Public Nuisance Laws

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I'm intentionally doing something risky, something that 99% of the population isn't also doing and I fall. Well, that is, how do you say? My bad?

What about mountain climbers or deep sea divers? Should we not care about them because 99% of the population doesn't do those things? You can't expect everyone to follow norms because people will try to push the limits of their body and courage. Even if what they do is stupid, they shouldn't get fined for it.

The public nuisance law is kind of like a "prank fine:" if you call 911 as a joke, surely you should have to pay for the wasted resources? It's just a question of whether this guy's actions qualify. If he had jumped off the ledge to deliberately get an emergency response as part of an edgy Jackass-style documentary, surely he should have to pay the prank fine, right?

This is completely different then a prank 911 call. The guy wasn't pretending to get hurt to see if rescuers would come. If he did that, by all means, fine him. But he actually DID get hurt, so he deserves to get treatment without a $10,000 fine.

[Aliantha]

OK...what about a solo yachtsman who has to be rescued not once but twice in Australian waters because he thought he was hero enough to sail solo around the world? Who should pay for that? He's not even Australian!

There's a difference between people doing things like mountain climbing and deep sea diving, both of which require a high level of training, skill and ability, and people who jump off cliffs on a whim. Or people who repeatedly do the same stupid things which cost other people money and risk other peoples' lives.

[Aliantha]

He didn't get a $10 000 fine. His rescue cost $10 000.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What about mountain climbers or deep sea divers? Should we not care about them because 99% of the population doesn't do those things? You can't expect everyone to follow norms because people will try to push the limits of their body and courage.

There are risk takers who plan for the risk. And then the risk taker who simply does something foolish - on a whim.

Those who plan for a trip around the world or to climb Mt Everest should be expected to take out insurance. IOW his risk is so planned in order to get that insurance. Insurance that could pay for extraordinary rescues such as the three climbers who died recently on Mt Hood.

A risk taker who suddenly decides to jump from a bridge or a cliff, without insurance, then his rescue comes out of his own pocket.

Not only does insurance pay even for equipment of a volunteer rescue service. Insurance also demands that the risk taker first plan his adventure.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Until they charged him he was saying he'd do daredevil stuff again. I don't know if he's changed his tune now.

He's clearly given them cause to nail him with costs in the future, anyway.
I would imagine someone has the power to say yea or nay on fining him this time, rather than, the law says he must be fined. His attitude will no doubt play a role in that decision.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by tw

There are risk takers who plan for the risk. And then the risk taker who simply does something foolish - on a whim.

A risk taker who suddenly decides to jump from a bridge or a cliff, without insurance, then his rescue comes out of his own pocket.

Not only does insurance pay even for equipment of a volunteer rescue service. Insurance also demands that the risk taker first plan his adventure.

Exactly. I used to see this all the time in Hawai'i. Folks would decide to take a trip inside one of the volcano domes and get stuck. Not only is it very costly to rescue someone from inside a smoldering volcano (they have to hover a chopper over the cone and lower people and equipment) but its dangerous to the rescuers who are involuntarily put into a risky situation that could have been avoided.

Hawai'i would make the rescued party pay for it and as liberal as that state is that pretty much settled it for me. But there was an opportunity to make a case that it was pure misfortune and avoid the penalty - few cases were ambiguous as to culpability.

So if its your mistake its your bill. If not, it isn't.

And while tax dollars are used to fund rescues I don't think they should be used to follow the crew of jackass around and save them from every hole they get stuck in (unless they pay for it).

Its not unlike getting a ticket for causing an accident. The extent of your injuries are not considered when the ticket is issued.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Even if they pay for it they're still putting the rescue crews at risk.

[Aliantha]

Bruce, the man has been charged and he'll get to state his case in front of a magistrate who will then decide on his punishment. One way or another he'll be paying, even if it's simply community service (my personal favourite).

As an update, the man was on the news last night postulating about it being unfair etc, and then saying he'd do it again and that he just read the conditions wrongly and next time he wont need rescuing.

If it were up to me I'd say next time he wont GET rescued.

[Aliantha]

Stupid forking barstool!

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.