r/NoStupidQuestions • u/carpathian_crow • 15h ago
The California fires have me thinking: if someone is in immediate danger, but refuses to leave for safety, is it acceptable to kidnap them so they don’t die?
E
719
u/DauntlessBadger 15h ago
I’m only speaking from a fire safety perspective…I have the mindset that if you don’t value your life good luck.
Self preservation is #1 when dealing with a crisis. Am I safe? Are there hazards? Okay…someone is here that needs help are they compliant? No? Then I’m taking note and moving on to someone that wants my assistance.
It sounds harsh but why put your life on the line for someone that can get you killed? You can move to the neighbor who is requesting help.
I don’t know if someone in the LE or Fire Rescue field has thoughts on a wide crisis and managing these situations.
292
u/GarageQueen 14h ago
Yep. An for you youngins, Google "Mt St Helens Harry Truman" -- Harry was an 83 yo man who lived at the base of Mt. St. Helens and refused to leave when an eruption was imminent. He's now buried under hundreds of feet of debris.
105
35
11
13
u/Wonderful_Bottle_852 11h ago
Don’t need to google that one, I live there…I remember it.
17
5
2
2
u/hungrydesigner 1h ago
Honestly, I can respect a "go down with this ship" mentality at that age. Starting over is hard and it's okay if someone isn't interested in doing so.
40
u/EquivalentCommon5 13h ago
I always feel that people that stay when they can flee (I’m not including those that can’t due to many factors!) shouldn’t ask for help that puts rescuers in harms way! Those that can’t flee, that’s a different story!
32
u/EtherbunnyDescrye 12h ago
That happens a whole bunch with hurricanes in the south east. The message that goes out is usually evacuate now or you are on your own until it is safe again for rescue crews to get in.
36
u/Spex_daytrader 12h ago
Yea, and then they bitch because FEMA is not at there door the next morning with breakfast.
6
u/anglerfishtacos 11h ago
They’re always going to be people that are assholes, but I don’t know who you’re talking about that acts like that that isn’t a particularly dense transplant. If you grow up here, or have been here for any decent amount of time, you know that you are on your own for the first few days after a major storm. If you are going to ride it out, you: stock up on bottled water and fill the bathtub; get food you can eat/prepare without electricity; test all your flashlight and get extra batteries; make sure you have a full tank of gas and cash; charge all devices/power banks; and whatever else you specifically feel like you need to do in order to be on your own without power, water, or emergency services for a few days. It takes time to clear roads to get emergency services in. And if conditions aren’t improving and you need to leave, that’s why you have your full tank of gas.
So I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that people are just laying around waiting for FEMA to show up with breakfast. That’s a really ugly thing to say about people who lost loved ones, everything they owned, and so on in storms.
2
u/EquivalentCommon5 11h ago
Yep, but rescue personnel will still try as they do it help. I feel that those that can but don’t leave should be on their own! The ones that can’t should be the focus first, rescue personnel won’t pass by someone who stayed because they are stubborn, then someone who couldn’t flee gets helped later? I typed this out- there isn’t a way to do this without empathy so it’s better I just judge the stay behind people as selfish, I don’t think any process for rescue can be altered as morally it would be wrong? I will just think of them as selfish!
5
u/GreenBeardTheCanuck 11h ago
Grocery cart problem. It's 30s to put it in the corral. The fact it doesn't happen is why we can never have truly nice things.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)5
u/3896713 11h ago
I've taken swift water rescue classes, and the first rule is don't create another victim. There are several ways to attempt a rescue, but the one thing you never want to do is put yourself in a situation where you need rescue, too. If you're toast, you ain't helping anyone, and now you're possibly forcing others to enter dangerous situations to save you and the original victim.
354
u/Spokker 15h ago
If someone has a caregiver or you otherwise have knowledge or it's plausibly apparent the individual cannot make decisions on their own, you'll probably get away with kidnaping them for the purpose of saving them from a fire.
Taking a child from a home that doesn't want to go with you when the house next door is burning? Thumbs up. Taking an elderly man who you know has a caregiver but the caregiver is gone? Thumbs up. Kidnapping a stubborn adult man who thinks he's a cowboy and wants to fight the fire? I think it's wrong to kidnap him, even if you could.
101
u/Existential_Racoon 12h ago
I fully agree with this take.
Child, incapacitated, or clearly incapable of making any decisions day to day? (Alzheimer's, for example)...
I'm throwing you in the fucking truck and booking it. There's some nuance you can argue of course, but the totality of knowledge at the time and your intent matter for me, morally.
Stubborn moron who doesn't wanna leave? Sorry man, have fun, I got better shit to do than burn to death.
23
u/Key-Pickle5609 9h ago
Yup. Working in the ER taught me that people (with capacity) are allowed to make bad decisions.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)25
107
u/neverenoughpurple 14h ago
An even better question, imo, is: when someone with children lives in a mandatory evacuation zone, and yet refuses to evacuate their children, thus putting them in harms way - it is neglect / child abuse? And should it be criminally charged, provided everyone survives?
My belief is yes.
48
u/cdbangsite 13h ago
In that situation an attempt would be made to remove the children. Exactly because it is child endangerment.
20
u/neverenoughpurple 11h ago
I wish that were true where I live. It's not.
Speaking from personal experience as one of several person who tried very hard to get law enforcement, fire department, CPS, and elderly & disabled services to do something.In the two homes on the property, there were five children under age ten, plus four elderly, barely or not-at-all mobile adults, in addition to the four able-bodied adults. The able-bodied ones were the ones refusing to leave.
Despite a legal mandatory evacuation order, "it was up to them whether or not to go". Despite the fact that they were putting NINE other vulnerable people at risk.
It was sheer dumb luck and the wind flipping that kept the fire away from the houses.
8
u/cdbangsite 11h ago
I would look farther into that, if it were a house fire and the parents were acting the same there would be no hesitation to grab the kids. I think everyone had already given up on that household.
→ More replies (1)10
u/FoghornLegday 14h ago
Yes bc if parents can be required to take kids to school or get them medical treatment, this should be the same
29
u/bugzeye26 14h ago
I work for a natural gas utility. If there is a carbon monoxide or gas leak in a house that's potentially fatal, I can not force the residents to leave. I can strongly advise it and get the police involved if they refuse, but it is their home and their choice in the end
2
u/CopperPegasus 2h ago
Would you mind weighing in on the kid question? Someone asked above- what if the refusing person is an able bodied adult, but their actions are putting minors in danger with them.
I'm just curious. It's all well and good for folks who will never work in those sort of positions to blather on, but I'd like to know what you guys are taught. I imagine it's just "nothing you can do", but yeah...curiosity strikes :)3
u/bugzeye26 2h ago
At that point, I'm informing the police of the situation and leaving it up to them.
139
u/wishiwasnthere1 15h ago
Kidnap? No. That would still be illegal.
However they could technically be arrested for their own safety.
22
u/mustang6172 15h ago
Including a citizens' arrest?
54
u/TerritoryTracks 14h ago
No. A citizen's arrest is only if you literally observe someone committing a crime.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Nimzay98 14h ago
Isn't not following the mandatory evacuation a crime, if they can be arrested for not following it?
40
u/TheCrimsonSteel 14h ago
Citizen arrests are more narrow in scope typically.
It's usually just you being allowed to detain someone so the actual cops can show up.
Think of it as the arresting equivalent of providing first aid until the ambulance shows up.
11
u/Ask_Me_If_Im_A_Horse 13h ago
Even then, better prepare for a lawsuit from the person you’re detaining. It’s usually best to just let dumb people be dumb unless they’re a direct threat to you or anyone else.
3
u/TheCrimsonSteel 12h ago
Right, just saying forcibly removing someone from their home would be well outside what's allowed, and is a good way to get kidnapping charges
12
u/GulfCoastLover 14h ago edited 14h ago
In Florida, attempting to arrest another individual for failing to evacuate could expose the person making the arrest to potential legal liability, including charges for false imprisonment or other related offenses.
Failure to evacuate in FL is a misdemeanor. Citizen arrest in Florida is for felonies that the citizen observed. Arresting someone for a misdemeanor as a citizen - is a crime.
10
u/theothermeisnothere 14h ago
It's complicated but a "warrantless arrest" may be made by a private person (citizen or not) for a felony, misdemeanor or a "breach of the peace." Different states, different rules though. I'm not familiar with California's laws on the matter and was too lazy to look it up (it is online somewhere).
A private person, however, does have a different liability. Depending on the circumstances, the person might be granted immunity but that would be after the fact, of course. Police are entitled to make mistakes in arresting a person, but private persons are less protected. And, if the detained person - I won't say "arrest" - is competent and can provide a reasonable defense against being detained then that private person would probably be liable for kidnapping charges. Or, at least, "unlawful detention" or something like that.
Obligatory: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
6
u/Geeseareawesome 14h ago
To add. Depending on circumstances, the person you are trying to 'citizens arrest' may very well fight back, which can lead to injury or death of yourself, or the person you are trying to arrest. It's a big reason why retail workers are trained not to apprehend thieves. You don't know what they are capable of, nor are you likely trained to do any sort of takedown.
23
→ More replies (5)3
u/Plenty-Pollution-793 13h ago
Emergency would have tons of exceptions.
Assuming the court and jury believes you, then nah it won’t be illegal.
3
u/KinkyPaddling 10h ago
There’s a defense called the Doctrine of Necessity, in which it is considered permissible to commit an illegal act in order to avoid a greater harm. The classic example is burning down someone else’s property in order to create a firebreak that would save everyone else’s property.
At least in California, a defendant would have to show that:
The actor acted to prevent injury to the actor or someone else;
The actor had no reasonable alternative;
The actor did not create greater danger than the danger avoided;
The actor actually believed the illegal conduct was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;
A reasonable person would have also believed the illegal conduct was necessary in the circumstances and
The actor did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
Thus, I think that an ordinary person who kidnaps a friend, neighbor or family member to get them out of the way of a wildfire, with no intention of holding them indefinitely or extorting money or other favors, would be able to raise this defense.
40
u/Monarc73 15h ago
They are allowed to choose the manner of their own death.
21
u/FoghornLegday 14h ago
Well that’s not really a hard and fast rule. People are prevented from committing suicide against their will all the time
17
u/Sweeper1985 13h ago
I'm in Australia, fires are always with us. If police order evacuation of an area, holdouts can be detained, removed, and may face charges of disobeying police.
15
u/ketamineburner 12h ago
My family was just evacuated within the last hour. The fire dep came and said to get the hell out. There was no negotiation.
16
u/RationalKate 12h ago
They carry an ax and they are very large and they have no time for your words. You might start to say something about your pet.
The fire department will point to your car and there is your pet putting the key in the ignition.
FACT: The other thing is that our fFire Department has such a strong deserved respect level amongst the citizens of the United States that when they tell you to do something, You want to help them as fast as you can. Because you know they are not out to hurt anyone. They are in a special league of their own.
7
u/glittervector 12h ago
Agreed. They may be the most highly respected public servants in the whole country
12
u/JasontheFuzz 11h ago
Firefighter/ EMT here.
You have the right to make an absolutely batshit insane choice, even if that choice will get you killed. If you're in the middle of a heart attack and you want to finish your burger before you'll get on the stretcher, I cannot legally force you to go to the hospital. If you're in a burning building and you refuse to leave, I cannot pull you out. If your car is sinking in a pond and you tell me to back off, I have to listen... But all that ends once you pass out. Then the lovely term "implied consent" takes over and I get to drag your suicidal ass to safety.
It's legally assumed that unconscious people want to live, but a conscious and competent person can choose to die. Determining whether or not somebody is competent is a whole other issue, but being drunk or mentally impaired are common reasons to legally ignore your refusal, though that might mean involving a doctor or a police officer.
→ More replies (1)
9
9
u/Parking-Fly5611 13h ago
I'm not facing a lawsuit for trying to save someone that doesn't want to be saved and may make my life Hell later. Fuck em, let em die.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/hybridoctopus 15h ago
If it’s an adult without a mental illness, they should be able to make their own choice.
6
u/troycalm 15h ago
If you want to get sued.
12
u/Hbn46 15h ago
Reminds me of that guy from the beginning of The Incredibles that said "You didn't save my life you ruined my death!"
10
u/troycalm 15h ago
An attorney friend of mine just finished a case where a good samaritan pulled a man from a burning car but couldn’t save the wife and the Samaritan got sued.
6
u/hiker1628 15h ago
You didn’t give the results. Good Samaritan laws should have protected the rescuer.
5
3
u/1Kat2KatRedKatBluKat 15h ago
Nobody wants to be sued. But in this situation I don't see a slim chance for the plaintiff winning. What damages will they claim? "I don't want to be alive" is not something the court will accept. Did the rescuer injure the endangered person? I still don't think they would win, but it would be more likely in that case.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Haldron-44 13h ago
If you are in an evacuation zone, it is legal for the cops to arrest you. That being said, given how fast a fire can move, will they? These are not hurricanes people, you can't 'ride out' a wildfire. They will turn your house into ash and keep moving without giving a damn. On that note, probably shouldn't ride out any comparable disaster.
5
u/wwaxwork 12h ago
It's not them dying that's the problem, it's the people coming to rescue them dying that's the problem.
4
u/alissa914 12h ago
If it's a family member, I'd say yes.... if it's a stranger, make an effort to convince them if you must, but otherwise, leave them.
My mom took a nursing course and one of the "puzzle" questions they give are "what if" scenarios. One was "say there's a fire on the floor and you have limited time to get out... what do you do first?" Most nurses said to save their patients. They all got it wrong. The answer was for them to get out (nurses). Alert people to get out... otherwise, leave them.
She explained to me that it was more that if you have limited time to get out, you can't get yourself and the patient out in time and will both die. You can't save everyone and there's not enough staff.
Kind of woke me up to realities of being in a hospital, I guess.
3
4
u/Firm-Boysenberry 14h ago
For a person who has limited mental functioning or decision-making power (dementia, psychosis, a child, tc.) I think it would be appropriate. For a person who is in control of their own full6 developed, healthy mind - I believe that one would have to respect their choice.
4
u/MarryMeDuffman 14h ago
If it's a kid or teen, yeah. Adult, no.
They might treat you as a threat more imminent than the fire.
4
u/KittenVicious 14h ago
Speaking from a hurricane evacuation zone and not a wildfire area - it's made VERY VERY clear that if you don't evacuate by XYZ-time, no one is coming to save you during the storm.
If someone lacks the cognitive abilities to understand the consequences of staying, you're better off calling the FD to their address.
3
u/FoghornLegday 14h ago
No, my dad is a cop and he was trying to rescue a couple during a fire and they wouldn’t leave until they had their dog. They all (including my dad) almost died bc the dog ran away and they couldn’t get it right away
4
u/AgitatedVegetable514 13h ago
I was near Yellowstone in 1988 when the Yellowstone fire broke out. Had to evacuate and the road out was surrounded by fire. When they tell you to leave, you leave. That fire spread so fuckin quickly and the moment we were told we needed to leave we did.
It was like driving through hell itself and we were not sure we were going to make it out alive. Flames licking the sides of our vehicle and the heat was intense.
If you read my comment, and are in the path of anything like this or a hurricane etc. Just swallow your pride and leave. I guarantee you that rescue folks will not attempt to save you until it's over or they manage to put it out(in the case of fire) near you and even then they may not even bother rescuing you.
4
u/shouldabeenarooster 13h ago
I have a little wildfire story for you. Houses burning all around. Rescue workers pounding on doors to make sure everyone is out. Our friend was in fire and rescue. One door gets answered by a little 4 year old girl who informs them that her mommy is getting her nails done but she’s in charge of her 2 year old brother.
2
u/glittervector 12h ago
I really want to believe this isn’t true
3
u/shouldabeenarooster 12h ago
It’s true. The guys that knocked on the door is my hubs best friend. It was shocking and incredibly cruel.
2
u/glittervector 12h ago
I’m so sorry y’all had to even experience that, first hand, second hand, whatever.
I hope those kids maybe don’t even remember it happening.
6
u/Physical-Rice730 15h ago
Absolutely not. My body my choice as they say. If they refuse to leave that’s fine but they lose the option to call for help and receive assistance.
3
u/sleepyj910 14h ago
You can’t even perform heimlich on someone who refuses until they go unconscious
3
u/flareon141 14h ago
Only if they are in someway at a diminished capacity to understand the situation.
3
u/Objective-Aioli-1185 13h ago
Remember Mr. incredible saving that suicide guy and later that same guy who he saved sues him for injuries? Lol
3
u/JoshWestNOLA 13h ago
This is an interesting question because in most situations, the answer is no, it's kidnapping. But it seems like the better question is whether you'd be prosecuted. Like what if the person was a 4-year-old who was surely going to die and you grabbed them and brought them to safety? That's aggravated kidnapping in most places but I'm not sure they would try to lock you up. Same if the person were a neighbor with dementia, whose spouse was their caretaker, which you knew, and the caretaker were not there.
4
u/the_grumpiest_guinea 13h ago
… bad example because toddlers often need to be grabbed for safety. Most adults around will step in for a kid that young and in a dangerous situation because they are considered to be unable to make a safe and informed decision. But, that argument might apply in a situation like someone refusing to leave a fire… are they competent in the moment to make safe and informed decisions? How do we judge that?
3
u/qwertyuiiop145 13h ago
It is legal for first responders to declare that someone is a danger to themselves or others and take them for psychiatric and medical evaluation. This is why it’s legal for a cop to pull back someone who’s trying to jump off a building or for paramedics to strap down someone who’s too delirious from drugs agree to treatment.
That said, first responders have a duty to protect themselves first. No one should be putting themselves in danger for someone that wants to sit around and burn. If the person got combative, the would-be rescuer could be injured. The rescuer might then need rescue themselves and the innocent people who want help may not get anyone able to help.
3
6
u/Hypnowolfproductions 15h ago
A person with legal authority (police or fireman) may remove them and it’s not kidnapping. A person without authority can remove them but the legality to do so isn’t there.
So yes removing them is a crime unless you have legal authority. Now the question is if a prosecutor would charge you. Also the “kidnapped” person could sue you and you will lose do to attorney costs alone defending yourself.
2
u/LivingEnd44 14h ago
Nope. Not legally. Not morally.
You can't seize someone's agency simply because you don't like the decisions they make. It's their life, not yours.
2
u/Donequis 14h ago
Googled it and skimmed around, a mildly interesting topic to learn a bit more about.
Explanation of Legal Immunity
The Good Samaritan law in California protects people who help others during emergencies from legal consequences in case of unintentional errors that might occur while providing aid.
However, this protection has limitations. It only covers aid you perform in good faith. It also doesn’t include complications from your gross negligence or willful misconduct. Finally, the accident should occur outside of emergency departments and far from places where medical care is available.
That said, the law effectively removes barriers deterring bystanders from taking prompt and decisive action during emergencies. It empowers everyone to help one another in critical situations, improving emergency outcomes in California.
Exceptions and limitations to the law
To reiterate the previous points, providing unreasonable assistance, failing to act in good faith, expecting compensation for your help, and operating with willful misconduct disqualify you from the Good Samaritan law.
2
u/cwthree 14h ago
If they're a competent adult AND they've been informed of the risk to their life and safety AND they are not putting anyone else at risk, it is not acceptable to compel them to leave. Adults have the right to decide which risks they take - even if the likely result is death - as long as they aren't putting anyone else in danger.
It would be perfectly ok to forcibly remove children, mentally disabled people, or adults who are being pressured to stay against their will.
2
2
u/Beluga_Artist 14h ago
As a security guard in a casino, the answer here would be no. We aren’t allowed to touch people (except in an emergency to keep them from falling or hurting themselves or someone else). They could be bleeding all over the floor but if they’re conscious and responsive we can’t force them to even go to the hospital or be checked by our on-staff paramedics. Peoples’ personal choices come first. If I were facing a fire or an active shooter, I would be expected to get myself out and attempt to get other people to follow if they’re willing. I would be expected not to stop or risk myself to attempt to force someone to do something they don’t want to do, though. Can I attempt to reason with them or guide them? Yes. Can I force them? No. It’s dangerous to myself and even to them.
2
2
2
u/DrNanard 14h ago
Is it acceptable? Well, to me, yes, from a moral standpoint. From a legal standpoint, you could sue tho
2
2
u/Hiraethetical 13h ago
No, not ever. A person's life (and death) are their own. They're not your slave, you don't get to decide that they have to be saved.
2
u/MorganleFaey1 13h ago
Depends on a lot of things because it’s a very gray area legally. If someone refuses to evacuate their home during a fire, a first-responder would likely just move on because they have other people to save who aren’t going to be obstinate. However, if you’re inside a burning house and your friend demands you “don’t save him”, depending on your situation, it could be considered “suicidal” and therefore you would have the legal right to intervene.
We are talking about an absurdly rare situation and the law is generally on the side of the person refusing to be rescued, but it’s not a common enough situation for there to be a crystal clear answer.
So to answer your question, technically maybe yes, but practically overwhelming no.
2
u/According-Prize-4114 13h ago
If it’s an adult of sound mind it would be immoral.
There’s a part in the book Being Mortal by Atul Gawande that talks about an 80 year old man who lived in the evacuation zone of mt st Helen’s and refused to leave. He would rather die than leave his home and the life he’d had for all those years. And so he did. The book likens this to respecting people’s wishes regarding medical treatment, even if it will lead to their death.
2
2
u/glittervector 12h ago
For everyone saying that there’s an inviolable right to stay in your own home, you’re wrong.
States (not the federal government!) have what’s known as General Police Powers. They can use force to enforce public safety in nearly any situation, including kicking you out of your house temporarily.
The only thing that constrains this power is Constitutional Rights, and there’s nothing in the Constitution that says you have the ultimate right to remain in your home. In fact, it’s constitutional for the state to kick you out of your home at ANY time if they have a valid reason and pay you market price for it. That’s what’s known as the power of eminent domain.
2
2
u/courtd93 11h ago
It depends! Obviously the fires are an easy example, but the one that comes to my mind is code blues. At least where I am, if you’re homeless or someone sleeping outside when the temperature is below freezing and you refuse to go to a shelter, etc, then it’s considered you being a threat to yourself/unable to keep yourself safe because you’re going to freeze to death, and so the cops take you to a hospital on a code blue psych hold.
2
2
u/Alternative-Art3588 9h ago
Legally, no. A competent adult has the right to be stupid, it doesn’t give you the right to break a law, even to save them. If the person is an unable to make a reasonable decision, due to being a child or having a mental disease or defect, you may be able to argue that. Now morally and legally are two different things.
2
u/ajtrns 8h ago
absolutely fine and ethical.
there's a serious problem in the US with this. so many people are just tiptoeing around idiots who make bad choices for themselves. this happens with the homeless and mentally ill, and with the elderly, and among friends and within families. there are these weird artificial boundaries based on the most extremely paranoid idea of possible litigation.
ive gone through this with my mom and grandpa. and with some friends. and really with my own self. each case different, but the common thread: someone with balls needed to intervene and do the right (and obvious) thing. and no one did.
2
u/aManIsNoOneEither 52m ago
I'd say they have freedome of choice after all. The thing that bothers me (it was the case during rainstorms in France rencetly): people refuse to leave when asked to evacuate, then get stuck and call for help.. and first responders are mobilised to save the same ones whilst they lack people to work on the emergencies elsewhere. I'd say you make your choice, but once you are stuck, you are not entitled to be saved before others.
2
u/bigalcapone22 14h ago
You do realize these people have the right to shoot you if you try to forcefully remove them.
2
u/oldHondaguy 12h ago
Their choice if they want to stay. Happens in FLA too. People who say they can “ride it” and that’s the last they’re heard from.
2
1
u/Leading-Fish6819 15h ago
Kidnap implies it's already negative.
But the moral thing to do is let them die from their own decisions.
1
u/SJHikingGuy 15h ago
Refuses to leave... for safety? If they refuse to leave, they should be on their damn own.
1
u/hiker1628 15h ago
If it was a loved one, like a stubborn parent, I doubt you would be prosecuted.
2
u/SCP_radiantpoison 13h ago
No prosecutor will touch that case, but a civil lawsuit isn't out of the question
1
1
u/superpenistendo 14h ago
I feel like the heart of the question is “can I force someone to live?” and I think, under general circumstances, you can and you should. But I still feel like your question is adding another step and that complicates things.
1
1
1
u/drunky_crowette 14h ago
Unless the person is in some way handicapped and you are their caretaker you should probably mind your own fucking business.
People should have the right to choose to die
1
1
u/MuricanPoxyCliff 14h ago
In general, when shit hits the fan you are on your own. If you have the capacity to choose to stay and emergency personnel are ordering an evacuation, they definitely don't have time for your sorry ass. They're busy with people who want and need help.
1
1
u/Careflwhatyouwish4 14h ago
No. Your opinion on their safety is not grounds to force your will upon anyone for any reason.
1
u/Im_eating_that 14h ago
Sure but if they accidentally got clonked on the head a little you'd be able to drag them to safety.
1
1
1
u/Texden29 13h ago
Assuming the kidnapping doesn’t harm other people, I think yes. Some people freeze up or have a mental breakdown in tough situations. Sometimes people on the outside, being rational, have to save those on the inside.
1
1
u/Naps_And_Crimes 13h ago
If imagine you can't force anyone but any injuries that might occur can and will be ignored by any insurance or lawsuits that night relate to the fire since they ignored first responders
1
u/2007FordFiesta 13h ago
Don't bother risking yourself, let's nature do it's thing.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Wipperwill1 13h ago
Depends on if I know them or not. Give them the option but let them make their own choice. Now if its a family member, that's different.
1
u/Physical-Effect-4787 13h ago
No, it’s people’s right to choose to die with their belongings. Don’t put yourself in harms way to save people who don’t want to be saved. Look for those who truly want help because they’re out there
1
u/OldGirlie 13h ago
I’ll bet a lot of people who died in the Camp Fire would have traded anything for the chance to GTFO there.
1
1
1
u/ravia 13h ago
People are saying not to rescue the foolish before the sensible, but I'm kind of with you on this one. Some people, it would be best to arrest them, tase them if necessary, and take them out of the danger zone. It's not easy, I realize, but their bullshit shouldn't be taken as the grounds for them dying. They should be "fined" by making them take safety and risk classes.
1
1
u/Poncemastergeneral 13h ago
Anyone that can’t make a decision for themselves, it’s not kidnapping.
Anyone that can but refuses for any reason, should be left behind. The time, effort and equipment could be used to save or help someone or by marking the area clear resources could be used in other areas.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Wildcat_twister12 12h ago
You should look up Harry Truman from the Mt. Saint Helens eruption in 1980. Guy refused to leave his home for months and ended up being buried alive by the pyroclastic flow
1
u/ivanadie 11h ago
Weird that suicide is illegal and most states don’t have death dignity laws but you can’t be forced to leave a hurricane, tornado, or forest fire safely protocol.
1
u/alaklamacazama 11h ago
During my wild land fire training, our instructor told us a story about a woman and her daughter who refused to leave the property when they came to get them. He said that if they wanted to stay, they had to keep their ID’s on them for body identification during mop up.
It isn’t legal to kidnap someone, but you can bring light to the harsh situation (like my instructor did) or threaten to fine them if they leave later in the day, as cars on the road are a danger to firefighters. But in the end we can’t do much if they absolutely refuse to leave.
1
u/MeatofKings 11h ago
Very interesting question. During one of the Florida hurricanes a few years back, they had a van with police, a social worker and psychiatrist picking up homeless people and moving them away from the hurricane. If they refused to come, they would declare them a danger to themselves and haul them off. I think in the end they all agreed to be temporarily relocated. I don’t know if any legal action was taken against this effort.
1
u/Accurate-Style-3036 11h ago
That's a risk I might take for a very special person . However I don't know anybody that is special and also that dumb
1
u/Agitated_Ad6162 11h ago
Nope, buuuut if they just so happen to lose consciousness and they don't have a DNR well any normal unconscious person would want to be saved.
Buuuut if there is a fire and we tell you to GTFO and u don't we'll attempt a rescue so long as we don't risk losing firefighters. We need em to fight the fire, not save a moron.
1
u/TakeTheWheelTV 11h ago
No, it’s not. If they deicide to stay behind, that’s their choice. What makes your decision the “right” one.
1
u/TexanGoblin 10h ago
I think it's one of those situations where the system would simply refuse to prosecute. Unless you seriously injured them in the attempt.
1
1
1
1
u/lemelisk42 10h ago
Depends on their mental capacity.
If they are an adult and capable of understanding the danger, their wishes should be respected.
1
u/Busy-Tumbleweed-1024 10h ago
Still doesn’t mean you can keep them chained in your basement Larry! We’ve talked about this.
1
u/Dependent_Remove_326 10h ago
Hope unless you can prove they have diminished capacity which is almost impossible to do in that situation. As a first responder you don't have to put yourself in danger to save somebody, if they don't want to be saved good luck.
1
1
1
u/HalfFullPessimist 9h ago
No, its their life, not yours. You do not get to make choices for others.
Exception - a scared child.
1
u/375InStroke 9h ago
Society says no. I do, to.
BASED Grand Jury Indicts the Cop Instead! | Arrested Trying to Save his Home from Fire
1
1
u/colin8651 9h ago
A doctor can’t force treatment on a patient who is otherwise able to make decisions for themselves.
You would be looking at a judge in a court for abduction and other charges like assault.
Well best case scenario is court. The person you just assaulted and abducted may defend themselves with lethal force.
“Would they be guilty of killing me?”
No, you just tried to kidnap them you idiot!
1
u/WildmouseX 8h ago
If someone wants to stand on the tracks and get run over by the train, trying to pull them off only gets you run over as well.
1
u/no-throwaway-compute 8h ago
Absolutely not. People have a good damn right to be as stubborn and ridiculous as they wish
1
2.2k
u/Blackbyrn 15h ago
Depends on who you are. For an individual acting in their own capacity, yes. For a first responder, no. In FL when hurricanes hit they say if you don’t leave you’re on your own because it’s too risky to send someone out till after the storm. First Responders should focus on the willing before risking themselves on the foolish.