State Emergency Poll

[Miss Chicken]

Don't get me started on suicide. How can that be illegal? It is nobody's business but the chap who wants to carry it out. The government has no business mandating that the lives of its citizens are to be preserved even against the wishes of the citizen in question.

Wnat are you going on about? Suicide, and attempted suicide, is legal in Australia.

Moreover, since when was getting rescued compulsory? If I wanted to go for a swim in a swollen river on a sex doll - or doing like that American chap did fifteen years ago and go bush out in the desert for 40 days - mark my words 'getting rescued' and thrown back into the awful society that I had just managed to escape from would be a fate worse than death.

If they want to go for a swim in a swollen river and not be rescued - let them buy their own swollen river to drown in instead of their bodies polluting a river that is owned by the people, or for their body to end up on the property of some farmer or other property owner.

 

[JiNX-01]

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?

I would say such a charge should apply in any disaster, not just natural ones.
And we in the U.S. have laws under which you can be charged with reckless endangerment (and that would cover emergency personnel who have to risk their lives to save idiots).

 

[donners22]

I stopped reading after "subjugation of free men by the police state."


On a side note, it's interesting that the penalty for looting is doubled during a state of emergency. Sadly, it doesn't seem to have stopped some offenders.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I am sorry, but it's people like you calling on laws and controls and measures to be introduced, that are responsible for the deterioration of our society and the subjugation of free men by the police state.

Has it not occured to you that people, born with intelligence and the ability to reason, are able to assess for themselves whether an activity is worth doing or is safe or whatever?

We can dismiss that thought as an obvious fallacy.

Here it's all 'we must obey the law' without ever stopping to ask if the laws are just.

Well, one rule at TrekBBS that you need to follow, Anarchy Boy, is the rule against Spamming. No more than two Posts in a row, or you will get a Warning.

 

[donners22]

^ Am I alone in reading that and imagining it being delivered by Tyler in Fight Club?

"Where'd you go, Anarchy Boy?"

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've never seen Fight Club, but I've decided to take that as a compliment.

 

[scout]

What would be better in my opinion is to not consider all emergencies as equal. Risk as a result of one's own stupidity (voluntary risk) is less urgent and less deserving than risk as a result of being caught up in a natural disaster (involuntary risk).

A rescuer should not have to put their own life at risk to rescue someone who has chosen to ride an inflatable down a raging torrent, but I would not forbid someone from doing that if they want to dice with death.

Could the SES always be aware of the circumstances surrounding the emergency, to make such a judgement call?

In practice, I don't think assigning a moral value to someone's emergency and determining resources on a basis of this would work. Preventing people through legislation, or having the people pay back the cost of the rescue is probably the best option.

Although, the kind of person who rides an inflatable sex doll down a flood swollen river, is probably not going to be put off by the threat of possible future litigation

 

[Jadzia]

Could the SES always be aware of the circumstances surrounding the emergency, to make such a judgement call?

In practice, I don't think assigning a moral value to someone's emergency and determining resources on a basis of this would work. Preventing people through legislation, or having the people pay back the cost of the rescue is probably the best option.

I didn't see this post before.

There will always be some degree of uncertainty, so the degree of urgency and degree to which a person's circumstances were involuntary should be judged to the best of the SES's ability, given the information available.

I'd partially free them of their legal obligation to consider all emergencies as equally deserving with first come first serve prioritising. Instead allow them to weigh situations up for themselves, using that powerful thing which is so often eroded by protocol and bureaucracy: common sense. (*)

I doubt that rescuers would wilfully underestimate anyone's circumstances, stand on the river bank and shake their heads while they watch someone drown - they go into that line of work specifically because they want to save lives.


(*) It's softly enforced, and regulated by inquest as needed.

- A person was being stupid, and got themselves into trouble. The rescue effort was appropriate given the degree of involuntary risk and urgency, and was not excessively dangerous to the rescuers. --> No further action is needed.

- A person was being stupid, and got themselves into trouble. The rescue effort was appropriate given the degree of involuntary risk and urgency, but was dangerous to the rescuers. --> Impose a fine proportional to the stupidity and danger it caused to rescuers.

- The rescue effort was greater than expected given the degree of involuntary risk and urgency --> Risk is with the rescuers. Less/no fine for the victim.

- The rescue effort was less than expected given the degree of involuntary risk and urgency --> Rescuers put under review.