5 ms·

Trapping a person inside a building by force, when otherwise they would be physically capable of leaving, on the other hand, could easily be construed as crimin

by mapt 13y ago

Trapping a person inside a building by force, when otherwise they would be physically capable of leaving, on the other hand, could easily be construed as criminal kidnapping. In this case, kidnapping in order to obstruct justice may even be arguable.

bigiain 13y ago
Sure. I'm not arguing against "it could easily be construed" and "it may even be arguable" (though I think you're seriously stretching there). If this was a regular nightclub with no prior agreement/requirement about exit policy, you'd be completely unarguably right. My questions are: Are there circumstances in which it would be considered appropriate? And what sort of notification do you have to give in advance before it could be widely considered appropriate? Where I come from, the government considers it appropriate to "lock up" journalists for 6hrs on a voluntary basis in return for privileged early access to information about the federal budget: http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2012/018.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=2012&doctype=0 http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressr... I'm not sure how the exemption for "except in case of emergency" is applied, but I reasonably sure it's closer to the "OK, divert the flight from San Francisco to Honolulu" grade "emergencies" rather than claustrophobia or panic attacks. If I, as a competent adult of sound mind, wish to _choose_ to put myself in a situation where someone will "trap me inside a building by force, when otherwise I would be physically capable of leaving" - what steps does an event organiser have to go to to not be accused of wrongdoing when they do exactly that? While I'm happy enough that I'd agree to be "bound" by an event invitation instruction saying "To remind you, this is an event with some legal and physical risks. If you are uncomfortable with these risks you should not attend. Really. Once the event begins you cannot leave for two hours." - I can understand that some people might think that's not "enough". If there are any people reading who disagree that statement is sufficient to justify the actions on the part of the event staff in the article - what would you consider "sufficient notification/agreement"? (Or do you think restricting my ability to choose to be able to go to that sort of event is "right"?)
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Ok, last one for me. I think we just fundamentally disagree and that's that in the end. I'm using the phrase 'safe word' very specifically here. When there is a consensual abridgment of rights or safety, there needs to be a way to distinguish between escape attempts which are part of the play, and a serious withdrawal of consent or change of circumstances. We don't actually know that the woman in the story really wanted out of the hole in the ground. Maybe she was just disappointed with the concert when she found out the full details and wanted to go see a movie instead. Maybe she was having a full blown panic attack from being underground and felt like she was going to die if she didn't get out. Maybe she just had to pee. Maybe she was just testing and wanted to be turned back, wanted to feel trapped because it added to the allure of the event. Mostly we don't know because the author of the article wasn't reporting on her, she was just a background character in the story of the concert to add ambiance. "Oooo, we were totally trapped down there, one woman tried to leave and they wouldn't let her." In my opinion, striving for absolute pre-consent is wrong, dangerous, and stupid. What if the woman needed to leave because her baby-sitter had just called to say she was leaving and her children were now unattended? What if she was having a life-threatening medical problem (asthma, diabetes, heart condition...)? What if her brother had just been in a car accident, and was at the hospital dying? I assume there are conditions under which you would agree she should leave, even if she agreed not to beforehand. There are situations under which they will turn a plane around, and there are situations under which they will have a diver make a rapid ascent and deal with the consequences later. In my opinion, a severe panic attack is fully horrible enough to warrant leaving. If it happened in a prison, I'd call it cruel and unusual. We can't know what someone is subjectively experiencing, and it's also very hard to know what someone is physically experiencing with respect to medical conditions, so it should always be within the rights of an individual to declare that the situation has changed and withdraw previously given consent.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  > "it may even be arguable" (though I think you're seriously stretching there) He's not stretching - it's one of the very textbook definitions of kidnapping, forcibly preventing someone from leaving a situation. Put it this way, if I, as a paramedic, am on scene of someone who has a medical need, but is of sound mind, if they say "no, I want to get out of this ambulance" - even if we are going lights and sirens to the hospital - for me to refuse leads me to charges of assault, kidnapping, and malpractice.

by mapt 13y ago

bigiain 13y ago

Sure. I'm not arguing against "it could easily be construed" and "it may even be arguable" (though I think you're seriously stretching there). If this was a regular nightclub with no prior agreement/requirement about exit policy, you'd be completely unarguably right. My questions are: Are there circumstances in which it would be considered appropriate? And what sort of notification do you have to give in advance before it could be widely considered appropriate? Where I come from, the government considers it appropriate to "lock up" journalists for 6hrs on a voluntary basis in return for privileged early access to information about the federal budget: http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2012/018.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=2012&doctype=0 http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressr... I'm not sure how the exemption for "except in case of emergency" is applied, but I reasonably sure it's closer to the "OK, divert the flight from San Francisco to Honolulu" grade "emergencies" rather than claustrophobia or panic attacks. If I, as a competent adult of sound mind, wish to _choose_ to put myself in a situation where someone will "trap me inside a building by force, when otherwise I would be physically capable of leaving" - what steps does an event organiser have to go to to not be accused of wrongdoing when they do exactly that? While I'm happy enough that I'd agree to be "bound" by an event invitation instruction saying "To remind you, this is an event with some legal and physical risks. If you are uncomfortable with these risks you should not attend. Really. Once the event begins you cannot leave for two hours." - I can understand that some people might think that's not "enough". If there are any people reading who disagree that statement is sufficient to justify the actions on the part of the event staff in the article - what would you consider "sufficient notification/agreement"? (Or do you think restricting my ability to choose to be able to go to that sort of event is "right"?)

saalweachter 13y ago
Ok, last one for me. I think we just fundamentally disagree and that's that in the end. I'm using the phrase 'safe word' very specifically here. When there is a consensual abridgment of rights or safety, there needs to be a way to distinguish between escape attempts which are part of the play, and a serious withdrawal of consent or change of circumstances. We don't actually know that the woman in the story really wanted out of the hole in the ground. Maybe she was just disappointed with the concert when she found out the full details and wanted to go see a movie instead. Maybe she was having a full blown panic attack from being underground and felt like she was going to die if she didn't get out. Maybe she just had to pee. Maybe she was just testing and wanted to be turned back, wanted to feel trapped because it added to the allure of the event. Mostly we don't know because the author of the article wasn't reporting on her, she was just a background character in the story of the concert to add ambiance. "Oooo, we were totally trapped down there, one woman tried to leave and they wouldn't let her." In my opinion, striving for absolute pre-consent is wrong, dangerous, and stupid. What if the woman needed to leave because her baby-sitter had just called to say she was leaving and her children were now unattended? What if she was having a life-threatening medical problem (asthma, diabetes, heart condition...)? What if her brother had just been in a car accident, and was at the hospital dying? I assume there are conditions under which you would agree she should leave, even if she agreed not to beforehand. There are situations under which they will turn a plane around, and there are situations under which they will have a diver make a rapid ascent and deal with the consequences later. In my opinion, a severe panic attack is fully horrible enough to warrant leaving. If it happened in a prison, I'd call it cruel and unusual. We can't know what someone is subjectively experiencing, and it's also very hard to know what someone is physically experiencing with respect to medical conditions, so it should always be within the rights of an individual to declare that the situation has changed and withdraw previously given consent.
FireBeyond 13y ago
> "it may even be arguable" (though I think you're seriously stretching there) He's not stretching - it's one of the very textbook definitions of kidnapping, forcibly preventing someone from leaving a situation. Put it this way, if I, as a paramedic, am on scene of someone who has a medical need, but is of sound mind, if they say "no, I want to get out of this ambulance" - even if we are going lights and sirens to the hospital - for me to refuse leads me to charges of assault, kidnapping, and malpractice.