The COVID-19 pandemic has affected virtually all daily activities, relations and practices. People were expected to act responsibly by following social distancing, masking, sanitation and stay-home rules. The prevailing ethos of the time was that to protect others, one must first protect oneself. By examining the creative modalities through which (a few) people in Paris circumvented mobility restrictions to help and support those in need, this article investigates the relation between (im)mobility and (ir)responsibility. Is mobility, during a time of forced immobility, an irresponsible act? What does it mean to act responsibly during a life-threatening emergency? Does responsibility always require complete and unequivocal compliance with extant norms, or should responsibility also be evaluated in light of the motives that inspire (unauthorised) mobility? The issue of (ir)responsible (im)mobility is scrutinised here by drawing upon the work of Emmanuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida. While the former furthers our understanding of ethical relations, the latter makes us rethink the concept of response-ability and, in particular, the aporia this concept entails. As Derrida highlights, truly ethical acts are impossible for the very reason that all ethical acts are, at the very same time, responsible towards some and irresponsible towards others.