State Emergency Poll

[Miss Chicken]

This issue has been raised in a thread elsewhere but I thought I would conduct a poll in Miscellaneous on the issue.

Yesterday a woman had to be rescued because, she and a male friend, decided it would 'fun' to raft down a flooding river using only an inflatable sex doll. I suggested that such reckless behaviour should be against the law once a state of emergency has been called.

The question therefore is - Once a state of emergency has been called in a natural disaster zone should people be able to be charged with reckless behaviour if their actions mean that they placed themselves in a position in which they had to be rescued?

 

[Amaris]

I'll have to go with no on that one, Miss Chicken. "State Emergency" and "reckless behavior" are just way too vague to properly enforce them. There's also the matter that in a huge emergency, there's lots of chaos, too much to try and figure out whether someone was being reckless, or merely had a moment of ill fortune cause their predicament.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I'll have to go with no on that one, Miss Chicken. "State Emergency" and "reckless behavior" are just way too vague to properly enforce them. There's also the matter that in a huge emergency, there's lots of chaos, too much to try and figure out whether someone was being reckless, or merely had a moment of ill fortune cause their predicament.

State Emergency isn't vague at all. I am talking about a DECLARED state emergency. i.e. the government (be it state or national government) has declared that a certain region is in a state of emergency.

It is possible for a court to determine if someone is driving recklessly, why not for other reckless behaviour?

I think they law could be worded in such a way to only cover certain behaviour such as deliberately entering a flood zone for the purpose of recreation. They is no way there could be any excuse for someone purposely entering the water with only a blowup doll.

I think such a law could also be applied to sight-seers who enter a disaster area.

 

[Amaris]

State Emergency isn't vague at all. I am talking about a DECLARED state emergency. i.e. the government (be it state or national government) has declared that a certain region is in a state of emergency.

The definition of a state emergency isn't so vague, but the specifics of the emergency make all the difference in the world.

It is possible for a court to determine if someone is driving recklessly, why not for other reckless behaviour?

I think they law could be worded in such a way to only cover certain behaviour such as deliberately entering a flood zone for the purpose of recreation. They is no way there could be any excuse for someone purposely entering the water with only a blowup doll.

Your key word there is "purposely". Intent is hard as hell to pin down in such a situation like that. Sure, blow-up doll seems easy enough. What about a door? chair? table? What about a kayak? In the midst of chaos, such as flash flooding or forest fire, keeping order is hard enough without having new laws and regulations being enforced to capture people suspected of tomfoolery.

I think such a law could also be applied to sight-seers who enter a disaster area.

How do you enforce it without detaining innocent people?

 

[Switch]

Folks can do whatever the fuck they like with their own bodies. This we call 'liberty'.

 

[Miss Chicken]

In Australia it is illegal for anyone to drive without a seatbelt or on a bike without a helmet and I believe that this is the same in many states in the USA. Therefore one cannot do what they like with their own bodies.

 

[Amaris]

Folks can do whatever the fuck they like with their own bodies. This we call 'liberty'.

Sure, but Miss Chicken is bringing up the point that these people will be rescued, which takes time and resources. My concern is in the law itself, in that I think it would be realistically unenforceable.

 

[Miss Chicken]

State Emergency isn't vague at all. I am talking about a DECLARED state emergency. i.e. the government (be it state or national government) has declared that a certain region is in a state of emergency.

The definition of a state emergency isn't so vague, but the specifics of the emergency make all the difference in the world.

It is possible for a court to determine if someone is driving recklessly, why not for other reckless behaviour?

I think they law could be worded in such a way to only cover certain behaviour such as deliberately entering a flood zone for the purpose of recreation. They is no way there could be any excuse for someone purposely entering the water with only a blowup doll.

Your key word there is "purposely". Intent is hard as hell to pin down in such a situation like that. Sure, blow-up doll seems easy enough. What about a door? chair? table? What about a kayak? In the midst of chaos, such as flash flooding or forest fire, keeping order is hard enough without having new laws and regulations being enforced to capture people suspected of tomfoolery.

I think such a law could also be applied to sight-seers who enter a disaster area.

How do you enforce it without detaining innocent people?

In Queensland, in an effort to stop looters, they have been asking for people to show that they live in an area before allowing them through roadblocks. If someone has been denied entrance to an area and later is found in that area they should be charged with failing to obey lawful commands.

 

[Switch]

Sure, but Miss Chicken is bringing up the point that these people will be rescued, which takes time and resources.

Most folks who find themselves in need of rescue could've avoided their predicament one way or another. We rescue them anyway - if we can - because we're human beings. And we don't get out the actuarial tables because we're not bloodthirsty capitalists but rather a society. Nobody actually goes out thinking "oh well, if I really screw this up emergency services will be there to save me!"

 

[Miss Chicken]

Folks can do whatever the fuck they like with their own bodies. This we call 'liberty'.

Sure, but Miss Chicken is bringing up the point that these people will be rescued, which takes time and resources. My concern is in the law itself, in that I think it would be realistically unenforceable.

Yes, they should only be charged if they have been needed to be rescued. I think they would only be charged if their behavior was reckless beyond a doubt.

A Queensland man has been charged with reckless driving because he drove through a flooded roadway and one of his passengers was swept away and drowned. He could have turned back but chose not to do so.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Sure, but Miss Chicken is bringing up the point that these people will be rescued, which takes time and resources.

Most folks who find themselves in need of rescue could've avoided their predicament one way or another. We rescue them anyway - if we can - because we're human beings. And we don't get out the actuarial tables because we're not bloodthirsty capitalists but rather a society. Nobody actually goes out thinking "oh well, if I really screw this up emergency services will be there to save me!"

I am not saying they shouldn't be saved, I am saying that they should be charged with reckless behaviour which goes far beyond than people making simply bad mistakes during a crisis.

 

[Switch]

I am not saying they shouldn't be saved, I am saying that they should be charged with reckless behaviour which goes far beyond than people making simply bad mistakes during a crisis.

Yeah, that'll teach them not to go white water rafting with a sex doll. Forget the whole near-death experience thing, here comes the law to tell you that what you did was foolish and that you should feel bad! More importantly, all those others who were planning to recklessly endanger their own lives (I myself have it pencilled in for Tuesday) will certainly be deterred from doing so now that the law is here! And let's not forget what's really important here: detaining people and filling out paperwork is exactly what's needed to help society recover from a natural disaster like this. I honestly can't think of a better use for society's resources.

You sound like an American arguing against public healthcare. They did it, they should pay!

 

[Captain_Nick]

Folks can do whatever the fuck they like with their own bodies. This we call 'liberty'.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

The mere fact that current laws exist that steal our liberties from us is not in itself an argument to bring in more such laws.

The fact is if I want to act like a damn fool that's my right. I am not the property of the Australian Government, to be kept alive and preserved even if it is against my own wishes.

I'd sooner kill myself (I'd sooner take down the government in a blaze of glory) than submit to what is in effect slavery.

 

[Amaris]

In Queensland, in an effort to stop looters, they have been asking for people to show that they live in an area before allowing them through roadblocks. If someone has been denied entrance to an area and later is found in that area they should be charged with failing to obey lawful commands.

Seems simple enough. What if that person has no proof they live there? In an emergency, people don't usually think everything through before they act. Grabbing ID papers may be the last thing on someone's mind should, say, a wall of water come rushing through the neighborhood.

Most folks who find themselves in need of rescue could've avoided their predicament one way or another. We rescue them anyway - if we can - because we're human beings. And we don't get out the actuarial tables because we're not bloodthirsty capitalists but rather a society. Nobody actually goes out thinking "oh well, if I really screw this up emergency services will be there to save me!"

In general, although there are people who realize what they're doing is monumentally stupid, yet do it anyway. That said, intent is the hardest part to determine.

Yes, they should only be charged if they have been needed to be rescued. I think they would only be charged if their behavior was reckless beyond a doubt.

A Queensland man has been charged with reckless driving because he drove through a flooded roadway and one of his passengers was swept away and drowned. He could have turned back but chose not to do so.

What if it was the passengers who insisted he try it? While it's unwise to drive through flooded roads, people grossly underestimate the water level, or fatally overestimate their vehicle's capability. What you're looking for is an omniscient arm of the law that can fully realize the intent and purpose of each event, and to be able to do this on the spot in time of emergency. This would eat up considerably more resources and manpower, let alone bog down the legal system in time of chaos.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I believe that the passengers did urge him to drive through. However he was the one in control of the car. He was the one who drove it into the water. He could have said 'no'.

Seems simple enough. What if that person has no proof they live there? In an emergency, people don't usually think everything through before they act. Grabbing ID papers may be the last thing on someone's mind should, say, a wall of water come rushing through the neighborhood.

They could easily get emergency ID. If they spent the night in an emergency shelter they probably already would have been issued with it. If they were with a friend then the person could give his address and other information to the police and the friend could show his/her ID. If they were driving their car the plates could be checked for the address.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't think criminal charges should be brought against them, but they should have to pay the full costs of any rescue of them. Also, if anyone is injured in their rescue, they should be liable for that as well (civil liability, though, not criminal).

 

[Miss Chicken]

Maybe that is a better idea. That would probably end up costing them more than the fine that they would get if they would get if they went before a court.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't think criminal charges should be brought against them, but they should have to pay the full costs of any rescue of them. Also, if anyone is injured in their rescue, they should be liable for that as well (civil liability, though, not criminal).

My thoughts, as well.

If people want to do something stupid, that's certainly their right, but if the state has to spend money saving you from your own idiocy that shouldn't come free of charge.

My main concern, though, is that we don't start billing people for penny ante shit. It should be reserved for instances where someone did something miraculously stupid during a declared emergency... like trying to ride the rapids with a blow-up doll.

If you think your car can make it through some standing water and it turns out you can't and you get washed down the river, that's a different situation as far as I'm concerned. You weren't trying to do something stupid just for the hell of it. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of resources investigating stuff like this during an emergency, so it should have to be pretty open and shut that you were being a moron, endangering the lives of yourself and/or others, and wasting limited state resources on rescuing your ass.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

Maybe they were trying to escape the epicenter by floating away on the blowup doll?

 

[Switch]

Nobody has a right to be rescued. Indeed, if it's too dangerous, or if the numbers are against you, then those otherwise in a position to assist you may well choose not to. The corollary, of course, is that being rescued imposes no obligation on you, least of all to pay anyone. Each act - that of choosing to rescue someone, and that individual's subsequent behaviour afterwards - is a manifestation one's own free will.

That's the wonderful thing about disasters like this: you get stories of people undertaking heroic efforts on behalf of others simply because they can. Not fearing punishment, not expecting reward, but simply because they feel it is the right thing to do. It strips all the capitalist bullshit of greed and worship of self-interest backed by the violence of law away and and allows the light of humanity - of solidarity between peoples freely offered - to shine in the darkness.

Miss. Chicken would like to drag that away and have it shot.