Hacker News Reader

I agree, the court's arguments make little sense.

Even if you agree to the point of view that he went on the hike ill-prepared, that does not change the fact that he found himself in a potentially life-threatening situation with no other means to signal for help.

Now, the article also mentioned that he left the fire unattended, and that raises the question whether or not a signal fire could have been done with more care. But that is not at all what the court focuses on.

At the same time, isn't the sum of $300,000 influencing our judgment here? Would we think otherwise about the judgment if the damage were much lower, say, around $1,000?

If the sentence was $1k, and you had to do a "safe hiking PSA", I'd consider that just.

"Now, the article also mentioned that he left the fire unattended, and that raises the question whether or not a signal fire could have been done with more care. But that is not at all what the court focuses on."

Yeah, I'm not saying the court decision is necessarily wrong, but the way they went about it seems wrong. They are focusing too much on stuff that doesn't matter - like a first aid kit.

Yeah, the amount is definitely an influential factor. However, it's probably based on actual cost to put out the fire. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance interests here. Should tax payers just foot the bill anytime someone accidentally starts a fire (reckless? Negligence? Etc too?) or needs to be rescued, or do we need to have personal insurance against these things and what does that cost? I'd say I'm generally against personal insurance for everyday life and definitely against mandated personal insurance for most activities as you can essentially regulate lawful activities out of existence and price out classes of people. A potential fix would be charging a low fee hiking pass that acts similar to insurance to help the governwment cover costs likely to arise from public use. Although I'm sure this has some concerns with use restriction and pricing people out of a public resource as well.

I think the question the court was trying to answer was "did he act negligently?". If he did, he's responsible for the result. That he didn't bring a first aid kit is further evidence that he wasn't prepared for the hike, so I think it's relevant.

Yet it would make no difference in this scenario. He brought a bunch of other equipment, like camping gear and the recommended amount of water for the time he expected to be on a beginner trail. That seems to be equally relevant, if not more so since those are things he actually used.

He burned down 230 acres of forest after lighting a tree on fire purposefully and walking away.

Thats extreme recklessness, stupidity, against the law in the first place, and could have endangered the lives of an unknown amount of people hiking on the same trail or in the vicinity.

He took no precautions with the fire and the entire situation happened because of recklessness in the first place.

The sentence is just and appropriate. Frankly probably low considering the amount of work needed to put the fire out.

He saved his life, I think that's worth more than a forest fire. He also likely had no idea it would be so large, especially in his reduced mental state.

He made a mistake, and this sentence is brutish and unjust, and could cause a chilling effect on others who might need to take drastic action to save lives, causing more harm in the end.

Or it may help people realise they should go on hikes more prepared, and if shit happens they should consider going back instead pushing forward like the person did the second day, esp if they somehow think that in the worst case they will light a fire and they will be rescued.

For me the real key here is this:

>In her verdict, United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles disagreed. Powers, she wrote, “was reckless and negligent in his preparation for a hike of this magnitude from the outset.” He hadn’t packed a GPS device, paper map, or compass, instead relying on a cell phone mapping app that was useless without service. He had failed to bring a headlamp or flashlight, instead relying on his phone’s built-in light.

He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies. I'm no serious outdoorsman, but I'd never consider doing what he did. That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it.

This is what did it for me as well. He was on the wrong trail and relying on a cell phone for maps and GPS is outright foolishness.

What does the flashlight or headlamp have to do with the circumstances of this case? What about the first aid kit they mentioned? I don't see those changing anything in this case.

"He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies."

You mention wilderness. Was the trail he intended to hike also in the wilderness area? This could have an impact on what one brings with them. For example, he might have had cell coverage at the trail he intended to hike. And he did infact bring a lot of equipment, such as camping equipment even though he didn't plan to stay overnight. It's not like he set out without anything. The point here is that any little thing can have people screaming that you were negligent. The bar is that a reasonable person should have known better. Maybe that's true. If it is, then almost anyone can be found negligent when they need to be rescued. That's my point. One thing to point out on this is they mention many hikers underpack their water. If you survey how many hikers of beginner day trip trails pack first aid, proper flashlights, etc I would guess you'd find that many, if not most, don't. Perhaps a reasonable person wouldn't have known to plan for this.

"That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it."

I'd say he was reckless in the way he set the fire. I'm not convinced he was negligent in going hiking since he had many pieces of equipment and the recommended amount of water for the expected time (a day hike).

Dude went hiking, alone, in the wilderness, without basic supplies -- e.g., a compass, a map, a proper GPS, or even a flashlight.

If that doesn't sound negligent to you, well, you're not reading well.

Was the trail he intended to hike a wilderness trail as well? This can influence what one brings. I'm not bringing a flashlight on a day hike just to carry extra weight if I have one on my phone. A map is good, but shouldn't really be necessary on a well established beginner trail for a day hike. He turned around after he was lost. The real issue is one mistake of choosing the wrong trail due to a name mix up leading to everything else, and then being reckless about the fire.

It's easy to use hindsight to say someone was negligent because you would have packed X and they didn't. Yet there are many other people that might call you negligent because you didn't pack everything on their list.

Exactly. The question is what would a reasonable person did, and as mentioned in the article, many reasonable people fail to take enough water.

He made mistakes and it almost cost his life. But he took steps to save his life too. That got out of hand too.

But that is the nature of rescues - if everyone did the right thing from the start, we wouldn't need rescues!

Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble.

I don't think that "everybody does it" is a reasonable excuse when the risks you knowingly or unknowingly undertake materialize.

There are a lot of people who speed on highways. If you cause damage or hospitalize someone because you are speeding you are still responsible.

>Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble.

The fine isn't for needing rescue or getting lost, that OK. The fine is for starting a forest fire. We dont pay taxes so that everyone can start forest fires without financial consequences.

LOL OK.

> Isn't there a legal concept that you can break the law to prevent a further harm? Like speeding on the way to the hospital.

Nit: this is a popular myth, but no, you're not allowed to do this. An officer can use discretion and not cite you, but if they do cite you, you'll have no legal defense. https://www.ashtonandprice.com/medical-excuse-speeding/

EDIT: I was wrong, ignore this post. I learned something new today

This disagrees (not with the link you provided but with how you are interpreting it). Your link is about labor, which it states is not a true emergency. Thwy also reccomend calling an ambulance for emergencies but don't address what happens if you choose the other option. A true emergency can use the necessity defense.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/necessity/

> The trail was well-marked at first, and he made it to Taylor Cabin without any issue. A few miles beyond that, however, the trail became rough and overgrown, and Powers soon realized he was lost. For about a half-hour to 40 minutes, he attempted to pick up the trail again before giving up and doubling back to the cabin, arriving there at roughly 6 p.m.

He was merely an easy 3 miles from his car when he decided to put through exploring the wilderness for a second time, having gotten lost the first. He could easily have walked back to his car. If the fact that he chose to walk somewhere he knew he could not find his way and with no supplies to sustain him is not "creating his own circumstances" I do not know what it is. Mistakes happen etc but here we are talking about a person who, the second day, chose to wander the wilderness totally unprepared instead of essentially getting his ride back home.

Where do you see this stuff? It's not in the article. Based on the quote you posted, he got lost for 40 minutes and decided to turn around. Wasn't he staying at the cabin due to leg cramps?

> Anyways, my biggest takeaway is that you can make a mistake and be completely fucked for the rest of your life.

Or if you get into a situation like this, you may not take necessary steps to save your life or someone else's life because you may get a $300K fine.

This court ruling puts a chilling effect on staying a life, and could cost more harm and lives.

> you can make a mistake and be completely fucked for the rest of your life

If you’re reckless, yes. You bear consequences for your actions.

Note the counterfactual case, where the hiker cleared the area around the fire, where damages were not found (on appeal).

"where damages were not found (on appeal)."

That's good. So they weren't fucked for the rest of their lives, just for a few years for the trial and likely tens of thousands in legal fees.

> they weren't fucked for the rest of their lives, just for a few years for the trial and likely tens of thousands in legal fees

For causing massive, irreversible damage to a public space and natural ecosystem, damage entirely avoidable had they taken reasonable precautions? Yes.

Can you link to the facts of that case? It seems like you're very emotional and may be overstating things since forest fires don't cause "irreversible damage" to an ecosystem. They are a natural part of the ecosystem and man is trying to tame them so we can live there, etc. I'm also unfamiliar with the case in question of whether or not the person took reasonable precautions, but it seems the court may have agreed based on dismissing it on appeal.

> forest fires don't cause "irreversible damage" to an ecosystem

Sycamore canyon isn’t a forest, it’s a high desert. While fires a bit north, on the Mogollon Rim, are common, they’re not around Sedona. These regions contain centuries-old cacti. So yes, it would recover in pristine conditions over a century. But amid the changing climate, that hill may be too steep for the original ecosystem to return.

Just because they aren't common doesn't mean they don't naturally happen. If you have an environment that has all the conditions to have a fire like that, they will also naturally occur. Even if it's at a slower rate.

I disagree he was reckless though. He thought he was dying - and quite likely he would have had he didn't start a signal fire.

It got out of hand yes and there were better ways, but I bet he was not thinking clearly since he was suffering medically and mentally.

He was reckless going out unequipped. Then he was reckless not clearing the area around the fire. Then he was reckless walking away from a tree he set on fire in a desert. The whole situation is closer to drunk driving than a quotidian oopsie.

To be fair, he did put others lives in danger by lighting a wildfire. Plus did a whole lot of damage to the wilderness.

But 300000 would probably be something they’d be willing to pay to be rescued.

Yeah, I'm not saying the court's decision or the amount is wrong. I am questioning how they got to part of the decision, which may be likely to be used as case law against others. They are focusing a lot on the part about creating his own emergency with inconsequential stuff about not having a first aid kit. The pertinent part is how he lit up a tree an walked away.

The fact that he's fighting it shows he's not that willing to pay.