State Emergency Poll

[pookha]

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.
.

well here they set it up so people could get replacement papers.
also i think they were taking things like an envelope with your address, bank statement ect until things got a little more normal.
considering it took several days for the water to go down to even get back into neighborhoods people had a chance to get something to show they belonged in the area.

and it didnt last long.. but considering there was a period where most of the persons belongings where sitting out on the lawn drying and garage doors were open to allow the houses to dry something like keep control for a short period of time helped.

as for the reckless behavior..
we had some kids go innertubing in one of the swollen creeks.
some of them were rescued and some died.
i think the shear horror of what they went through was enough.

 

[pookha]

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

that is actually one version i heard.
the waters came in so fast they just grabbed what they thought would work.
though miss chicken being closer to the area may have more to date info.

 

[Miss Chicken]

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

No i wouldn't like to "drag it away and have it shot" because I am only talking about cases that only occur in very extreme situations i.e. during state of emergencies (which are rare), and even then only for reckless behaviour that goes against warnings issued during a state of emergency i.e. not to enter the water for recreational purposes.

As emergency rescue teams are stretched to the limit during such a time reckless behaviour could mean that some other person might not be saved.

State emergencies are probably not called more than once every 20 years in an individual Australian state. For example I don't think one has been called in my state since 1967.

that is actually one version i heard.
the waters came in so fast they just grabbed what they thought would work.
though miss chicken being closer to the area may have more to date info.

If that is the case than they were not being reckless. However it has been reported here that they choose to enter the river and were on a joyride.

This article says that they were wearing bathers (swimsuits) at the time. It also has a photo of them.

Police statements have also shown that it was a joyride

But, with Queensland in the grip of a deadly emergency and 50 rescues from flood waters around Victoria in the past week, police were not amused at the pair's "stupid" actions.
‘‘We’ve got people busy with rescues and to have to divert resources to that sort of thing is not ideal," said Senior Constable Wayne Wilson
‘‘Most rescue organisations would frown on people behaving in such a manner because there are people out there who are in genuine need of assistance,’’ he said.

 

[Switch]

But, with Queensland in the grip of a deadly emergency and 50 rescues from flood waters around Victoria in the past week, police were not amused at the pair's "stupid" actions.
‘‘We’ve got people busy with rescues and to have to divert resources to that sort of thing is not ideal," said Senior Constable Wayne Wilson
‘‘Most rescue organisations would frown on people behaving in such a manner because there are people out there who are in genuine need of assistance,’’ he said.

And that should be the end of it.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Why? If someone is reckless in a car and crashes, no-one says the crash should be the end of it.

If someone is reckless on a boat they can be charged. Getting into trouble isn't the end to it in such situations.

 

[Switch]

Why? If someone is reckless in a car and crashes, no-one says the crash should be the end of it.

People who drive recklessly are endangering others.

 

[T'Girl]

What if that person has no proof they live there?

Easy, policeman pulls out his little cop-padd, ask for your name and address ... beep beep beep ... there's a copy of your photo ID, "thank you very much sir you can proceed."

You do remember where you live, right?

I don't think criminal charges should be brought against them

How about willful endangerment of a rescue worker? Or depraved indifference.

There will be gray areas to be sure, but some cases (doll/river) will be obvious.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Why? If someone is reckless in a car and crashes, no-one says the crash should be the end of it.

People who drive recklessly are endangering others.

No, one can be arrested for reckless driving even if no other cars are on the road to be put in danger.

Easy, policeman pulls out his little cop-padd, ask for your name and address ... beep beep beep ... there's a copy of your photo ID, "thank you very much sir you can proceed."

If I was affected by a disaster in Tasmania, all I would have to do is go into Service Tasmania and get a replacement photo ID card. They could compare me to the photo they have. Plus I would give them my address and date of birth.

To get a health care card from Centrelink I could go into any Centrelink office In Australia. They have my password on record and would simply ask me what it was. They issue a temporary copy of your card on the spot (it only lasts for two weeks).

 

[Switch]

Why? If someone is reckless in a car and crashes, no-one says the crash should be the end of it.

People who drive recklessly are endangering others.

No, one can be arrested for reckless driving even if no other cars are on the road to be put in danger.

Unless you're out in the desert with visibility for miles there certainly could be other cars around and drivers can be expected to be mindful of the possibility.

And if you are arrested for doing burnouts in the middle of the desert then I would hope the case would be thrown out of court.

 

[Captain_Nick]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/river-rescue-as-sex-toy-ditches-rider-20110117-19sra.html

This happened in outer Melbourne, not waterlogged Brisbane.

But for the floods it would have earned a snigger and maybe a couple of minutes on breakfast radio.

 

[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).

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.

Well, the standard for civil liability under English common law is whether or not you acted reasonably. That's after considering all the factors. So if it's an emergency situation and you're trying to get to safety and you think you can make it through but you're wrong, you didn't do anything wrong.

If you make it so it isn't criminal, there's not the same condemnation. People are idiots, but they're allowed to be idiots. The problem is society feels the urge to rescue those who intentionally put themselves in stupid situations. If it's civil and not criminal, it's saying "we respect your right to be stupid, but we want our money back for the rescue."

 

[thestrangequark]

Why? If someone is reckless in a car and crashes, no-one says the crash should be the end of it.

People who drive recklessly are endangering others.

And so were the couple on the blow-up doll, if in a less direct manner. In a time when rescue resources are so dramatically stretched, this couples actions could have endangered the lives of others in need of rescue through no fault of their own: it's like calling 911 and tying up the line when you don't have an emergency.

As for whether reckless behavior should be criminalized in theses situations, I think it sounds reasonable, but I also understand J's concern about enforcement. I am firmly against charging, however. Although it seems fair to charge these people for the cost of their rescue, I think this can lead down a dangerous road. Here in NYC the fire department is soon to vote on whether to start imposing a charge on people who cause accidents to which they must respond. While this sounds fair, it could have some serious consequences -- people would fear calling for help for fear of the price, for example.

 

[Miss Chicken]

This happened in outer Melbourne, not waterlogged Brisbane.

The article does say that the river is flood-swollen.

It seems that in Queensland one can be charged. A man has been arrested and charged for jumping off a bridge into a flooded river. It is believed he also jumped off the bridge the night before.

The man, from Koongal, will appear in Rockhampton Magistrates Court today charged with unregulated high-risk activity and obstructing police.

SOURCE

So it seems in Queensland there is a law against "unregulated high-risk activity".

 

[Switch]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/river-rescue-as-sex-toy-ditches-rider-20110117-19sra.html

This happened in outer Melbourne, not waterlogged Brisbane.

But for the floods it would have earned a snigger and maybe a couple of minutes on breakfast radio.

The incident prompted a warning from police that blow-up sex toys are "not recognised flotation devices’’.

‘‘The fate of the inflatable dolls is unknown,’’ said Senior Constable Wilson.

Oh I think someone was sniggering. It probably took the cops a few minutes to find someone who could read the statement with a straight face.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I have looked up the law that the Queensland man is charged with. It seems that he could be charged because he jumped off a bridge,

14 Unregulated high-risk activities (1) A person must not unlawfully do any of the following--

(a) parachute or hang-glide onto a building or structure;​

(b) BASE-jump or hang-glide from a building or structure;​

(c) climb up or down the outside of a building or a structure;​

(d) abseil from a building or structure.​

Maximum penalty--20 penalty units or 1 year's imprisonment.

 

[Switch]

Why? If someone is reckless in a car and crashes, no-one says the crash should be the end of it.

People who drive recklessly are endangering others.

And so were the couple on the blow-up doll, if in a less direct manner. In a time when rescue resources are so dramatically stretched, this couples actions could have endangered the lives of others in need of rescue through no fault of their own: it's like calling 911 and tying up the line when you don't have an emergency.

It's nothing of the kind: these people did have an emergency.

If emergency resources are stretched such that call-outs must be prioritised then, all things being equal, perhaps priority might be given to the incident which was not the result of reckless self-endangerment. Of course, the likelihood of such a situation arising - i.e. that all other factors would in fact be equal rather than more significant factors such as the number of individuals at risk or their condition being the primary determinant - is infinitesimal, and the time taken to ascertain the cause of the problem could itself likely be put to better use actually helping people.

As for action after the fact, see previous post. You don't give a starving man a meal and then charge him for it. If you rescue someone, it's because you chose to do so. He is under no obligation to you except that which he shoulders of his own free will.

 

[thestrangequark]

People who drive recklessly are endangering others.

And so were the couple on the blow-up doll, if in a less direct manner. In a time when rescue resources are so dramatically stretched, this couples actions could have endangered the lives of others in need of rescue through no fault of their own: it's like calling 911 and tying up the line when you don't have an emergency.

It's nothing of the kind: these people did have an emergency.

Indeed they did, and it was right to rescue them. However, they needn't have had that emergency -- they (according to the initial scenario represented) chose a behavior which was reckless. They're recklessness could then have put others' lives in danger by stretching already stressed resources.

If emergency resources are stretched such that call-outs must be prioritised then, all things being equal, perhaps priority might be given to the incident which was not the result of reckless self-endangerment. Of course, the likelihood of such a situation arising - i.e. that all other factors would in fact be equal rather than more significant factors such as the number of individuals at risk or their condition being the primary determinant - is infinitesimal, and the time taken to ascertain the cause of the problem could itself likely be put to better use actually helping people.

I don't disagree with you here.

As for action after the fact, see previous post. You don't give a starving man a meal and then charge him for it. If you rescue someone, it's because you chose to do so. He is under no obligation to you except that which he shoulders of his own free will.

I saw previous post. And if you had read my post all the way through you would have noticed that I already stated this, and gave the current situation with the NYC firefighters as an example.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I have looked up the law that the Queensland man is charged with. It seems that he could be charged because he jumped off a bridge,

14 Unregulated high-risk activities (1) A person must not unlawfully do any of the following--

(a) parachute or hang-glide onto a building or structure;​

(b) BASE-jump or hang-glide from a building or structure;​

(c) climb up or down the outside of a building or a structure;​

(d) abseil from a building or structure.​

Maximum penalty--20 penalty units or 1 year's imprisonment.

I'm curious to know the difference between unlawfully jumping off a bridge and lawfully jumping off one.

 

[Miss Chicken]

The rest of the law states

(2) It is not an offence against subsection (1) for a person--

(a) to do an act mentioned in that subsection involving a building or structure that has been built for use, or is designated for use, for a purpose mentioned in that subsection; or​

(b) to do an act mentioned in that subsection involving a building or structure for a stunt performed with the permission of the owner of the building or structure and as part of the person's engagement or employment for the production of a cinematographic film or for television; or​

(c) to climb up or down a building or structure for cleaning, maintaining or repairing the building or structure.

(3) In addition to any penalty that may be imposed on a person who is found guilty of, or has pleaded guilty to, a charge of an offence against subsection (1), a court hearing the charge of the offence may order the person to pay to a stated person the costs the court decides are the other person's costs of rescuing or attempting to rescue the person.

 

[auntiehill]

Here in Texas, backasswards as it is, if you purposefully do something like go kayaking after you've been told the river is dangerously flooded and closed for recreational sports, and you then need your stupid-ass rescued, the authorities will gladly do so---and then slap you with the bill for the entire operation. It is by no means cheap. This discourages said morons to some degree, but not entirely. During Hurricane Ike, the authorities made it very, VERY clear that anyone who did not evacuate Galveston Island by the time the storm hit was completely and totally on their own. And some ninnies did stay and they did indeed die.

If you just have bad luck, of course you shouldn't be fined or charged with a misdemeanor. But if you're just an ass out to show off, then by all means, pay the bill for making them come out and rescue you.