Eagle Scout Lost on Mountain Fined $25,000 for Rescue

[Selznak]

CONCORD, N.H. — A Massachusetts teenager who spent three nights alone on Mount Washington in April after he sprained an ankle and veered off marked trails has been fined more than $25,000 for the cost of his rescue.

Eagle Scout Lost on Mountain Fined $25,000 for Rescue - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

 

[TerranceL]

Sounds good to me.

 

[rambot]

I think the word is charged not fined yes?

 

[TerranceL]

I think the word is charged not fined yes?

No he's fined for the cost of his rescue. And probably for breaking the law by leaving the trail.

 

[Billnew]

I agree.
He should not have continued up the mountain when injured. He should never have left the trail.(As long as trails are clearly visible. I have been on trails that disappear from falling timber, or just overgrowth.)
People have to be responsible for their actions.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Wow! $25K because he got lost and they rescued him. Sounds more like the states are trying to squeeze citizens for every penny they can in order to ease budgetary problems. Not an example of justice IMHO, but the state bullying a citizen.

 

[keith99]

No he's fined for the cost of his rescue. And probably for breaking the law by leaving the trail.

It is not against the law to leave a trail in most places. It can however be foolish, which it was in this case.

Hiking alone (except on a well traveled trail) when there is still significant snow cover is very foolish.

 

[TerranceL]

Wow! $25K because he got lost and they rescued him. Sounds more like the states are trying to squeeze citizens for every penny they can in order to ease budgetary problems. Not an example of justice IMHO, but the state bullying a citizen.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for this man's stupidity?

 

[wpiman2]

People have to be responsible for their actions.

I agree and this is precisely why we shouldn't have government paid health care. Every time someone eats a ding dong or smokes a cigarette we will all be paying.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for this man's stupidity?

Yes, the teenager made a mistake in not going back down the mountain and got stuck. However, he realized his mistake and made sure he survived long enough for the rescuers to get him. Punishing a 17yr old kid with a bill that's supposed to be taken care of by the state is wrong. Them operating like this is why we pay taxes, not in lieu of. Would you like it if the National Guard started handing out bills to everyone it helps in a flooded area, because they refused to leave their houses when they knew it was going to flood?

 

[chaim]

Why should the taxpayer pay for someone who's house burns downs stupidity? (You don't get billed by the fire department for putting out a fire) What about someone who has a car accidents stupidity? (You don't get billed by the police). What about someone who's boat sinks (you don't get billed by the coastguard). Why is this so different?

One thing I will say, if this kid goes on the talk shows and sells his story about being a "survivor" he should donate what ever he gets paid to his rescuers.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for this man's stupidity?

 

[ThankGodforGod]

Yes, the teenager made a mistake in not going back down the mountain and got stuck. However, he realized his mistake and made sure he survived long enough for the rescuers to get him. Punishing a 17yr old kid with a bill that's supposed to be taken care of by the state is wrong. Them operating like this is why we pay taxes, not in lieu of. Would you like it if the National Guard started handing out bills to everyone it helps in a flooded area, because they refused to leave their houses when they knew it was going to flood?

Can you find me the part of either the state or federal constitution that guarantees the rights of lost hikers to be rescued? The state provided a service for a mistake that ended up saving the kids life, why should he get this service on the collective dime?

Getting in a wreck on a public road and needing help is one thing, requiring hundreds of man hours and expensive equipment just so you can hike in cool places is a whole other.

 

[chaim]

Why is getting in a wreck on a public road different? Say you were on that road for a scenic drive (ie "to see something cool") should you then be charged for the services of police/fire/ems etc? I don't see the distinction here?

Can you find me the part of either the state or federal constitution that guarantees the rights of lost hikers to be rescued? The state provided a service for a mistake that ended up saving the kids life, why should he get this service on the collective dime?

Getting in a wreck on a public road and needing help is one thing, requiring hundreds of man hours and expensive equipment just so you can hike in cool places is a whole other.

 

[moonkitty]

Why should the taxpayer pay for someone who's house burns downs stupidity? (You don't get billed by the fire department for putting out a fire) What about someone who has a car accidents stupidity? (You don't get billed by the police). What about someone who's boat sinks (you don't get billed by the coastguard). Why is this so different?

One thing I will say, if this kid goes on the talk shows and sells his story about being a "survivor" he should donate what ever he gets paid to his rescuers.

Actually I thought I heard about cities that now charge a "cost recovrey fee" for when the fire department has to put out your house fire, or when other public safety departments have to respond to any other sort of emergency.

Though I am not sure about it--if anyone does know more about this please post.

 

[Richard]

Unless it was illegal to veer off the track, I don't think he should of been charged. It doesn't seem fair. Taxpayers will always be responsible for the stupidest of things. I think it's something we just have to live with. 25,000 fine for a 17yr kid, is wrong. UNLESS it was marked illegal for him to veer off the trail.

 

[keith99]

Unless it was illegal to veer off the track, I don't think he should of been charged. It doesn't seem fair. Taxpayers will always be responsible for the stupidest of things. I think it's something we just have to live with. 25,000 fine for a 17yr kid, is wrong. UNLESS it was marked illegal for him to veer off the trail.

It is not a fine. It is recovery of the costs associated with his rescue. And I'll bet it falls short of covering all costs.

 

[visionary]

If all government costs were handed directly to the consumer of said cost, then we should not pay any taxes. But we would receive bills for use of roads, sidewalks, police for tazing you, firemen for rescuing, congressional representations and such, including the tax men for taxing you. Would that be a better system?

 

[Richard]

It is not a fine. It is recovery of the costs associated with his rescue. And I'll bet it falls short of covering all costs.

People don't pay these fines in all situations tho do they?

 

[TerranceL]

Why should the taxpayer pay for someone who's house burns downs stupidity? (You don't get billed by the fire department for putting out a fire) What about someone who has a car accidents stupidity? (You don't get billed by the police). What about someone who's boat sinks (you don't get billed by the coastguard). Why is this so different?

That's a good point, they should get billed.