or examples those who do not. but i ve never seen anything like this. in the common law there s a principle called the duty of rescue. it s misnomer. it is a duty not to rescue saying that you don t have to rescue someone when f you didn t put them into peril. this is the first time i have seen a police officer or firefighter say that they can use that same principle. because if you take this to its natural conclusion, it wouldn t be just the pets that necessarily could have died. under this same logic, they could have watched people die in the house and say that s not our problem. you didn t give us $75. as we contemplate a tea party america and the idea that you could just back off what we consider the standard responsibilities of government, local or national towards its people, what can t you make optional? well, that s the real question. i mean, we seem to particularly in the last few years be returning to a state of nature.
in the common law there s a principle called the duty of rescue. it s misnomer. it is a duty not to rescue saying that you don t have to rescue someone when f you didn t put them into peril. this is the first time i have seen a police officer or firefighter say that they can use that same principle. because if you take this to its natural conclusion, it wouldn t be just the pets that necessarily could have died. under this same logic, they could have watched people die in the house and say that s not our problem. you didn t give us $75. as we contemplate a tea party america and the idea that you could just back off what we consider the standard responsibilities of government, local or national towards its people, what can t you make optional? well, that s the real question. i mean, we seem to particularly in the last few years be returning to a state of nature. you see states and cities that are throwing over the side critical programs, selling
and then you can use as symbols or examples those who do not. but i ve never seen anything like this. in the common law there s a principle called the duty of rescue. it s misnomer. it is a duty not to rescue saying that you don t have to rescue someone when f you didn t put them into peril. this is the first time i have seen a police officer or firefighter say that they can use that same principle. because if you take this to its natural conclusion, it wouldn t be just the pets that necessarily could have died. under this same logic, they could have watched people die in the house and say that s not our problem. you didn t give us $75. as we contemplate a tea party america and the idea that you could just back off what we consider the standard responsibilities of government, local or national towards its people, what can t you make optional? well, that s the real question. i mean, we seem to particularly