Iverson Killing and Samaritan Law

Regarding the Sept. 21 commentary by Isabelle R. Gunning on the Sherrice Iverson case, shouldn’t a law school professor know better?

Many of us may have laughed along with the Seinfeld series closer, in which the main characters got convicted of “criminal indifference” because they failed to assist a robbery victim. In the real world, however, bystanders cannot be expected to intercede against pistol-packing thugs. In the Iverson case, David Cash’s situation is decidedly more ambiguous, but how can we know for sure what his intentions were?

There are many reasons a bystander might fail to intercede and then to report the crime. Perhaps the assailant has a gun. Perhaps he is simply bigger and more belligerent and the witness is afraid of him. While these hypothetical reasons may not apply to Cash, it nevertheless seems to me that any good Samaritan law aimed at prosecuting negligent witnesses opens up an enormous gray area which would confound any jury charged with deciding such a case.

JAMES VAN SCOYOC

Los Angeles

*

Re “Spokesman for Slain Girl’s Mother Quits,” Sept. 18: Najee Ali is not dealing in reality. Yolanda Manuel realizes there will be no justice for her daughter as long as Jeremy Strohmeyer is alive to enjoy life and jail, and Cash walks free. Her only relief is financial compensation.

The good news for Manuel is that she now has Ali out of her life, and can move on and seek the compensation she deserves. On the other hand, I do not believe the father deserves any financial compensation, due to his negligence and irresponsibility.

BRENDA MACK

Los Angeles