Thin Ice & Common Sense

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3772
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby Punisher-One » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:59 pm

I'm not sure I agree with charging people at every accident scene.

The Fire Dept tends to send way too many trucks to the most minor of accidents.....if a Fire truck is not required (ie - no extraction required and no fire) then they shouldn't be dispatched. Ambulance can deal with medical, Police with the report, and the vultures....tow trucks....with the spills and glass.

User avatar
HwyBear
Moderator
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:28 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby HwyBear » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:42 pm

Force Recon wrote:I'm not sure I agree with charging people at every accident scene..

every collision/vehicle in ditch take all the insurance info and have the police service bill the insurance company
Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop. Your normal speeder will panic and immediately pull over to the side. This is wrong. It arouses contempt in the cop-heart. Make the bastard chase you. He will follow"

meathead1
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 4569
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Ont
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby meathead1 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:50 pm

i don't agree with every person getting jabbed every time, but in a case like this, where the retards ignored common sense AND warnings, they full deserve the jab.
When things get bad, I take comfort in knowing they could always be worse.
When things get worse, I take comfort in knowing they can only get better.

User avatar
CBR600F4i
Seasoned Member
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:56 am
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby CBR600F4i » Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:20 pm

gotchya wrote:Send them the bill for double the cost. We shouldn't have to pay for their stupidity.


You got it. I'm not going to pass judgement on the latest budget and whether or not the "austerity" measures were necessary - it may very well be. But, I guarantee taxpayers have hit the end of their leash with regards to real or perceived over expenditures by governments.

They can't retire now until they are 67. Gas, hydro and ferry costs are through the roof and their bank accounts are hemorrhaging from innumerable other taxes whether hidden or not. People have had it - plain and simple. Other than Kim Campbell's horrendous defeat, just look at the hammering the Federal Liberals got in the last election. The B.C. Liberals in today's news are looking at a similar defeat according to the latest poll numbers. I understand governments can't make everyone happy, but I will say on the whole the electorate is feeling pretty uneasy and are moody as hell.

Look at the rescue operations mounted in British Columbia for avalanche victims - probably costing tens of thousands of dollars - all because skiers and snowmobilers want to push the limits in out-of-bound areas.

Notify everyone that no rescue operations will be mounted in backcountry areas or on lakes where dangerous conditions exist. Fine anyone found in these areas and seek forfeiture of whatever they happen to be riding or driving at the time. If they are still alive and their sled hasn't been crushed into little pieces by thousands of tons of snow.

I was watching the Discovery Channel the other night where members of a climbing expedition were climbing Mount Everest. The climbers walked right past the body of another climber and the narrator stated that bodies are rarely recovered. They either stay where they fell or, if possible, other climbers respectfully dump the body into a crevasse. Some of those climbers acknowledge if you play with fire you might get burnt.

User avatar
Bubbles1993
Regular Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: NS
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby Bubbles1993 » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:34 am

CBR600F4i wrote:You got it. I'm not going to pass judgement on the latest budget and whether or not the "austerity" measures were necessary - it may very well be. But, I guarantee taxpayers have hit the end of their leash with regards to real or perceived over expenditures by governments.

They can't retire now until they are 67. Gas, hydro and ferry costs are through the roof and their bank accounts are hemorrhaging from innumerable other taxes whether hidden or not. People have had it - plain and simple. Other than Kim Campbell's horrendous defeat, just look at the hammering the Federal Liberals got in the last election. The B.C. Liberals in today's news are looking at a similar defeat according to the latest poll numbers. I understand governments can't make everyone happy, but I will say on the whole the electorate is feeling pretty uneasy and are moody as hell.

Look at the rescue operations mounted in British Columbia for avalanche victims - probably costing tens of thousands of dollars - all because skiers and snowmobilers want to push the limits in out-of-bound areas.

Notify everyone that no rescue operations will be mounted in backcountry areas or on lakes where dangerous conditions exist. Fine anyone found in these areas and seek forfeiture of whatever they happen to be riding or driving at the time. If they are still alive and their sled hasn't been crushed into little pieces by thousands of tons of snow.

I was watching the Discovery Channel the other night where members of a climbing expedition were climbing Mount Everest. The climbers walked right past the body of another climber and the narrator stated that bodies are rarely recovered. They either stay where they fell or, if possible, other climbers respectfully dump the body into a crevasse. Some of those climbers acknowledge if you play with fire you might get burnt.


To be fair, people can't collect Old Age Security (OAS) until they are 67. Nothing technically changes in terms of retirement. The only people raising the OAS age hurts is low income seniors. If you listen to the Parlimentary Budget Officer, OAS was a fully funded program that didn't need it's age for eligibility raised. Who's right? Who knows. I think a better way to have done it is to eliminate the benefit for those of us who don't truely need it and keep it at 65 for the low income seniors who depend on it. But enough on that.

The problem is that you can tell people you won't resuce them at all because we will. Do you want to be the person who makes that decision (too not go - ever) and gets your ass sued off? No.

Having people pay for a fair share of the rescue is the way to go, if they do that by fines or seizure it doesn't really matter.
To get back my youth I would do anything in the world, except take exercise, get up early, or be respectable.

- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
CBR600F4i
Seasoned Member
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:56 am
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby CBR600F4i » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:01 am

Bubbles1993 wrote:The problem is that you can tell people you won't resuce them at all because we will. Do you want to be the person who makes that decision (too not go - ever) and gets your ass sued off? No. Having people pay for a fair share of the rescue is the way to go, if they do that by fines or seizure it doesn't really matter.


I understand what you're saying and it's the unfortunate truth. Of course nobody wants to be the one to deny or be held accountable for not providing rescue services. It's human nature to want to help and the Darwin candidates know it. Which is why they continue to pull stupid stunts that cost taxpayers big money.

So yes, I agree you are correct - my answer to denying rescue services wouldn't work. Precisely because of the reasons mentioned above and because the rescue may have become necessary for other reasons besides negligence. However, I disagree with making them pay their fair share of those services - a finding of gross negligence should mean they pay for all of those costs. I don't care if it puts them in the poor house for the rest of their lives.

Smokers pay huge amounts of money in taxes partly because they draw upon more health care resources than non-smokers. Is it time for those people who enjoy snowboarding and skiing to pay a "provincial rescue tax" with the purchase of equipment? I think they should - it's a debt that shouldn't be shouldered by taxpayers who are smart enough to stay off the slopes.

shootemup
Sage Member
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:02 am
Location: Fraser Valley, B.C.
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby shootemup » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:22 pm

In BC, most SAR operations are volunteer and additional resources called aout are paid by the Provincial Emergency Program. I think if they were to start billing on the backs of the volunteers, there'd have to be a cut for the individual SAR associations.
Jackbooted Cig Enforcer

User avatar
CBR600F4i
Seasoned Member
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:56 am
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby CBR600F4i » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:44 am

My hats are off to those volunteers. I'd be interested to know what kind of equipment they have and whether or not they receive any type of compensation -similar to volunteer firefighters. Taxpayers still pay for the equipment, which isn't cheap and the "honorariums" that firefighters receive. Give them their cut, but governments need cost recovery too.

Ah, it doesn't matter, it'll never happen anyway. Stupid people will spawn stupid kids. We'll continue to save them from their misadventures at our expense and the cycle will go on and on.

shootemup
Sage Member
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:02 am
Location: Fraser Valley, B.C.
Contact:

Re: Thin Ice & Common Sense

Postby shootemup » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:09 pm

Taxpayers don't even pay for much of the equipment in BC. The Kiwanis, Lions, Elks, etc service groups tend to pay for much of it. I don't know what if any compensation they get; but I think they should at least get the tax break like firefighters do. Espcially as the SAR in my area does road rescues, etc that falls to fire depts in most areas.
Jackbooted Cig Enforcer


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest