Author Topic: Your Openion (Read 2503 times)

Sourdough · « **on:** May 01, 2011, 08:02:44 AM »

Friday, a bunch of teenagers (17 and 18) were playing around on the river ice at the Ghrail Landing. Ice was flexiable and moving as they ran around and jumped up and down. Ice is thick enough you won't fall through, but it will break off into large chunks. Anyway one of the young men was playing around out farther than the others. Suddenly he realized the ice he was on had broken loose and floated away. Friends threw him a cooler lid to paddle with, but the current was too strong to get back. Friends then threw him a plastic milk crate to sit on, as they called 911.

Fire Dept went downstream and launched an inflatable boat. They gave the youth a life jacket then transferred him to the boat. The young man felt stupid and was grateful for the rescue. The firemen laughed, saying we wanted to get out of the firehouse on such a nice day anyway. Due to the current they floated down to Alaska Land boat landing and took out at the boat ramp there.

Now here is where I think it got out of hand. The city police was waiting and arrested the guy, for disorderly conduct, and placing the cith firemen in danger during the rescue. The young man was 18, so they took him to jail, where he was processed in and spent the night. Saturday morning at the arraignment the judge sentenced him to 10 days in jail, with 10 days suspended. Why did they have to go that far.

Now I agree what the young people did was kind of stupid, but people do things like that every spring. I know I sometimes do it myself and I'm not a young person. Yes the city needs to be reimbursed for the rescue, OK bill the young man. He is 18, he is responsible for paying it. But in my own personal view, he should not have been arrested and hauled to jail.

What do you guys think?

Sourdough · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2011, 08:11:56 AM »

First five persons to read this needs to refresh the page then reread it. I accidentally hit send before I finished it. Rog

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2011, 08:18:26 AM »

Arrested & jailed? Doesn't seem right to me, and could lead one to resent the cops.

Quote

Why did they have to go that far.

Power. Entitlement to exert power. Just plain meanness.

Perhaps that police force is overfunded and overstaffed, if that's what they use resources for. So the firemen were 'endangered', were they?

Yikes.

FWiedner · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2011, 08:19:24 AM »

Kids do what kids do. If they weren't tresspassing, violating noise ordinances, participating in gang related activity, or otherwise breaking the law, where is the disorderly conduct?

If making the city emergency service get up off ther @sses and do thier job is cause to level a charge of disorderly conduct, it's time to fire the city manager and hire new cops becuase what you've got is not peace officers or law enforcement, you've got oppressors of liberty.

Sounds like a youthful laspe in judgement to me, and thankfully, no one was hurt.

Tell the kid off, make him pay a fine.

Jail? That's just uncalled for.

Casull · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2011, 08:52:51 AM »

Everybody just ignoring the fact that the judge seems to have agreed with the officers? Would you have the same opinion if one of the rescuers drowned in the rescue? Just thinking out loud without the preconceived notion that every police officer is a power grabbing thug.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2011, 08:57:28 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 01, 2011, 08:52:51 AM

Just thinking out loud without the preconceived notion that every police officer is a power grabbing thug.

Oh, that would be unfair to apply to all LEO, even if common. They are, however, instruments of the state. Remember that, and that their job is to find evidence to convict, not exonerate.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2011, 09:13:15 AM »

Did he have a lawyer?

FWiedner · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2011, 09:18:54 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 01, 2011, 08:52:51 AM

Everybody just ignoring the fact that the judge seems to have agreed with the officers? Would you have the same opinion if one of the rescuers drowned in the rescue? Just thinking out loud without the preconceived notion that every police officer is a power grabbing thug.

Perhaps you missed missed the fact of the issue.

No one was hurt.

What 'might' happen is at the root of almost every modern oppression.

Moral busybodies and panty-wetters with authority only serve to make life miserable for a free people.

Mohawk · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2011, 09:28:28 AM »

Going a little too far means he did something stupid, kid or not. And 18 is not a kid it is an adult. One too many drinks and killing a person in a DWI would be an example. The law can act as a lesson too. Maybe this young adult will learn that going to far is not the best decision. Each state has their own definition of disorderly conduct. Not sure what that state's is but I would need more of the story to call that. That's the thing about the law. People are so against it until it favors them. And vice versa.

Casull · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2011, 09:33:08 AM »

Quote

Perhaps you missed missed the fact of the issue.

No one was hurt.

What 'might' happen is at the root of almost every modern oppression.

Moral busybodies and panty-wetters with authority only serve to make life miserable for a free people.

I didn't miss a damned thing. What if someone was dropping bowling balls off an overpass? Under your argument, if no one was hit, then we shouldn't do anything. The FACT of the matter is that the JUDGE convicted him, gave him ten days, BUT then SUSPENDED the sentence. Sounds like he was trying to teach him a lesson.

Casull · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2011, 09:35:21 AM »

Sorry Mohawk, I wrote that before seeing your post. I think you nailed it. Too many panty wetters who automatically jump to the conclusion that LEO's are out to get everyone.

Mohawk · « **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2011, 09:54:26 AM »

Well said, Casull. My father was with Highway Patrol. My brother did something stupid. He sat in jail, lost his car, and did his sentence just like everyone else. And he learned his lesson. Retiring this year from a 23 yr military career and getting a college degree plus masters along the way.

FWiedner · « **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2011, 10:06:22 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 01, 2011, 09:33:08 AM

Quote
Perhaps you missed missed the fact of the issue.

No one was hurt.

What 'might' happen is at the root of almost every modern oppression.

Moral busybodies and panty-wetters with authority only serve to make life miserable for a free people.

I didn't miss a damned thing. What if someone was dropping bowling balls off an overpass? Under your argument, if no one was hit, then we shouldn't do anything. The FACT of the matter is that the JUDGE convicted him, gave him ten days, BUT then SUSPENDED the sentence. Sounds like he was trying to teach him a lesson.

Sorry, I don't see anything about the kid dropping bowling balls from anywhere. Do you even understand the concept of 'fact'?

These cops and the judge, like all law-bullies, were just putting the kid into the system. He suspended the sentence because he knew that he had no justifiable cause to rob the kid of his freedom, and he also knows that most citizens are gullible enough to view a suspended sentence as 'luck' and will just run away counting their lucky stars.

Now the kid has a record for no other reason than that he needed help.

Mohawk · « **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2011, 10:10:53 AM »

So you wait until he hurts or kills someone before he is " In the system" ?

FWiedner · « **Reply #14 on:** May 01, 2011, 10:12:38 AM »

Quote from: Mohawk on May 01, 2011, 10:10:53 AM

So you wait until he hurts or kills someone before he is " In the system" ?

Whom did this boy hurt or kill?

Punishment should be meted out based on what one actually does, not what one might do or could have done.

us920669 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 01, 2011, 10:15:42 AM »

Seems like overkill to me. One unintended consequence might be to make people less likely to call 911, possibly get a bunch of people killed trying some fool do-it-yourself rescue stunt.

Casull · « **Reply #16 on:** May 01, 2011, 10:35:57 AM »

Quote

Sorry, I don't see anything about the kid dropping bowling balls from anywhere. Do you even understand the concept of 'fact'?

Yep, I understand the concept of "fact", but apparently you don't understand the concept of "analogy", or "degrees".

FWiedner · « **Reply #17 on:** May 01, 2011, 10:51:22 AM »

Quote from: Casull on May 01, 2011, 10:35:57 AM

Quote
Sorry, I don't see anything about the kid dropping bowling balls from anywhere. Do you even understand the concept of 'fact'?

Yep, I understand the concept of "fact", but apparently you don't understand the concept of "analogy", or "degrees".

Analogies have their legitimate uses in illustration or enlightenment, but when they are used to accuse a person, or to put them in a false light of causing harm that never actually occured, IMO those analogies have no place and do not justifiably deserve consideration.

When pseudo-facts are used to determine the course of the law, real people are, in FACT, harmed.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 01, 2011, 11:02:13 AM »

Quote from: us920669 on May 01, 2011, 10:15:42 AM

Seems like overkill to me. One unintended consequence might be to make people less likely to call 911, possibly get a bunch of people killed trying some fool do-it-yourself rescue stunt.

A good point - one ought not have to worry about being arrested/their friends being arrested, when they call for help. When in extremis, call for help.

Casull · « **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2011, 12:21:51 PM »

Quote

When pseudo-facts are used to determine the course of the law, real people are, in FACT, harmed.

No pseudo facts here. Fact is the kid (er, voting age man) was goofing off. Fact is because of that, rescuers had to be sent to rescue him. Fact is, whenever first responders are sent out, some degree of danger is involved (can be small, can be great, but always some risk). Why do you think there are laws against false alarm calls? What you don't seem to understand is that we have laws to protect people from unwarranted dangers. The acts don't have to always cause harm; it's enough if they create a dangerous situation. Fire a rifle through a crowd of people and fail to hit someone. Think you shouldn't be charged because nobody was hurt?

Shu · « **Reply #20 on:** May 01, 2011, 12:31:08 PM »

I see no reason to arrest the young man. A group of them were goofing off. I am not certain of Alaska law but even here in California the kid wouldn't have been arrested. I could understand the rescuers chewing him out about thinking before doing.
Seems very heavy handed and just plain wrong to me. Don't misunderstand I am very pro law enforcement. However this seems a bit extreme. What will be next, people at a sporting event cheering to loud and arrested for disturbing the peace? These are kids goofing off, not drinking and driving, not shooting guns at people, not selling drugs etc.
I know at 18 I did bigger and dumber and there was no question of going to jail even after being caught.

powderman · « **Reply #21 on:** May 01, 2011, 12:47:26 PM »

BOY, I'm glad I never did anything stupid when I was a young man. yeah right. POWDERMAN.

dukkillr · « **Reply #22 on:** May 01, 2011, 12:59:38 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 01, 2011, 12:21:51 PM

Quote
When pseudo-facts are used to determine the course of the law, real people are, in FACT, harmed.

No pseudo facts here. Fact is the kid (er, voting age man) was goofing off. Fact is because of that, rescuers had to be sent to rescue him. Fact is, whenever first responders are sent out, some degree of danger is involved (can be small, can be great, but always some risk). Why do you think there are laws against false alarm calls? What you don't seem to understand is that we have laws to protect people from unwarranted dangers. The acts don't have to always cause harm; it's enough if they create a dangerous situation. Fire a rifle through a crowd of people and fail to hit someone. Think you shouldn't be charged because nobody was hurt?

That's twice you've tried ridiculous analogies to justify arresting a kid for being a kid.

Dropping bowling balls off an overpass or firing a rifle into a crowd is in no way comparable to kids running on ice. While their is risk in running on ice, that risk IS TO YOU! Your two useless examples are RISKS TO OTHERS! If you can't understand the difference send me a PM and we can hash it out.

Now I'm sure you're thinking, "Oh boy, I've got him now! There was risk to others because he had to be rescued..." You're right, there is a slight risk everytime someone gets out of bed. But the risk is indirect and slight, and secondary to the action in question. You're two examples are recklessly endangering others, directly.

Keep trying... I'm sure if you work at it long enough you'll find a way to justify it, you're just not there yet...

Sourdough · « **Reply #23 on:** May 01, 2011, 01:40:30 PM »

Casull: They were not dropping bowling balls off an overpass. And no one was drinking, or doing drugs. They were just a bunch of high school students, walking around on the ice along the edge of the river. Yes, some high school students turn 18 before they graduate. In the Chena river if you fall in stand up. It's not that deep, right about his waist in that area. But it's cold.

They have a couple of new city cops, and yes these cops are going a bit overboard on things. A group of us are scheduling a meeting with the mayor this coming week.

In the past the cop would have chewed his butt, given him a ride home, and made sure to embarress him in front of his buddies. That would have been enough, and got the message across to him and all his buddies. In my openion arrest was not in order, especially in this small town.

Now what this has taught our young people, "DON'T CALL 911, SOMEBODY WILL GO TO JAIL" take care of it yourself. Next time I just hope the young people don't get hurt trying to handle it themselves, instead of calling the professionals.

hillbill · « **Reply #24 on:** May 01, 2011, 02:00:05 PM »

it was total and rediculous over kill.that kid doesnt deserve a criminal record for playing on the ice.let alone time in jail.id bill him for the several gallons of deisel the fireman prob used driveing out there but thats about it.if yu beleive otherwise then everbody who has fell thru the ice on a skateing pond should be a convicted felon.

williamlayton · « **Reply #25 on:** May 01, 2011, 02:11:07 PM »

I have an idea. They knew who the kids were---let's arrest them all.
They could be put on probation. Let 'em out of jail for school and check 'em back in after school.
These are dangerous criminals in the making. They should be watched closely for the next 15 year. Society cannot allow free thinking--it is dangerous to law enforcement.
I am so worked up over this civil unrest, I say send 'em all to prison.
Yea, thats it--Prison.

Blessings

hillbill · « **Reply #26 on:** May 01, 2011, 02:52:13 PM »

WL is always there with tounge in cheek logic lol

Brett · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2011, 04:59:14 PM »

I think a bill for the rescue effort along with the humiliation of having to have his butt picked off the ice flow would be sufficient to teach this young man and his 'partners in crime' a lesson. Sounds like no one was placed in any serious danger from what Sourdough tell us, and the rescue squad probably needed the training exercise anyway.

There is risk in everything we do including getting out of bed in the morning. 1st You must consider the level or degree of risk the young man's actions placed the rescuers in. We are talking about a slow moving waist deep river, according to Sourdough, not some whitewater torrent. 2nd Rescue workers know that their job comes with a certain degree of risks and are willing to accept it or they would have become accountants or librarians or something else less risky.

My judgement is that the arrest was way overkill.

Sourdough · « **Reply #28 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:16:21 PM »

Thanks everyone for your opinion. Most feel the same way I do about this. This is one of the things we are going to discuss with the mayor next week. I think the cop was way out of line.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 01, 2011, 06:19:06 PM »

I'm thinking I don't even like the 'charge 'em for the rescue' idea. I mean, we've got tax-payer capability in place... are citizens charged whenever those capabilities are used?