Paying for your stupidity

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796
Paying for your stupidity

New York City man mauled by tiger in Bronx Zoo charged with trespassing | Fox News

Do you think people who purposely put themselves in harms way should have to pay a penatly (financial or time served) for putting others in harms way to save them?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think that if they break the law to do so, they should be charged. But, "purposefully putting themselves in harms way" is a nebulous term if they aren't actually breaking any laws. Like, skiing. You can easily hurt or even kill yourself skiing, and depending on the situation, (maybe an avalanche or something?) someone coming to save you could also possibly get hurt. But if you're skiing in a designated skiing area where you are allowed to ski, I can't see penalizing you for it, even though everyone knows skiing can be dangerous. If you were breaking the law by tresspassing though, then I think you should be charged with tresspassing at least.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

They should have just left him in there. He can "be one with the tiger" after the tiger finishes eating him.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I think if you knowingly do something that you aren't trained to do you should be liable like the above instance. Skiing in general is okay but if you are a first time skiier and try to go on a (is it a black diamond...I don't ski) ...course and get stuck or hurt then I can see emergency personnel charging you. You did NOT belong there.

I know NH charges those that are not properly experienced in hiking, climbing mountains if they get lost. Every year there is some bozo who gets stuck in tuckerman's ravine during a blizzard who has never hiked. They get charged for the rescue.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Alissa, the govenrment can't really regulate common sense though. Who would have thought New York needed a law concerning jumping into a carnivore's cage from a train?

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

He should absolutely be charged.

He did something extremely reckless and, if it wasn't suicide, he was counting on someone else putting themselves in danger to rescue him.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

If it is against the law then yes, they should be charged

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Lillie, I'm not saying that the government should try to legislate common sense, I'm just saying that if what they are doing is legal, I don't know how they can be penalized for it. On the other hand, if it is illegal (as this was) then they should be penalized.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

There's a difference between being penalized and being held accountable. This man clearly trespassed, and he should charged for trespassing & serve whatever is the appropriate sentence in that jurisdiction. He should also be held accountable for any direct costs related his adventure & rescue -- lost revenue from the ride being closed, the paramedics who treated him, repair any damage to the ride or tiger enclosure, etc. And I would include therapy bills for the people who put their lives in danger aiding him. However, he should not be fined an additonal penalty amount "just because" he was stupid enough to pull this stunt.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I am torn on this. I think in situations of trespassing, you should be held liable for if something happens to you while on someone else's property. For example, if you trespass onto someone's land and then fall in a whole and twist your ankle, it is your own fault for trespassing and should not be able to sue. On the other hand there are times when I think the natural consequences of your actions are more than enough punishment for your crime. For example, there was recently a story in the local news of a young mother who left her baby sleeping while she was cooking dinner. She needed something (I forget what, maybe an egg or cup of butter) and ran next door to the neighbour's house. While gone the house burnt down and in it the baby died. I feel her pain and suffering of a lost child was more than enough punishment for her and she should not have been charged with anything. (I am not sure if she was charged or not)

I hope this made sense.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I am torn on this. I think in situations of trespassing, you should be held liable for if something happens to you while on someone else's property. For example, if you trespass onto someone's land and then fall in a whole and twist your ankle, it is your own fault for trespassing and should not be able to sue. On the other hand there are times when I think the natural consequences of your actions are more than enough punishment for your crime. For example, there was recently a story in the local news of a young mother who left her baby sleeping while she was cooking dinner. She needed something (I forget what, maybe an egg or cup of butter) and ran next door to the neighbour's house. While gone the house burnt down and in it the baby died. I feel her pain and suffering of a lost child was more than enough punishment for her and she should not have been charged with anything. (I am not sure if she was charged or not)

I hope this made sense.

That's not necessarily true, believe it or not. In many states and provinces the owner of the property being trespassed on has a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of the trespasser. I know. Y'all are gonna go no way, but it's true. The example you gave, depending on where you live, is a perfect example of the opposite being true. There have been many cases (albeit mostly in the US because it's the most ridiculously litigious country on earth) of for example, a burglar suing the home owner because the garage door came down on him while he was making off with the loot, or someone not welcome on your property who slips on ice and breaks a leg. Yeah, all real cases and in many the plaintiff wins. It's absolutely r*tarded.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

That's not necessarily true, believe it or not. In many states and provinces the owner of the property being trespassed on has a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of the trespasser. I know. Y'all are gonna go no way, but it's true. The example you gave, depending on where you live, is a perfect example of the opposite being true. There have been many cases (albeit mostly in the US because it's the most ridiculously litigious country on earth) of for example, a burglar suing the home owner because the garage door came down on him while he was making off with the loot, or someone not welcome on your property who slips on ice and breaks a leg. Yeah, all real cases and in many the plaintiff wins. It's absolutely r*tarded.

I know it is the case many times, I was saying that IMO, it shouldn't be. My parents have a huge amount of land in NY (181 acres) that is over run with deer. They would love to let people come and hunt the deer, but don't want to be liable if something happens. They are also afraid that if people trespass and hunt anyway they will still be responsible if something happens.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Your parent's should be able to rent the land and call it a lease. My husband does that with his but I don't know where he got the contract releasing him from liability if they hurt themselves or someone else while hunting on his land. It brings in just enough to pay the property taxes on it and they usually get the max allowed that year.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I know it is the case many times, I was saying that IMO, it shouldn't be. My parents have a huge amount of land in NY (181 acres) that is over run with deer. They would love to let people come and hunt the deer, but don't want to be liable if something happens. They are also afraid that if people trespass and hunt anyway they will still be responsible if something happens.

We worry about that too. We have a bunch of land and there's been a few times we've gone out to the 'farm' as we call it and up pulls a truckload of hunters, right down the road with the 'private property' signs. Makes me nervous that they're hunting around there with my kids playing.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

We were always kept inside during hunting season because no matter how many signs they posted people hunted anyway.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796