Jay Wiseman's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Jay Wiseman's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Sunday, October 5th, 2008 | | 4:31 pm |
Hello Fetlife!
Well, what a refreshing change. After years of "my kind" being grudgingly tolerated Tribe.net and/or summarily having our groups "vanish" (along with the email account of the group owner) over on Yahoo, there is _finally_ a place where we kinksters can truly be ourselves and be truly welcomed. I'm talking about www.fetlife.com. There are literally hundreds of kinksters that i know who are already over there, hanging out in a welcoming and vibrant community. Folks, if you're way too damn tired of being "tolerated" (at best) by other social networking sites, please allow me to encourage you to get a fetlife account post-haste. I can be found over the as jay_wiseman Feel free to send me a friend request. Best regards, Jay Current Mood:  chipper | | Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 | | 12:53 pm |
First Responder Class
I'm once again offering a First Responder class. Who: First Responders are trained personnel sent first to the scene of an emergency, particularly a medical emergency. What: First Responders are formally trained and certified to an advanced level to work both individually and as part of a team in the assessment and stabilization of a wide variety of emergency situations, including medical, traumatic, and psychiatric emergencies. They are also trained in hazard control methods, rescue techniques, disaster management, and outdoor survival methods. Where: The class will be held in the Fox Plaza building, on the corner of Polk and Market in San Francisco. When: The class meets on Wednesday evenings from 7:00 to 10:00 from October 8th to December 17th, plus weekend skills sessions to be arranged. Why: This class is especially sensitive to the needs of people in alternative communities such as BDSM practitioners , dungeon monitors, burners, rave staff, sex workers, and harm-reduction advocates. How: The approximately 50-hour class will involve a variety of reading assignments, lectures, videos, guest speakers, skills practice sessions, and simulated emergencies. Cost: Requested donation is $300.00 per person, plus cost of books and materials. Nobody turned away due to lack of funds. RSVP to me at jaywiseman@yahoo.com if interested. | | Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 | | 12:52 pm |
An intenet "addict" takes the "cure" -- sort of
Hi all, Well, this has been interesting. After steadily getting more and more erratic, my DSL connection at home finally failed completely about two weeks ago. The direct result was that I could no longer log on _at_all_ from home. As Pooh said, "Bother." However, it turns out that there has been an indirect, and highly beneficial to me, result. I've joked for years, somewhat ruefully, that if it wasn't for the damned internet I'd have at least another dozen books in print, with my income adjusted accordingly. Well, since my DSL failed the amount of writing I'm doing for commercial publication (I'm currently hard at work on a book on studying for the bar exam on your own), has simply skyrocketed. Pre-DSL-failure I tried, and usually failed, to write 1000 words a day for publication. Actually, I was lucky if I managed 2000 words a week. I just simply couldn't break myself of the habit of logging on first thing in the morning, and the next thing I knew it was noon and I hadn't written a damned thing for commercial publication. Well, in the last two weeks, when I was not traveling, I've written better than 1500 words a day, every single day. The bar exam book is moving towards completion at a quite respectable pace. I get my net "fix" at the library one block from where I live, where I can reserve an hour a day. There are also cheap net cafes nearby if "the craving" grows too intense. So...I've pointedly decided to NOT fix the fractured DSL at my house, at least for now. I really need to devote more time to writing for commerical publication, and this -- so far at least -- has shown itself to be the only sure way to accomplish this. So this is, while certainly not good-bye, my "official" (ha!) notice that my online presence is likely going to be *substantially* reduced for the foreseeable future. I'll be checking my email and private messages daily (most days), and getting back reasonably promptly, but as to online discussions and so forth you will likely be seeing me _much_ less than you have in the past. Have fun you guys. I'll still be seeing you at munches, classes, and so forth, and there's also this telewhatsit on my desk, but as to tribes, yahoo groups, and so forth, it'll likely be quite a while before you again see very much of me. Very best regards, Jay
| | Friday, June 13th, 2008 | | 6:04 pm |
Murder charges in death of son tied to tree
NC couple face murder in death of son tied to tree
By MIKE BAKER – 6 hours ago RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A couple accused of tying their 13-year-old son to a tree for two nights to punish him for disobedience has been charged with murder in his death, authorities said Friday. Brice Brian McMillan, 41, of Macclesfield, told a deputy that the child was being disobedient and was forced to sleep outside Tuesday while tied to a tree, the Edgecombe County Sheriff's Office said. The teenager was released Wednesday morning but again tied up that night for bad behavior, authorities said. The boy was left tied to the tree until the following afternoon when his stepmother found him unresponsive, Sheriff James Knight said. Knight said authorities believe the boy was bound to the tree with plastic ties and possibly other kinds of material. "An adult couldn't get out of those," he said. Temperatures in the area rose to above 90 degrees on Thursday afternoon, with a low of 73, according to the National Weather Service. Knight would not discuss any details on the cause of death, saying an autopsy was being conducted at the state chief medical examiner's office in Chapel Hill. The sheriff also didn't have details on why the boy was being punished, although he said deputies were investigating whether he had run away. Dwight Jefferson, an emergency responder with Pinetops Rescue Squad who was first on the scene, said he did not know the cause of the child's death. "What we found was a 13-year-old laying on the ground — CPR being done by his father," Jefferson said. "Then we took over." Knight said the boy was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. McMillan and Sandra Elizabeth McMillan, 36, also have been charged with felony child abuse. Two other children at the home, ages 7 and 9, have been placed in the custody of the Department of Social Services, authorities said. Knight said he does not know of any past allegations of child abuse in the family. He also said he could not release the name of the boy. The McMillans are being held in the Edgecombe County Detention Center under no bond and are scheduled for a first appearance in court Monday. The sheriff's office said they did not know if the couple had an attorney. Macclesfield is about 90 miles east of Durham. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gaONsLOskXazSdPmecD_LtJLtwzgD919C1QO2
| | Saturday, May 31st, 2008 | | 2:52 pm |
Those wacky Canadians!
Canadian pierces lover's heart in botched sex game Fri May 16, 2008 10:20am EDT
OTTAWA (Reuters) - A Canadian man who asked his lover to carve a heart-shaped symbol on his chest during a rough sex game almost died when she accidentally pressed too hard and punctured his heart, a newspaper said on Thursday.
The Winnipeg Free Press said the 25-year-old woman had been sentenced to three years' probation after she pleaded guilty to assaulting the man in February 2007.
The 24-year-old man was initially given little chance of survival but made a full recovery and is backing the woman. Both had been drinking heavily and engaging in rough sex when he asked the woman to carve the symbol, the paper said.
(Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Peter Galloway)
| | Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 | | 1:13 pm |
"a loss of certain illusions"
[What follows is from "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton (pg. 395 of paperback edition)] "He realized then that his experience in the crevasse had changed him -- and changed him permanently. Someone had tried to kill him. He could never have imagined such a thing growing up in suburban Cleveland, or in college, or law school. He could never have imagined such a thing while living his daily life, going to work at his firm in Los Angeles. And so he could not have predicted the way that he felt changed by it now. He felt as if he had been physically moved -- as if someone had picked him up and shifted him ten feet to one side. He was no longer standing in the same place. He had also been changed internally. He felt a kind of solid impassivity he had not known before. There were unpleasant realities in the world, and previously he had averted his eyes from them, or changed the subject, or made excuses for what had occurred. He had imagined that this was an acceptable strategy in life -- in fact, that it was a more humane strategy. He no longer believed that. If someone tried to kill you, you did not have the option of averting your eyes or changing the subject. You were forced to deal with that person's behavior. The experience was, in the end, a loss of certain illusions. The world was not how you wanted it to be. The world was how it was. There were bad people in the world. They had to be stopped. | | Friday, May 16th, 2008 | | 5:40 pm |
California Supreme Court eyes polygamy
Hi all, In it's recent 4 to 3 ruling that the ban on gay marriage was a violation of the California Constitution (gay marriage foes intend to place a measure on the ballot to alter the state's constitution this November), the court considered how this ruling might affect those who in the future wanted to enter into polygamous (or, btw, incestuous) marriages. Indeed, Justice Baxter, in his dissent, cited precisely these concerns as one of the reasons he was voting to uphold the ban. In it's own way, his words hold out hope for us poly folk. Best, Jay Sayeth Justice Baxter: The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deep-rooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep-rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law. That approach creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory. Who can say that, in ten, fifteen, or twenty years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified? | | Friday, April 25th, 2008 | | 9:59 am |
Wife charged in husband's bondage death
Woman charged with bondage death of husband
Associated Press
Originally published 06:32 a.m., April 23, 2008
Updated 06:32 a.m., April 23, 2008
COLUMBIA, Tenn. — A Maury County woman has been
charged with reckless homicide for what her attorney
says was the accidental asphyxiation of her husband
after he consented to be bound and gagged.
"The whole family is upset with what occurred," Samuel
Patterson, an attorney representing 25-year-old
Rebecca Bargy, told Columbia newspaper The Daily
Herald. "We stand by the fact that this was an
accident."
According to the arrest warrant, Rebecca Bargy placed
duct tape over James Bargy's mouth and eyes, put a
ball gag in his mouth and then tied a bandage around
his head, leaving only his nostrils showing.
She also tied his hands and legs behind his back. She
then left him for 20 hours.
"Apparently, this was not the first time it had
happened," Maury County Sheriff's Detective Anthony
Bailey said of the bondage.
Authorities found the 29-year-old' s body around 4
p.m. Saturday. Rebecca Bargy faces up to 12 years in
prison if found guilty.
"The proof will show that James consented to this
being done to him and that he was an active
participant, " Patterson said.
But detectives told Nashville television station WTVF
Rebecca Bargy was having an affair with another man.
James Bargy's sister, Lisa Brady, wrote in an e-mail
to WTVF, "Rebecca has repeatedly engaged in
extramarital affairs over the last few months. She
made sure she got him out of the way so she could have
her single life again."
Rebecca Bargy has a bond hearing set for 8:30 a.m.
Wednesday in Mt. Pleasant. She has pleaded not guilty
to the charges.
http://www.knoxnews .com/news/ 2008/apr/ 23/maury- county-woman- charged-bondage- death-husband/
| | Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 | | 11:04 am |
First Aid/CPR class
Hi all, It was my pleasure, and my privilege, to fly down to Los Angeles this past weekend to teach a First Aid/CPR class for the Threshold DMs. I've done such classes several times before, in a number of different cities, and find doing so very rewarding. If you'd be interested in discussing my coming to your city to teach a similar class, please feel free to drop me a line at jaywiseman@yahoo.com Best regards, Jay
| | Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008 | | 11:43 am |
So about that new "compression only" (alleged) CPR
Given that I teach FA/CPR classes, and have participated in hundreds of actual resuscitations, people have started sending me the story about the "New CPR" that eliminates giving ventilations. Having been involved in this matter for over 30 years, I find this to be one of the most *Disastrous* recommendations ever made -- and far more heavily driven by market demand (basically, people *want* to be told that they don't have to give mouth-to-mouth) than by actual research. I lost track, many years ago, of how many potentially save-able victims I saw turn blue and become brain dead after they were not adequately ventilated while good-quality compressions were still being given. Given this horrid reality, I will not be teaching this technique and will be doing everything in my power to discourage its being taught elsewhere. Among other things, giving compressions without breaths to a cardiac arrest patient has a very good chance of leaving the resucer open to a negligence lawsuit. Please feel free to forward this. Most sincerely, Jay Wiseman, JD FA/CPR Instructor. | | Monday, March 24th, 2008 | | 9:30 am |
Musings on matters TNG-ish
[I posted this in reply to a friend's blog post, and decided to post it here as well on a "just because" basis.]
It's interesting, and more than a bit sad, to observe that "the whole TNG thing" (which is, if only behind closed doors, admittedly exclusionary to a significant degree -- if the "leaks" from the recent TNG conference are credible, and I believe they are) is based to a substantial degree on the fact that relatively young women coming into our community got "greeted and welcomed" by relatively older men to such an obnoxious degree that the younger people felt the need to create a "safe" (from the older guys) space for themselves. It's also very interesting to note that this "TNG thing" caught on across the country in fairly short order, suggesting that many younger people across the country were facing similar problematic situations. {Of course, one almost can't speak aloud about the long-established and "rampant on steroids" ageism in the gay male community, although it's occasionally discussed in the gay media. We think that "our" TNG people are ageist? Hoo boy! One nationally famous leatherman whose name I dare not mention has an absolutely scandalously bitchy rant about how the whole "Old Guard" thing was a scam thought up by aging leathermen so they could get dates with the hot young hunks -- who otherwise wouldn't give them the time of day.) Add in that people in general tend to sort themselves by important personal similarities (this just in: similarities attract _much_ more strongly than opposites -- which is what makes the exceptions to that general rule story-worthy.) and it makes sense. People generally tend to sort by important personal similarities/compatabilities in politics, career interests, religion, diet, sexual orientation, kink orientation, and, yes, in age. An exception to this general rule of people sorting by important personal similarities is that youth in a female is a cross-cultural indicator of attractiveness. Apparently (I should have saved the sociology journal reference) this is because in a female youth implies fertilty. By contrast, in many cultures and in many animal species, in a male it's age that indicates attractiveness. Apparently (again, references not available on request <G>) age in a male tends to signal good genes. The thinking -- at least at the lizard-brain level -- is that this guy lived long enough to get old, so there must be *something* genetically desirable about him, right? On a more social level, in humans older men have just simply had more of an opportunity than younger men to acquire things such as wealth, education, and status in their community -- all of which increase their attractiveness to women. On a personal level, I don't particularly mind that I've gotten older. (Hey, it beat the alternative.) I also don't particularly envy younger people or especially desire younger women. For me, in terms of relationship (or simply personal friendship) "the conversation" is all important, and I'm more likely to have high-quality conversations with women (and men) approximately my own age than with people who are significantly younger (or older) than me, although occasionally I encounter delightful exceptions to this. That said, I increasingly encounter people in the BDSM (and/or poly) scene and it occurs to me that I've been in the scene longer than they've been alive. I was a club officer, party giver, and presenter when they were, for example, in day care -- and yet now many of them are club officers, party givers, and presenters. It's...food for thought. In any event, I neither have any particular burning desire to hang out with TNG folks nor do I have any particular burning resentment about being excluded from some of their events. I get along with/feel attracted to some of them, and not get along with/feel attracted to some of them -- pretty much like I do with the older folks. So, basically, I wish the TNG folks well. I feel a bit saddened that they felt the need to create a protected space for themselves, but I can understand their point of view. Best regards to all, Jay -- who thinks about things like estate planning a lot more than he used to
| | Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 | | 10:39 am |
| | Thursday, March 6th, 2008 | | 11:01 am |
| | Saturday, March 1st, 2008 | | 11:06 am |
EMS Backboard as Suspension Bondage Rescue Device
EMS Backboard as Suspension Bondage Rescue Device
Copyright 2008 by Jay Wiseman, First Responder Instructor So the other night this old dog learned a new trick. In the wake of some recent unfortunate incidents, some of the people local to the San Francisco Bay Area BDSM scene who are particularly knowledgeable and experienced regarding suspension bondage organized a one-evening educational event for DM-types regarding how to evaluate a suspension bondage scene. The presenters included Loki, JD of the Two Knotty Boys, Madame Butterfly, and a few others. The well-attended event was held without charge at the SF Citadel. Kudos to all. It was a very good use of an evening and much good stuff was presented. The strong and widespread sense of concern for and commitment to the well-being of the people in our community was very touching to see. I would definitely like to see more such events, maybe even one every three months or so on a particular topic. One thing in particular jumped out at me. Many of us are familiar with the multi-faceted difficulties of getting a person in suspension bondage down onto the ground in a rapid yet controlled manner should a serious difficulty emerge. So here’s a thought: how about bringing the ground (so to speak) up to the suspended person? How to do this was demonstrated by placing a bottom in suspension bondage, assuming that a serious difficulty had emerged, and having some people bring out an EMS-style long backboard and placing it under the suspended bottom, then lifting the backboard up to support their weight (at least two people are needed for this and – space allowing – four is not too many) while the top and/or DMs work on the more immediate problem – which is often made much easier to deal with once a bit of slack becomes available in the suspension ropes. Once freed, the backboard, with the bottom on it, is then lowered to the ground in a stable, controlled manner where the bottom is given further care as indicated. It was also pointed out that the backboard should, as a general rule, only be used to accomplish the emergency lowering. Should it become necessary to transport the bottom out of the facility, that task should usually be left to the EMS crews. Folks, speaking as one who has used backboards on numerous occasions (although admittedly not in a scenario like the one described above), I *like* this idea. Backboards are typically about six feet by 18 inches and rated to at least 400 pounds. The newer ones are made of a very sturdy plastic-like material that, unlike the older wooden backboards, allows for excellent disinfection. Backboards are readily available, not terribly expensive -- quite adequate backboards can be purchased for about $100.00 -- and as the demo showed the learning curve for how to use one in such a situation is quite reasonable. Such a lecture/demo/practice session could quite easily be added to DM-type training programs. It is obvious that the use of a backboard to support the weight of the bottom can be extremely valuable in the event of a suspension bondage emergency. Given their excellent cost/benefit ratio, it can quite reasonably be said that the time has come for every space where groups of people play and suspension bondage is engaged in to have a backboard discreetly tucked away where, if necessary, it can rapidly be brought into use by properly trained personnel. Backboards are available from numerous EMS vendors. Here are three: Galls: www.galls.com Life Assist: www.life-assist.com Moore Medical: www.mooremedical.com
| | Thursday, February 28th, 2008 | | 5:00 pm |
| | Thursday, February 7th, 2008 | | 3:55 pm |
A Name For It
Many years ago, a friend of mine coined a term for the on-going "dwama" associated with the BDSM community. He titled it, "As The Whip Turns." I hereby nominate, to serve a similar function in the poly community, the term "All My Partners." In our latest episode, Jody told Tim that she felt that Bill was not respecting her boundaries but Susie told Jamie that Tim and Jody were actually in NRE with Patti. Meanwhile. Brad and Betty decided to become secondaries, but Helen felt that Betty hadn't properly told Brad about the time that Helen and Shirley... Best, Jay | | Saturday, January 26th, 2008 | | 10:32 am |
Are we men a bunch of lying pricks?
Some years ago, I was at a private play party being held in a large house that had a number of private rooms. A woman I knew somewhat approached me for a scene. She really liked being tied up with rope so that she couldn't get loose but had a hard time finding men whose skills were good enough to prevent that. She had heard about my special interest in rope bondage. We talked beforehand about what the scene would and wouldn't involve. (Me and my negotiation fetish, don'tcha know?) One of the things she *wasn't* interested in was that the play be sexual. Given that "sexual" is a somewhat vague term, I proceeded to ask her if several different acts would or would not be OK. All of them were not. OK. Candidly, I don't much like doing nonsexual scenes but I figured what the hey. I find her attractive, we seem to have a certain rapport, the scene will probably be "adequately" fun anyway, and who knows what the future might bring, right? So we do the scene, and it's actually not half bad. (For a non-sexual scene, anyway.) Oh, and no, she couldn't get loose. <G>
So the scene is finished and she's getting dressed when I hear her quietly say, almost more to herself than me, "You actually kept the agreement to not be sexual. That was interesting." Huh? I turn to look at her, my jaw hanging open. "What do you mean?" I ask her. "You're the first one who ever did that," she replies. HUH??? "Yeah," she continues, "All of the other men have just gone ahead and had sex with me anyway." I cannot believe what I'm hearing. "What do they say afterwards?" "Usually something like, Oh, it just happened." I just stare at her, stunned into speechlessness. Then it dawns on me that she was likely thinking that I would break the agreement as well. She went into the scene anticipating that that would happen. All throughout the scene a part of her brain was waiting for that to "just happen." She was expecting that I would break my word. A part of me starts to become really angry at her that she would think that of me, but I decide to not say anything. After all, I had kept my agreements. We finish up and rejoin the party. I get to thinking about her prior experiences. That's not OK. It didn't "just happen." A blue car driving by on the street outside the house "just happened." A cloud drifting overhead "just happened." A man intentionally engaging in sexual behavior after he has explicitly promised to not do that is *not* something that "just happened." No, that assertion just plain doesn't fly. Over the next several months, we go on to have several more private play dates of a similar nature, although as she gets to know me better certain things that were previously not OK now become OK. I love happy endings. So a short while ago, at a small dinner with some local kinksters, I tell this story and one woman at the table replies, "What's your point?" When she sees that I'm kind of staring at her she continues, "That's more the norm than the exception." The other woman at the table looks at me and ruefully nods agreement. It gets me to thinking, when Greenery Press was considering publishing "The Kinky Girl's Guide to Dating" I was one of the pre-publication manuscript readers. After I had read the manuscript, I called the publisher and said, "Are you sure you want to publish this? It's basically one long catalog of horror stories about what jerks the local male doms are. An awful lot of these stories are about men lying to get sex, lying about their other relationships, and lying about other important things. If I was a local submissive woman I'd feel like running screaming in the opposite direction. No way I'd want to get involved with these guys." What particularly bothered me about the manuscript was that the author wasn't talking about newbie men. She was talking about established, well-known guys. Guys seen at places like local munches with some frequency. Guys (supposedly!) well educated about basic SM principles such as consent, respecting limits, and so forth. Guys who *knew better* than to pull crap like that. This bothered me, rather a lot, particularly the implications. So what I basically have here is at least three women, all of whom seem fairly rational and emotionally stable with no anti-male axe to grind, and all of whom are separately affirming that being lied to by men -- in particular, being lied to by local, known, supposedly educated men -- in order to get sex/play/etc. is a *common* experience for them. In particular, incidents involving men lying or breaking agreements in order to "get" sex and/or to avoid using condoms seem to be extremely common. (In "The Kinky Girl's Guide" manuscript the author recounts an incident in which she wakes up to find her dom fucking her. She's not too drowsy to discover that he's not wearing a condom, which is a direct violation of their safer sex agreements. He was apparently hoping that she'd be too sleepy to notice. When she angrily asks him why he did this, his only reply is a hangdog facial expression. Their relationship ends soon thereafter.) In my travels across the country, women in other locales have affirmed the basic truth of this. We men are notorious for outright lying (about really important things) to women in order to get play, to get sex, and/or to avoid using condoms. My God, is the situation really *that* bad? | | Sunday, December 23rd, 2007 | | 9:30 am |
Security guards and first aid
Hi all, A case report of medical emergency recently came to my attention. In brief, a medical emergency occurred, and the security guard was completely ineffectual in his response. Fortunately, the emergency was handled quite well by a Good Samaritan who happened to be on the scene (and who is related to one of my former FA/CPR students.) So over on the FA/CPR/EMT instructor list I posted the query about the duty of security guards to provide hands-on first aid care should the need arise. One idiot (who teaches Gawdonly knows how many FA/CPR classes) responded that guards only have a duty to call 911 and that actually touching a victim "would take the guard outside of their Good Samaritan protection." My reply is below. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx I have posted the "SCRAPP Land" duty-to-act mnemonic to this list several times and therefore will forego posting it yet again here, however the "C" stands for "contract" -- a duty to act can be created by contract. When a security guard company contracts with a corporation for the company's guards to protect the employees and property of the corporation, the guards therefore have a duty to act in the event of a medical (or other) emergency. The standard of care under a duty to act is "reasonable care under the circumstances." If the medical emergency was not too severe, then merely calling 911 would likely meet the reasonable care under the circumstances standard of care. However, if the medical emergency was in fact quite severe, such as a cardiac arrest, obstructed airway, or severe bleeding, and no one else who had a duty to act was immediately available, and no competent Good Samaritan stepped forward, then there would be an obligation (a duty) on the part of the security guard to provide hands-on emergency care. Failure to do so would be a breach of the guard's duty of care and leave the guard (and the company that employs them) liable for all subsequent damages, including wrongful death. As to the Good Samaritan law, that is statute-created law that typically shields a rescuer who has *NO DUTY* to act but steps forward and acts anyway because they are...well...a Good Samaritan. Some states' Good Samaritan laws, by their statutory language, also protect on-duty first responders such as cops, firefighters, ambulance crews, and so forth. (A few states require that the rescuer be currently certified to be covered under that state's Good Sam act. If memory serves, Kentucky is one such state.) While most Good Sam laws are state laws, there is also a federal Good Sam law that protects Good Samaritans on aircraft. Because it is good public policy to encourage people to come to each other's aid in time of emergency, a typical Good Samaritan law protects someone who has no duty to respond but who responds anyway if said Samaritan screws up and causes further damage during their rescue attempt. Normally, a person would be liable for causing such further damage, but the Good Sam law shields a rescuer who has no duty but acts anyway, and makes things worse. More specifically,if the Good Sam's causing of further harm was entirely accidental or due to simple negligence (as opposed to gross negligence or willful misconduct) then the Good Samaritan is shielded from being liable. Note: as a general rule, Good Sam laws do *not* apply in the workplace. Workplace employees rendering aid to other employees, customers, and others -- even trespassers -- are not (repeat: not) covered by the Good Sam law because they have a duty to act. They are, however, covered by their employer's insurance. A while ago, I mentioned this point during a workplace class I was teaching and the entire response team was absolutely shocked to learn this. One member mentioned that they had been taking this training for over a dozen years and that every single previous instructor had told them that they *were* covered by the Good Sam law while providing work-related emergency care. What this means is that every single previous instructor had given them absolutely false information. Jay Wiseman (part-time law school professor, and working on a book on the legal aspects of emergency care)
| | Saturday, December 22nd, 2007 | | 11:45 am |
A new book -- good but disturbing
[the following is a very lightly edited version of an email that I sent to an attorney friend of mine who specializes in privacy rights]
Hey there! How are things? Lunch sometime soon? Say, o' privacy activist friend o' mine, my interest in search and seizure law continues to grow and I therefore continue to educate myself on this topic. Pursuant thereto, I have just finished reading a book that I found both very interesting and very distrubing -- and which made me think of you (and privacy) considerably more than once. The book is called "Arrest-proof Yourself" and it's written by former police officer and FBI Agent Dale Carson, who is now a criminal defense lawyer in Florida. The book is literally dripping with way way politically incorrect, way way too true truth about the realities of who tends to get arrested, and why, in this country at this time. I never once felt that he hit a false note and everything he writes is entirely consistent with my own education and experience. He concentrates on very useful specifics regarding how to not get arrested in the first place, and why this is so important. His advice and insight are absolutely first-rate. OK, all well and good (very good, actually) but why, you may be thinking, does all this make me think of you and, more specifically, the work you do? It's as follows: Apparently, many companies have quietly instituted a policy of either not hiring, or quietly firing, any employee who has ever been *arrested* (note: *not* convicted, but merely arrested) for any reason whatsoever. I don't recall the rationale for this policy but I presume it's likely something along the lines of "where there's smoke there must be fire" thinking, along with thinking that people who have been arrested (apparently something like one person in four of the entire population) are more likely to be "problematic" employees than are people who have never been arrested. Apparently, companies can purchase access to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) databases and can now "run" somebody as part of routine pre-employment or ongoing screening, and if an employee pops up as ever having been arrested, out they go (or in they never get). Bothers me, this does. Thoughts? Best, Jay | | Saturday, October 27th, 2007 | | 8:56 am |
|
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jay_wiseman's journal