Floods and idiots

[Die Judicii]

Lazarus, I responded to, and am quoting what Die Judici said above, He suggested an idea of making the act of rescue attempt a criminal offence, unless I am reading it reading it wrong.

I said how we would rescue drunk yobs, druggos, people who ignore signs. The good samaritan act might as well be called the 'Entrapment of good citizens act"

Not necessarily that you are reading it wrong,, but what u don’t seem to be able to grasp is that the whole “entering flood waters” thing is a frustrating thing that continues (often needlessly) to take lives. What I offered up was purely a tongue in cheek solution that many have either only partially read,,, or taken literally.

[Oldbloke]

To me it's simple.
People make mistakes. That's life.
If they do something pretty stupid, like drive around a road closed sign ( I can understand why some might) and then need SES to rescue them or a helicopter then they should get the bill.

As I mentioned earlier, people often just lack the nouse or common sense required to make a good decision. So, don't think they should get fined. But there does need to be a disincentive.

[Lazarus]

I totally understand your point OB, and share your frustration with those who seemingly respond just for the sake of an argument DJ.

But if not a fine, what other disincentive would work on someone who patently lacks the basic built in fear of drowning possesed by every other living creature?

Hell, even cockroaches have enough common sense to avoid rising water.

[bradley33]

I had decided to be done with this but, christ help me, my curiosity got the better of me.

Tell me Bradley, are you aware of the concept of criminal negligence?
If not, that is where someone does something obviously dangerous and as a result someone else loses their life. For example, some hoon is doing burnouts or doughnuts, loses control and runs over a pedestrian.

Now, in the context of this "discussion", if I was to drive around road closed signs, into obviously fast moving deep water, get trapped and a passenger in my vehicle dies as a result, should I just be let go with no consequences?

What if myself and my hypothetical passenenger are OK but a member of the fast water rescue team that has to come in after me gets swept away and dies as a result of my totally avoidable behaviour?

Granted, not every rescue involves someone dying, just like not every drunk driver kills someone but do you seriously believe we shouldn't a least try to do something to prevent these behaviours?

Mate I'll say it a third time.

Deijudici suggested the idea rescue itself could be made a criminal offence.I said I dont think that would be workable.

This conversation had nothing to do with what you are saying above. Meanwhile you are ranting about others just arguing for the sake of it

[bradley33]

[ Not necessarily that you are reading it wrong,, but what u don’t seem to be able to grasp is that the whole “entering flood waters” thing is a frustrating thing that continues (often needlessly) to take lives. What I offered up was purely a tongue in cheek solution that many have either only partially read,,, or taken literally.

So I query you about your suggestion to criminally charge rescuers, and after several posts oback and forth, its now tongue in cheek. that I only partially read : Nice one,





:

[bradley33]

double up sorry

[Lazarus]

people are allowed to drink grog, get fat, smoke tobacco, drive cars that for some reason have been made to go faster than the speed limit since 1945, and all this kill millions and cost billions and thats just life. A few clowns want to drive around in a flood and cause a drama for first responders once every few years is small fry. Go fining acts of stupidity or waste and everyone will go broke.

Above is your first contribution to this thread in which you refer to "a few clowns causing a drama every few years" and making light of it.

It's not once every few years Bradley, it's every single time there's a flood, as you well know. People drowning may be "small fry" to you but to those who love them it's a big hole in their world.

You also in your last contribution avoided the questions.
Do you understand the concept of criminal negligence?
Do you think criminal negligence should go unpunished?
What if a first responder dies as a result of someone's criminal negligence.

I suggest to you that you avoid these questions because you know the answers and they disprove your flippancy.

How about an answer instead of circular obfuscation.
I also offer you some advice, you've only been here a week and already you're starting arguments, that's not inducive to longevity.

[Die Judicii]

Bradley,,, on page one of this thread I said,,,, “I realise this isn’t the perfect answer” which should indicate to the majority of normal thinking persons that what I went on to say was NOT to be taken literally in every sense. I backed that up with similar comment on a later page. In all instances I was referring directly to the likes of idiots that move signage and drive into floodwaters. I certainly was NOT referring to “official people or vehicles” When I said that it was/should be patently obvious,,,,,,,, was apparently to difficult for some to accept. And,,,, no where did I even flippantly suggest that first responders and the likes should be charged criminally. So if you wish to take every single word literally,,,,,,, go for broke Mate. Yknow,,,, Whatever floats ya boat.

[Fionn]

You also in your last contribution avoided the questions.
Do you understand the concept of criminal negligence?
Do you think criminal negligence should go unpunished?
What if a first responder dies as a result of someone's criminal negligence.

I suggest to you that you avoid these questions because you know the answers and they disprove your flippancy.

The problem is you don't understand what criminal negligence is either.

A person could never be charged with criminal negligence in the death of a first responder in these types of scenarios. If you understood what criminal negligence is you would know why.

[cz515]

Its obvious some people want to force their views and will not take any dissenting views and start calling those ppl names.

Funny it reminds me of a dictatorship... like china. Agree to what you say about everyone going in flood water, they should be fined a million dollars and thrown in jail or i will throw you in jail.


I think this thread is pointless, going in circles and should be closed

[Gamerancher]

Okay, here goes, A recent incident that occurred near where I live. A vehicle is travelling down a local road, finds a "road closed" sign. The driver decides that he wants to get where he's going and taking another route is just too far out of their way so they drive around the sign. A bit further along they are flagged down by a local, told that the road ahead is closed due to flooding and that they won't get through that way. The driver drives on regardless. They enter the water and the car gets swept away in the fast flowing deep water. The adults manage to get out and so does a couple of older kids. The 5 year old doesn't and drowns in the car.
Please tell me someone isn't criminally responsible for the death of that child.

[Oldbloke]

Okay, here goes, A recent incident that occurred near where I live. A vehicle is travelling down a local road, finds a "road closed" sign. The driver decides that he wants to get where he's going and taking another route is just too far out of their way so they drive around the sign. A bit further along they are flagged down by a local, told that the road ahead is closed due to flooding and that they won't get through that way. The driver drives on regardless. They enter the water and the car gets swept away in the fast flowing deep water. The adults manage to get out and so does a couple of older kids. The 5 year old doesn't and drowns in the car.
Pleas tell me someone isn't criminally responsible for the death of that child?

Any lawyers out there?

My guess. Death by miss adventure.

[Gamerancher]

Pretty sure the 5 year old didn't choose to drive into the water.

[Oldbloke]

Pretty sure the 5 year old didn't choose to drive into the water.

Yep, understand. Your correct. But,
Will not be man slaughter, murder or suicide.

All that's left is misadventure or accident I think.
Does not really fit either well.

What else is there?

[Gamerancher]

I thought misadventure is when someone decides to do something that has risk involved, rock-climbing, white-water paddling, rock fishing, etc., and it goes sideways.
In this case the driver made a conscious decision to disobey a flood warning, which is an offence, and the child died as a result. If they drove drunk and wrapped the car around a tree and an occupant died they'd be charged with vehicular manslaughter I believe. Actually, I might be Americanising that, culpable driving maybe?

[cz515]

Okay, here goes, A recent incident that occurred near where I live. A vehicle is travelling down a local road, finds a "road closed" sign. The driver decides that he wants to get where he's going and taking another route is just too far out of their way so they drive around the sign. A bit further along they are flagged down by a local, told that the road ahead is closed due to flooding and that they won't get through that way. The driver drives on regardless. They enter the water and the car gets swept away in the fast flowing deep water. The adults manage to get out and so does a couple of older kids. The 5 year old doesn't and drowns in the car.
Please tell me someone isn't criminally responsible for the death of that child.

Very straightforward. Same rules likely apply as drink/drug driving or reckless speeding.

But like everyone who is in similar situation losing their own child (assuming their child) is loss enough. Sure many call for them to be jailed... and they probably will be

[cz515]

The biggest problem is that instead of fixing the loopholes in current/ existing laws we just want to keep on making more and more laws. And keep giving police and politicians more and more powers


And then complain that they have to much power.

[Fionn]

Okay, here goes, A recent incident that occurred near where I live. A vehicle is travelling down a local road, finds a "road closed" sign. The driver decides that he wants to get where he's going and taking another route is just too far out of their way so they drive around the sign. A bit further along they are flagged down by a local, told that the road ahead is closed due to flooding and that they won't get through that way. The driver drives on regardless. They enter the water and the car gets swept away in the fast flowing deep water. The adults manage to get out and so does a couple of older kids. The 5 year old doesn't and drowns in the car.
Please tell me someone isn't criminally responsible for the death of that child.

It depends, their is not enough information that you have given to say if its criminal negligence, (such as in involuntary manslaughter). There are a number of factors that must be proven to found guilty of criminal negligence and the information you have given doesn't give enough detail on that.

[Gamerancher]

I don't know much more than that but it certainly wasn't an "accidental death".
By driving around the road closed sign and ignoring a direct verbal warning that the road was closed, the driver made a decision that resulted in the childs death.

[Fionn]

I don't know much more than that but it certainly wasn't an "accidental death".
By driving around the road closed sign and ignoring a direct verbal warning that the road was closed, the driver made a decision that resulted in the childs death.

Without know the details you are simply guessing it wasn't an accidental death. The matter would be investigated, at the least for a corner's inquiry and if appropriate the driver maybe charged.

Also its important not to confuse moral negligence with criminal negligence in these circumstances.

[Oldbloke]

I thought misadventure is when someone decides to do something that has risk involved, rock-climbing, white-water paddling, rock fishing, etc., and it goes sideways.
In this case the driver made a conscious decision to disobey a flood warning, which is an offence, and the child died as a result. If they drove drunk and wrapped the car around a tree and an occupant died they'd be charged with vehicular manslaughter I believe. Actually, I might be Americanising that, culpable driving maybe?

Yep I agree. But it doesn't seem to fit neatly into anything really except some sort of negligent manslaughter. And since its their own child very unlikely there will be charges. Just my opinion. Now, if it was the neighbours daughter? .

Is there a criminal offence called "idiot factor," manslaughter"?

[northdude]

No they cant have that the jails arent big enough

[Oldbloke]

No they cant have that the jails arent big enough

Lol True

[Die Judicii]

Pretty sure the 5 year old didn't choose to drive into the water.

So Gents, we are back to the conundrum,,, there must be some way to prevent these terrible events from happening,,,, but it ain’t gonna happen here by majority decision I’ll wager.

[northdude]

Get rid of the humans. Problem solved

[on_one_wheel]

Is there a criminal offence called "idiot factor," manslaughter"?

I believe its called Culpable Driving,
Normally referred to as "causing death by culpable driving"

But if your a millionaire and can afford a team of top lawyers your more likely to get aggravated driving without due care like this Adelaide tosser. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-18/ ... /101345374

[Oldbloke]

On one wheel I believe you have hit it on the head, so to speak.

istockphoto-184885969-612x612.jpg (20.24 KiB) Viewed 2939 times

And with judgements like that it's no wonder there aren't more murder trials.

[on_one_wheel]

Totally agree.

I know how I'd react it it were one of my children, I'd be more than happy to do life for revenge.

[Oldbloke]

Totally agree.

I know how I'd react it it were one of my children, I'd be more than happy to do life for revenge.

I'm hearing ya.

Umm, I think the thee most common reasons are sex/love, revenge and money?

[Lazarus]

You also in your last contribution avoided the questions.
Do you understand the concept of criminal negligence?
Do you think criminal negligence should go unpunished?
What if a first responder dies as a result of someone's criminal negligence.

I suggest to you that you avoid these questions because you know the answers and they disprove your flippancy.

The problem is you don't understand what criminal negligence is either.

A person could never be charged with criminal negligence in the death of a first responder in these types of scenarios. If you understood what criminal negligence is you would know why.

On the contrary fionn, it's you who seems to have misunderstood the concept.

From the attorney general's dept;

5.5 Negligence
A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves:

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances; and
(b) such a high risk that the physical element exists or will exist;
that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

If there is a passenger in the vehicle you are driving, you have a duty of care for that passenger.
If you behave recklessly and that person dies, you ARE criminally negligent in that death.

https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publication ... negligence