Quote
y_p_w
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
eeek
Quote
Frank Furter
Presumably, the fine is to discourage hikers from getting lost or injured in the future.
But it could also lead to people not calling for help when they should.
Yes, the thing is, getting lost or injured are usually not intentional events; how do you discourage "unintentional" events or accidents? Law against bad judgment or bad luck?
This kid had both. I could understand the sprained ankle, but that he didn't turn back and got lost taking a "shortcut" that he never took before was bad judgement.
It seems like the issue is bad luck, clumbsiness, and poor judgment. How do you have a law against that sort of thing? Although it seems appropriate to punish someone for doing what some feel is "stupid", it just doesn't seem reasonable to slap a bill on this guy for the rescue. The extent of the expense could not be regulated by him. What if the state spent 5 million on his rescue? In a sense, tort law would apply -- ones actions cause an injury another. But this situation the guy was prevented from hurting himself further. Why not just eliminate all rescues for bad judgment, stupidity or recklessness? That would be good punishment for the miscreants and save the state the expense of a rescue process, only you don't know what is "justifible" misadventure in the woods and what is "unjustifible" until after the target is rescued. Personally, I plan to maintain adequate documentation that any problems I have in the backcountry are not due to bad judgment.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan