• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should someone who saves a life be punished if they broke a rule?

Should someone who saves a life be punished if they broke a rule?

  • Only if it turns out badly (victim is not rescued)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This question comes about due to an article a river buddy of mine posted on Facebook.

Colorado rafting guide arrested after girl's rescue - The Denver Post

Clear Creek sheriff's deputies arrested a rafting guide for swimming to a stranded young rafter who had tumbled from his boat on Clear Creek.

Ryan Daniel Snodgrass, a 28-year- old guide with Arkansas Valley Adventures rafting company, was charged after the Thursday incident with "obstructing government operations," Clear Creek Sheriff Don Krueger said.

"He was told not to go in the water, and he jumped in and swam over to the victim and jeopardized the rescue operation," said Krueger, noting that his office was deciding whether to file similar charges against another guide at the scene Thursday on Clear Creek just downstream from Kermitts Roadhouse on U.S. 6.

Duke Bradford, owner of Arkansas Valley Adventures, said Snodgrass did the right thing by contacting the 13-year-old Texas girl immediately and not waiting for the county's volunteer search-and-rescue team to assemble ropes, rafts and personnel.

"When you have someone in sight who has taken a long swim, you need to make contact immediately," said Bradford, a 15-year rafting guide and ski patroller from Summit County.

"This is just silly. Ryan Snod grass acted entirely appropriately. These guys came to the scene late, and there was a rescue in progress. They came in and took over an existing rescue. To leave a patient on the side of a river while you get your gear out of the car and set up a rescue system you read about in a book is simply not good policy."
This is a dilemma encountered sometimes by rescue personnel. I worked as a river guide for nearly 10 years full time. Worked Ski Patrol for a number of years, and also worked on an ambulance as an EMT. I've been trained and re-trained in multiple kinds of rescue situations.

In all of those areas, there are "rules". Set in place mostly to protect one's employer, sometimes the rescuer, and rarely the victim. Sometimes those rules conflict with one another, though. And sometimes they conflict with the reality of a dire situation, and conflict with just plain ole common sense, experience, or compassion.

I could relay to you story after story related to these types of things, some experienced personally, some witnessed, and some told to me by others.

But primarily what I'm getting at is that if a rescue is successful, should someone have charges brought against them for not participating in the rescue in the manner in which a lesser trained individual FEELS they should have?

What I'm getting at is that the girl was rescued. Safely. The guide in this story obviously did not impede anything, even though he was told by (lesser experienced) rescuers not to go out to the victim. Shouldn't HIS experience and training have some bearing on this? If it was just an average person on the sideline who did it, I might agree that they should be reprimanded (though not charged) since most people are not trained to swim in whitewater, not trained to rescue people from life threatening situations, and not trained to deal with people under duress and in a near panicked state. And people not trained in these things are more likely to become a second victim.

But in this case we're talking about a trained individual. Someone who deals with this daily. Someone who is able to assess the situation and know whether they can make the swim or not, safely. Someone who is able to assess the mental/emotional state of the victim - which is highly important in rescue operations because if someone gets to the point that they are unresponsive, the situation only gets more dire.

As my EMT instructor told us when he relayed to us what we were "legally" allowed to do with our certification and what reality might actually call for: Err on the side of saving the person's life.

Should someone be charged if they help someone?
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If you believe in the absolute rule of law then yes. If not then it is an acception to the rule. I am not going to read the story. I have a pretty good grasp of the mess. I would argue it is situational and up to the individuals involved dispite the law.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The way I see it is that saving a life is a special situation and the normal rules should be suspended unless greater harm occurs. For example, if a person saves a life but in the process causes another to get killed and some property gets damaged. Also, a life should always be seen as more valuable than property, unless that property is necessary for a greater number of people to live (a bridge that some people are standing on for example).

In my view life > property in almost any case.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,582
Reaction score
27,837
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This question comes about due to an article a river buddy of mine posted on Facebook.

Colorado rafting guide arrested after girl's rescue - The Denver Post



This is a dilemma encountered sometimes by rescue personnel. I worked as a river guide for nearly 10 years full time. Worked Ski Patrol for a number of years, and also worked on an ambulance as an EMT. I've been trained and re-trained in multiple kinds of rescue situations.

In all of those areas, there are "rules". Set in place mostly to protect one's employer, sometimes the rescuer, and rarely the victim. Sometimes those rules conflict with one another, though. And sometimes they conflict with the reality of a dire situation, and conflict with just plain ole common sense, experience, or compassion.

I could relay to you story after story related to these types of things, some experienced personally, some witnessed, and some told to me by others.

But primarily what I'm getting at is that if a rescue is successful, should someone have charges brought against them for not participating in the rescue in the manner in which a lesser trained individual FEELS they should have?

What I'm getting at is that the girl was rescued. Safely. The guide in this story obviously did not impede anything, even though he was told by (lesser experienced) rescuers not to go out to the victim. Shouldn't HIS experience and training have some bearing on this? If it was just an average person on the sideline who did it, I might agree that they should be reprimanded (though not charged) since most people are not trained to swim in whitewater, not trained to rescue people from life threatening situations, and not trained to deal with people under duress and in a near panicked state. And people not trained in these things are more likely to become a second victim.

But in this case we're talking about a trained individual. Someone who deals with this daily. Someone who is able to assess the situation and know whether they can make the swim or not, safely. Someone who is able to assess the mental/emotional state of the victim - which is highly important in rescue operations because if someone gets to the point that they are unresponsive, the situation only gets more dire.

As my EMT instructor told us when he relayed to us what we were "legally" allowed to do with our certification and what reality might actually call for: Err on the side of saving the person's life.

Should someone be charged if they help someone?
Not sure if Good Samaritan laws apply here, but first did the guide act beyond his skill level to help the victim. I would say the answer is NO; in fact he was probably as much an expert as the rescue squad. It's hard to imagine being a guide without any rescue training applicable to the activity. We don't know all of the facts either; usually there is a lot missing from news articles. I was an EMT once too, and you are allowed to help a victim within your level of skill. That is, if I went out on a call and tried to perform open-heart surgery on a victim......yes, I would get charged.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,045
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This question comes about due to an article a river buddy of mine posted on Facebook.

Colorado rafting guide arrested after girl's rescue - The Denver Post




This is a dilemma encountered sometimes by rescue personnel. I worked as a river guide for nearly 10 years full time. Worked Ski Patrol for a number of years, and also worked on an ambulance as an EMT. I've been trained and re-trained in multiple kinds of rescue situations.

In all of those areas, there are "rules". Set in place mostly to protect one's employer, sometimes the rescuer, and rarely the victim. Sometimes those rules conflict with one another, though. And sometimes they conflict with the reality of a dire situation, and conflict with just plain ole common sense, experience, or compassion.

I could relay to you story after story related to these types of things, some experienced personally, some witnessed, and some told to me by others.

But primarily what I'm getting at is that if a rescue is successful, should someone have charges brought against them for not participating in the rescue in the manner in which a lesser trained individual FEELS they should have?

What I'm getting at is that the girl was rescued. Safely. The guide in this story obviously did not impede anything, even though he was told by (lesser experienced) rescuers not to go out to the victim. Shouldn't HIS experience and training have some bearing on this? If it was just an average person on the sideline who did it, I might agree that they should be reprimanded (though not charged) since most people are not trained to swim in whitewater, not trained to rescue people from life threatening situations, and not trained to deal with people under duress and in a near panicked state. And people not trained in these things are more likely to become a second victim.

But in this case we're talking about a trained individual. Someone who deals with this daily. Someone who is able to assess the situation and know whether they can make the swim or not, safely. Someone who is able to assess the mental/emotional state of the victim - which is highly important in rescue operations because if someone gets to the point that they are unresponsive, the situation only gets more dire.

As my EMT instructor told us when he relayed to us what we were "legally" allowed to do with our certification and what reality might actually call for: Err on the side of saving the person's life.

Should someone be charged if they help someone?



If it ends well, no charges. It worked.

If they try and the vic dies, and it could be argued that they obstructed somehow, then maybe charges.

This particular case sounds more like some grumpy-ass gov't bitches who are pissed that they didn't get to play with their own toys, because the big boys won the game before they got started good. :roll:
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I say Only if they actually impeded rescue. This is probably similar to "Only if it turns out badly",examples of this turning out badly would be rescuer needed rescuing himself,victim died, one of the official rescuers died as a result of the civilian attempting to rescue someone or someone died rescuing the attempted rescuer.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
25,474
Reaction score
6,294
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I say Only if they actually impeded rescue. This is probably similar to "Only if it turns out badly",examples of this turning out badly would be rescuer needed rescuing himself,victim died, one of the official rescuers died as a result of the civilian attempting to rescue someone or someone died rescuing the attempted rescuer.
^This^

Stuff and things.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This question comes about due to an article a river buddy of mine posted on Facebook.

Colorado rafting guide arrested after girl's rescue - The Denver Post



This is a dilemma encountered sometimes by rescue personnel. I worked as a river guide for nearly 10 years full time. Worked Ski Patrol for a number of years, and also worked on an ambulance as an EMT. I've been trained and re-trained in multiple kinds of rescue situations.

In all of those areas, there are "rules". Set in place mostly to protect one's employer, sometimes the rescuer, and rarely the victim. Sometimes those rules conflict with one another, though. And sometimes they conflict with the reality of a dire situation, and conflict with just plain ole common sense, experience, or compassion.

I could relay to you story after story related to these types of things, some experienced personally, some witnessed, and some told to me by others.

But primarily what I'm getting at is that if a rescue is successful, should someone have charges brought against them for not participating in the rescue in the manner in which a lesser trained individual FEELS they should have?

What I'm getting at is that the girl was rescued. Safely. The guide in this story obviously did not impede anything, even though he was told by (lesser experienced) rescuers not to go out to the victim. Shouldn't HIS experience and training have some bearing on this? If it was just an average person on the sideline who did it, I might agree that they should be reprimanded (though not charged) since most people are not trained to swim in whitewater, not trained to rescue people from life threatening situations, and not trained to deal with people under duress and in a near panicked state. And people not trained in these things are more likely to become a second victim.

But in this case we're talking about a trained individual. Someone who deals with this daily. Someone who is able to assess the situation and know whether they can make the swim or not, safely. Someone who is able to assess the mental/emotional state of the victim - which is highly important in rescue operations because if someone gets to the point that they are unresponsive, the situation only gets more dire.

As my EMT instructor told us when he relayed to us what we were "legally" allowed to do with our certification and what reality might actually call for: Err on the side of saving the person's life.

Should someone be charged if they help someone?
I think it depends on the situation. If the rescuer got in the way of ongoing rescue operations, or somehow endangered the victim, others, or himself, then they should definitely be charged.

In reality, I think we should leave it up to the prosecutor on whether to press charges or not. District attorneys do have prosecutorial discretion available to them, and, personally, I think they should exercise it more. They can choose which cases concerning which laws to prosecute. Most of the time, however, they go after even silly cases in attempts to make a name or to get an easy win in their column for when they're up for re-election.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,017
Reaction score
4,078
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
As mentioned above, the guide is very likely to have taken water life saving classes at or above the level of the rescue squad. I was a junior life saver in Boy Scouts as well having passed the neighborhood pool's life saving courses.

To this day I would still dive in and rescue the floundering victim. It's a reaction, not a thought process. This sounds like sour grapes from the squad because the guide stole their hero moment.

Grow up!
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, obviously all of my river buds thought the law enforcement officer(s) were way out of line and that it was just flat out ****ed up to press charges against the guide who was more experienced and better trained than the state volunteer rescue squad.

But I just wanted to see if we were all biased. LOL Seems as though we're not and that the general consensus is that the charges are bull****.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
depends, obviously these guys were as able as any rescue crew...


it's not always the case though.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
exactly, I think the bitches were jealous.
Yeah, I just think they got pissy because the guide in question didn't listen to them. The guides already had a rescue underway, ropes being set up, etc. The guide in question was already about to swim out to the gal while the rest of them finished rigging up the lines. Then the volunteer dudes show up and try to take over the rescue. A rescue that was already underway. They wanted the guides to abandon their rescue and let them start from scratch while this poor girl just sat at there and waited, terrified, freezing, and tired. The guide in question refused to wait and swam out to her while they all measured their dicks. He did it to keep her calm and lucid, to comfort her and to help when they got the ropes in place. And then he gets arrested for endangering their rescue. If anything, it was the rescue squad who endangered the guides rescue.
 

Toothpicvic

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This question comes about due to an article a river buddy of mine posted on Facebook.

Colorado rafting guide arrested after girl's rescue - The Denver Post

This is why people think that cops are total morons.

This is a dilemma encountered sometimes by rescue personnel. I worked as a river guide for nearly 10 years full time. Worked Ski Patrol for a number of years, and also worked on an ambulance as an EMT. I've been trained and re-trained in multiple kinds of rescue situations.

In all of those areas, there are "rules". Set in place mostly to protect one's employer, sometimes the rescuer, and rarely the victim. Sometimes those rules conflict with one another, though. And sometimes they conflict with the reality of a dire situation, and conflict with just plain ole common sense, experience, or compassion.

I could relay to you story after story related to these types of things, some experienced personally, some witnessed, and some told to me by others.

But primarily what I'm getting at is that if a rescue is successful, should someone have charges brought against them for not participating in the rescue in the manner in which a lesser trained individual FEELS they should have?

What I'm getting at is that the girl was rescued. Safely. The guide in this story obviously did not impede anything, even though he was told by (lesser experienced) rescuers not to go out to the victim. Shouldn't HIS experience and training have some bearing on this? If it was just an average person on the sideline who did it, I might agree that they should be reprimanded (though not charged) since most people are not trained to swim in whitewater, not trained to rescue people from life threatening situations, and not trained to deal with people under duress and in a near panicked state. And people not trained in these things are more likely to become a second victim.

But in this case we're talking about a trained individual. Someone who deals with this daily. Someone who is able to assess the situation and know whether they can make the swim or not, safely. Someone who is able to assess the mental/emotional state of the victim - which is highly important in rescue operations because if someone gets to the point that they are unresponsive, the situation only gets more dire.

As my EMT instructor told us when he relayed to us what we were "legally" allowed to do with our certification and what reality might actually call for: Err on the side of saving the person's life.

Should someone be charged if they help someone?
This is why people think that cops are total morons.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
YES
The LAW above all else, particularly the welfare of man.
We are a nation of LAWS and lawyers and these things must NEVER change.
This, of course, excludes the very wealthy corporations and men.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not sure if Good Samaritan laws apply here, but first did the guide act beyond his skill level to help the victim. I would say the answer is NO; in fact he was probably as much an expert as the rescue squad. It's hard to imagine being a guide without any rescue training applicable to the activity.The problem is one of time; is there time to present the documents to prove that the man is qualified? We don't know all of the facts either; usually there is a lot missing from news articles..Another problem, our news "service" is terrible.. I was an EMT once too, and you are allowed to help a victim within your level of skill. That is, if I went out on a call and tried to perform open-heart surgery on a victim......yes, I would get charged. And would you still be charged if the "open-heart" were sucessful?

We need to be a more compassionate people, and a more hard working nation. These laws must be written to save lives and NOT egos.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, I dont think a person should be punished for breaking a law, they (s)he did it with the intent to save a life. Laws are ultimately supposed to benefit human beings, safety and human rightswise.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,490
Reaction score
8,579
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- primarily what I'm getting at is that if a rescue is successful, should someone have charges brought against them for not participating in the rescue in the manner in which a lesser trained individual FEELS they should have? --
If other people's lives were put in jeopardy then a case might be brought otherwise no, I totally disagree. We had a case here in 2003 where an ambulance driver was charged for speeding in order to get a donor liver organ to a patient before either the liver or the patient died.

Total waste of taxpayer's money.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The man appears to be as able as any rescue squad, and he should be commended not charged for his efforts. However, for most people the best thing to do in these situations is to not make yourself the victim. That's one of the first things they teach you in emergency training. If you take stupid risks, you can become a victim, and you are no longer contributing to the solution. You're making it worse and putting rescuers at greater risk, because now they have two people to deal with. There's a reason why the elementary training for firefighters is almost 200 hours.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom