Carry more in your pack or break laws for survival?

[Bugger]

I just look at it different, I am not gonna carry something that I am not gonna use and am legally forbid to use. If there was something that says in the event of life or death they will let is slide I would think different. But there isn’t anything like that mentioned. I don’t think the quoted defense is applicable, since I went into the woods and wasn’t prepared enough to survive without a fire. But ask your local warden or FS Ranger what they think. Most people on here say they would start a fire. Sounds good. I wouldn’t. I started another thread because discussing it in missing hunter thread wasn’t appropriate. But if people want to keep insulting me, have at it. I think if everyone is so willing to not follow a restriction, maybe some of you will stand up and fight for what you think is your right to have a fire to survive.

Weird mound to die on.

 

[fwafwow]

But what would Alone Guy do?

 

[WeiserBucks]

But if people want to keep insulting me, have at it.

Nobody is insulting you, they're disagreeing with your opinion and voicing their own.

 

[30338]

Now that I can send texts via satelite from my iphone, things got a little better. If the Swedish bikini team somehow parachuted in, then things would be once again, a little better.

 

[Conrad101st]

Many of you may not be aware of this. But there is a legal doctrine which probably allows minor transgressions to save your life. You can’t have contributed or caused the harm, but I would think that if you trip and break your leg you could build a fire to save your life. No need to burn the whole forest down. Just make your reasonable fire and live on.

AI - The "law of necessity" is a legal defense where a person commits an otherwise illegal act to prevent a greater harm, acting as the "lesser of two evils". To succeed, the individual must prove they believed their actions were necessary, that a reasonable person would agree, there were no other realistic alternatives, and they did not create the emergency situation. The harm they avoided must be more significant than the harm caused by their actions, and sometimes it is a defense to crimes only against property, not against people.

Wikipedia -

The Necessity Defense in Criminal Law Cases​

The Criminal Defense of Necessity​

The defense of necessity may apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation in order to prevent a greater harm from happening. In such circumstances, our legal system typically excuses the individual’s criminal act because it was justified, or finds that no criminal act has occurred. Although necessity may seem like a defense that would be commonly invoked by defendants seeking to avoid criminal charges, its application is limited by several important requirements:

• The defendant must reasonably have believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action
• The defendant must have had no realistic alternative to completing the criminal act
• The harm caused by the criminal act must not be greater than the harm avoided
• The defendant did not himself contribute to or cause the threat

Only if all of these requirements are met, will the defense of necessity be applicable. It is also important to note that in some jurisdictions, necessity is never a defense to the killing of another individual, no matter what threat they may present.

 

[eamyrick]

I’ve been enforcing “the law” for almost 18 years. I’ve been a part of life sentence federal trials and petty community service speeding tickets. No matter what the law says, I have found that the #1 rule is to “never shock the conscious of the jury”. There are of course rare exceptions but if you can’t explain it to a jury I wouldn’t do it. In this instance, I would have zero issues explaining why I started a fire to stay alive.

 

[stumblinhorse]

Nobody is insulting you, they're disagreeing with your opinion and voicing their own.

I think several times I have been called not smart or stupid. I don’t mind being told what I said it stupid. But ok, if you say so.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I think several times I have been called not smart or stupid.

I've been called much worse to my face, it's not an insult.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I think several times I have been called not smart or stupid. I don’t mind being told what I said it stupid. But ok, if you say so.

I wouldn’t call that an insult, more of an observation.

 

[wildwilderness]

I just look at it different, I am not gonna carry something that I am not gonna use and am legally forbid to use. If there was something that says in the event of life or death they will let is slide I would think different. But there isn’t anything like that mentioned.

Read post #70, There is a law that does allow a person to break a law to save themselves or others from imminent injury. Called Choice or Evils. Also the next law "under Duress" could also apply if instructed to "start a fire during a fire ban" to save a life or serious injury. Read the post- and sounds like Stumble horse is not an attorney so maybe talk to one before you die by not starting a fire......

Since the OP lives in Colorado....

"H:09 CHOICE OF EVILS

It is an affirmative defense to the crime
of____________________ that the conduct engaged in by the
(insert name of crime)
defendant was:

1. necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent
public or private injury,

2. which was about to occur because of a situation
occasioned or developed through no conduct of the
defendant, and

3. which was of sufficient gravity that, according to
ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the
desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly
outweighed the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining (insert name of
crime)In addition to proving all of the elements of the
crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution
also has the burden to disprove the affirmative defense
beyond a reasonable doubt.

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the
prosecution has failed to disprove beyond a reasonable
doubt any one or more elements of the affirmative defense,
you must return a verdict of not guilty."

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/CHAPTER_HAffirmativeDefenses.pdf

 

[stumblinhorse]

Read post #70, There is a law that does allow a person to break a law to save themselves or others from imminent injury. Called Choice or Evils. Also the next law "under Duress" could also apply if instructed to "start a fire during a fire ban" to save a life or serious injury. Read the post- and sounds like Stumble horse is not an attorney so maybe talk to one before you die by not starting a fire......

Going into the woods not prepared was brought on by your own conduct. That defense is for people coerced into breaking the law.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Going into the woods not prepared was brought on by your own conduct. That defense is for people coerced into breaking the law.

Bullshit. No different than shooting a rapist in the face 15+1 times if you're being raped.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Bullshit. No different than shooting a rapist in the face 15+1 times if you're being raped.

It’s because you keep wearing those short skirts @WeiserBucks

 

[WeiserBucks]

It’s because you keep wearing those short skirts @WeiserBucks

Nobody asked you, it's for breathability

 

[Conrad101st]

Going into the woods not prepared was brought on by your own conduct. That defense is for people coerced into breaking the law.

That’s an absolutist position that shows a clear lack of rational thought.

Sure, if you walk out in a blizzard in your underwear, barefoot, high on cocaine and get cold then you’re probably SOL.

If however you are a rational , reasonably prudent hunter, wearing appropriate gear, and you break your leg, get hurt, get snowed in under a freak storm, then you have a valid claim that it was reasonable and necessary to break a minor law to survive.

Can you kill your hunting partner and eat him after 2 days without food? Hell no.

But can you build a 2 or 3 foot fire even during a burn ban that causes minimal harm? I think most juries would side with you. Furthermore I don’t think any prosecutor I know would press the issue.

 

[stumblinhorse]

That’s an absolutist position that shows a clear lack of rational thought.

Sure, if you walk out in a blizzard in your underwear, barefoot, high on cocaine and get cold then you’re probably SOL.

If however you are a rational , reasonably prudent hunter, wearing appropriate gear, and you break your leg, get hurt, get snowed in under a freak storm, then you have a valid claim that it was reasonable and necessary to break a minor law to survive.

Can you kill your hunting partner and eat him after 2 days without food? Hell no.

But can you build a 2 or 3 foot fire even during a burn ban that causes minimal harm? I think most juries would side with you. Furthermore I don’t think any prosecutor I know would press the issue.

Honestly seems like most of you add "and break your leg, get hurt". run out of food etc. If none of those happen and you were just worried about dying from exposure? also if I end up in court with a jury... I have already lost.

 

[Pilsner]

Depends, it’s in a tote for truck camping. I have a different lighter in with my stove for cooking and that stays together. If there is no ban I will throw it in, but that has not been the case in the few years. So I guess for the most part my mentality is towards surviving without a fire.

I am not going to remove that option from my potential "tool kit" so to speak to save the weight of a baby Bic lighter or a set of StormProof matches.
Just seems almost foolishly imprudent to me.

 

[Oregon]

Some of you folks are seriously nerdy weird

 

[Pilsner]

My best friend got lost and had to spend a cold rainy night on the mountain. He ditched his tarp and fire building kit to save weight that day. Long story short around mid day he wanted to check out an area on the way back to camp, zigged when he should have zagged and got turned around. Temps dropped to low to mid 30's that night. IIRC There was a burn restriction in that area at that time but he wished like hell he'd had that stuff with him. No food. No Garmin. Just his cell phone with ZERO service and No maps of the area. 1700 miles from home. Headlamp battery died as well. We looked for him all that evening and all the next morning. We were regrouping back at camp when his sorry ass came lumbering through the tent flaps. He was missing for almost 24 hours. He'd walked roughly 26 miles (we call it the Boston Mountain Marathon... might give you a clue as to where we were) by the time he found the camp site again. All he had was a puffy blanket and a rain jacket to stay warm. Ended up nuzzled under a pine bough lean to wrapped in that down blanky. Did he survive? Yep! But he wished like hell he'd had a way to make fire and dry out. It's not just the warmth. It's also the feeling of hope that fire can bring to keep you pushing.

As someone who live IN the Boston Mtns I can see how this would happen. This is easy terrain to get turned around in and it can be a b!tch if you don't respect it - like all mtns.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Honestly seems like most of you add "and break your leg, get hurt". run out of food etc. If none of those happen and you were just worried about dying from exposure? also if I end up in court with a jury... I have already lost.

Things don't always go so well. Unprepared people die of exposure regularly, make your choices appropriately.