Public Nuisance Laws

Recently a young man jumped off a cliff intending to land in the surf except he missed. Landed on a rock ledge with a dislocated shoulder and had to stay there for a night till the rescuers found him.

After he was fixed up at the hospital, he was escorted to the cop shop where he was charged with causing a public nuisance. If he's found guilty, he'll have to pay back the money spent on his rescue.

I think he deserves any punishment they serve up. Lifesavers have better things to do than rescue morons who endanger their own lives on purpose.

I'd say landing on a rocky ledge, suffering the horrendous pain of dislocated shoulder and shivering through the night (probably by this time afraid, cold and in great pain), then being made to feel like a complete idiot afterwards, is punishment enough for what was a stupid act by a young man. \Bet he doesn't do anything like that again:)

We all do daft shit when we're young. Some of us get away unscathed, some of us do not.

Aliantha;314902 wrote:

Lifesavers have better things to do than rescue morons who endanger their own lives on purpose.

What are lifesavers, Emergency Medical people(ambulance) or Life Guards that sit on the beach and save people from drowning? :confused:

Assuming not round candy with a hole in it.

When he costs the tax payers' money and the rescuers' time, he ought to be forced to repay either or both of those. Wash rescue vehicles, roll up and stack fire hoses, set up a monthly reimbursement plan, etc.
Humiliation and feeling bad doesn't bring back wasted time and resources.

Wow, I hope I don't have to pay everyone back because I hurt my knee playing basketball in high school, foolishly engaging myself in a potentially dangerous activity. ;)

I have an idea, how about we go the extra step and just don't save him...:rolleyes:

What constitutes as doing something that endangers his life? If there was a sign that said he shouldn't jump then he should be fined but if there wasn't, he shouldn't have to pay since that is what rescuers are there for.

rescue services are paid for by taxes, no? the kid's family has already paid. i say foul play.

Shades of Brazil...

"Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."

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?

In this situation, on the one hand, he jumped deliberately, but on the other, he didn't intend to need rescuing. Hmm... maybe he should only have to pay for the rescue if he was yelling for help? ;)

lumberjim;314990 wrote:

rescue services are paid for by taxes, no? the kid's family has already paid. i say foul play.

As it was posted by Aliantha I assume it's an Australian case - the rescue service may well be publicly funded? I'm sure she'll clarify.

Don't really know which way I fall (!) on this one. I agree with Dana in that I doubt he'll be that much of an eejit again. And with Clod that the outcome of the situation - while not surprising - was accidental.

I think I'd suggest a caution for a first offence. The next one, sure - hit them with the full costs plus a fine.

DanaC;314914 wrote:

I'd say landing on a rocky ledge, suffering the horrendous pain of dislocated shoulder and shivering through the night (probably by this time afraid, cold and in great pain), then being made to feel like a complete idiot afterwards, is punishment enough for what was a stupid act by a young man. \Bet he doesn't do anything like that again:)

We all do daft shit when we're young. Some of us get away unscathed, some of us do not.

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

Sundae Girl;315004 wrote:

As it was posted by Aliantha I assume it's an Australian case - the rescue service may well be publicly funded? I'm sure she'll clarify.

Don't really know which way I fall (!) on this one. I agree with Dana in that I doubt he'll be that much of an eejit again. And with Clod that the outcome of the situation - while not surprising - was accidental.

I think I'd suggest a caution for a first offence. The next one, sure - hit them with the full costs plus a fine.

Lifesavers on the beaches work mostly on a voluntary basis and recieve very little funding from the government. They are people who volunteer their time willingly to save those people whose lives are endangered legitimately.

In this case, there were lifesavers as well as air sea rescue choppers etc along with police and ses (state emergency service - another voluntary organisation in the main part) involved.

The bill came to over $10 000.

I'm walking along a beach and I trip and fall, an accident. maybe I shouldn't pay full boat, but I'd feel so glad to be alive I'd make a nice donation to the cause.

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?

Exactly foot!

footfootfoot;315242 wrote:

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.

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.

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

piercehawkeye45;315267 wrote:

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.

Aliantha;315143 wrote:

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. ;)

tw;315286 wrote:

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.

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

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.

Stupid forking barstool!

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.