linda Riss experienced negligent conduct from the New York City police department when, after she was repeatedly threatened by a rejected suitor, they did nothing to protect her until after she was mutilated with acid. With protection and ongoing investigation, Riss would have been kept safe under the responsibility that the police failed to adhere to.

not the use of fatal force was indeed necessary to use upon an unarmed civilian, and if not, it

In the United States today if you as an officer put either you or your department in a liability, for any type of act that is not warranted and handled in a professional manner you are opening yourself for a number of different actions which could hurt both you, your department as well as causing you to loss everything that you own, just because you decided to not following proper protocals which were developed for you department.

Mr. Graham was later released when the officer establishes that nothing had happened in the store. Graham then sued the police department, claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The Supreme Court later ruled that the police officers be held accountable under the Constitution and federal law for using excessive force on Graham. The court also ruled that such liability must base on the standard of objective sensibleness. (Carmen,

Throughout history, mankind has been frowned upon because of their selfish acts. For example, slavery. There were many who disagreed with slavery but didn’t step in and stop it for the fear of being persecuted themselves. Yes, for the most part it has been abolished but so much in this world could’ve been stopped much earlier if people would have stood up and acted. Humans are terrible at fighting for the rights of others.

My concerns about the case of Hiibel v. the State of Nevada was first, his daughter safety. The second, difficult not obeying the law. There is a saying, to obey is better than sacrifice. Third, if the police officers dispatched to a wrong location, it causes such events. Proper information given to the officers during an emergency will help. Individuals who are not responding, it may be a chance of getting arrested, detained and charged. An example, Sept 4, 2014, in Missouri a man strolling without any suspicion of crime was tackled and arrested for not identify himself. A report by PINAC media confirmed the man detained cost $500 for bail. These cases have their positive and negative future results in the nation.

Is it the correct thing to do and our duty as humans to help each other out? In the article, “The Killing of Kitty Genovese” by Michael Dorman, the author describes how a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed while 38 neighbors watched from above. One man yelled out, “Let that girl alone.” In effect, the predator walked away. Immediately after the neighbors closed their windows he came ferociously and stabbed her four more times until she eventually bled out and died. Overall, in this situation was it truly that hard to pick up a cell phone and phone the police? The failure to take action can lead to many more fatalities and injuries in the long run as it did in the case of Kitty Genovese.

c) within the limits of their responsibility failed to devote adequate resources and personnel to the protection of the Plaintiff d) breached their statutory duty as provided in Police Act, and particularly s. 57 (McClure, 1990, pg. 169) In the following, the paper will discuss the negligence of the Toronto Police Service in respects to the claims mentioned above by Jane Doe. By investigating negligent misconduct, the failure of the police demonstrates how their discriminatory practices indirectly led to the victimization of Jane Doe. In order to determine whether the Defendants owed a private law duty of care to Jane Doe (who suffered a loss) revolves around the parallel of the foreseeability of risk and a special relationship of proximity

Throughout the entire situation, there were multiple bystanders that not only saw the situation, but understood what was going on. In the perspectives provided in the clip, the people obviously knew that the situation was wrong, but in the first scenario they did absolutely nothing. To me, this is disturbing because I feel that most people act this way and do not stand up for what we know is wrong. What's worse about the situation, is that the bystanders' inability to step in and stand up for what they believe in resulted in a horrific consequence for the girl. In the end, she was raped, and the bystanders probably will not understand that they could have prevented the situation and that the blame is partially on them.