Can they be sued if there's suitable signage erected
"Jump at your own risk"
"Not responsible for injury due to jumping"
That sort of thing,how does it work in the US legally
Can they be sued if there's suitable signage erected
"Jump at your own risk"
"Not responsible for injury due to jumping"
That sort of thing,how does it work in the US legally
Poitr poitr pumpkin eater wrote:
2). No. studies have shown suicides are impulsive acts. If you help pause the act. You can prevent it entirely.
Not all. Many will try something else if their main plan fails. It really isn't that simple that the person will be perfectly okay and will never want to kill themselves again just because plan A failed
SOME, maybe wrote:
Poitr poitr pumpkin eater wrote:2). No. studies have shown suicides are impulsive acts. If you help pause the act. You can prevent it entirely.
Not all. Many will try something else if their main plan fails. It really isn't that simple that the person will be perfectly okay and will never want to kill themselves again just because plan A failed
You're both right and both wrong at the same time.
wejo wrote:
Poitr poitr pumpkin eater wrote:2). No. studies have shown suicides are impulsive acts. If you help pause the act. You can prevent it entirely.
It really must be impulsive because the person still could jump on the netting below and then go over.
Really high bridges freak me out just walking near the rail because I realize that all it takes to die is just to go over. Someone with impulsive suicidal thoughts must have that thought and then jump over, so the netting does put one more step in their way.
The cost is ridiculous. If they did it for $100 million less and put that extra $100 million to suicide prevention that might save more lives.
I had no idea about the Cornell nets.
Having lived there and crossed the bridge daily for years, you always knew when there was a jumper contemplating the jump, traffic backed up as police negotiated their safety or not. As you see in the pics they climb over the railing and stand. If the jumper is really serious, its an easy jump to the safety net and then over and down to the water. Maybe not the best preventive design out there as others here have stated.
Dr. Detroit wrote:
Huge waste of tax money. Let them jump if they want to
the empathy that has come to be the hallmark of the GOP.
Wtliberal wrote:
Wtfunny wrote:And the cost to build the MOAB is separate from the development of it too. At $16 million per detonation, not including the cost for the planes and other infrastructure used to transport, maintain and deploy the weapon.
I didn't mention Trump. Don't be such a snowflake.
You are the personification of the emotionally triggered far left, cuck SJW.
"Triggered"???
Well, it sure doesn't seem like the left, or even far left, started the thread. The folks on the right seem upset about the state of CA spending their own money on things they deem important ... things that are really not anyone else's business.
How can an unmarried man be a "cuck"?
charles d wrote:
This is just another example of the nanny state.
It's not the government's business whether a person chooses to end their own life or not end their life. We live in a world of limited resources and dumping this much money on something is a waste of taxpayer money. And, obviously, you're probably not going to get much of a return on this investment.
A person's choice to live or not live is between them and God! This is not the government's role in our society nor should it be.
Suicide is bad - we all get that - we don't want people to kill themselves. But this is stupid.
Simply idiotic post.
Since when are conservatives as a group supportive of the right to die??
Wtfunny wrote:
Wtliberal wrote:You are the personification of the emotionally triggered far left, cuck SJW.
"Triggered"???
Well, it sure doesn't seem like the left, or even far left, started the thread. The folks on the right seem upset about the state of CA spending their own money on things they deem important ... things that are really not anyone else's business.
How can an unmarried man be a "cuck"?
Cuck is just a word stupid people use when the don't have a real argument. An ad hominem attack. Kind of like saying "poopoo head."
Behold, the intellect of the alt-right.
Wouldn't it be easier to run a few feet of barbed wire above the rail? It couldn't cost $200 million.
Bleu wrote:
It couldn't cost $200 million.
Somehow they would find a way to make it cost 200 million
SOME, maybe wrote:
Poitr poitr pumpkin eater wrote:2). No. studies have shown suicides are impulsive acts. If you help pause the act. You can prevent it entirely.
Not all. Many will try something else if their main plan fails. It really isn't that simple that the person will be perfectly okay and will never want to kill themselves again just because plan A failed
Really depends on the person.
The person who has been long-term depressed and has been thinking about it for years? They'll probably find another way.
The one who's wife/girlfriend left them, lost $$$ gambling or in the market, or lost a loved one? They might just need a wakeup call and a net would give them enough of a scare to not go through with it.
Ending one's own life may not seem like the government's business but legally it is. Suicide is illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is so it's not really stupid for a government to take steps to prevent it from happening. And again, this seems more about stopping suicides at one particular location than preventing it generally.
Bleu wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to run a few feet of barbed wire above the rail? It couldn't cost $200 million.
bingo
HRE wrote:
Suicide is illegal.
No, it's not. Maybe it's still illegal in Japan or some remote country. But it's not illegal in the US.
Anyone who is a true conservative isn't going to be in favor of meddling in this sort of decision making and wasting taxpayer money doing so.
Most modern-day labeled "conservatives" are just a different flavor of liberal. If you want to control other people and substitute your best judgment for theirs, and waste lots of taxpayer money to do it, then you're not really a conservative.
HRE wrote:
Ending one's own life may not seem like the government's business but legally it is. Suicide is illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is so it's not really stupid for a government to take steps to prevent it from happening. And again, this seems more about stopping suicides at one particular location than preventing it generally.
That is completely circular. Making something legal doesn't make it right or the government's business. If the government passes a law that everyone must kill their first born child, does that suddenly make it ok, justifiable, or the government's business to meddle in your affairs? Guess what, America wasn't founded on the principle that government should be able to meddle in your purely private decisions. AND this is economically idiotic.
The overarching principle is that the government doesn't have any business substituting its best judgment for yours. You are in the best position to make life or death decisions, not a government. Anyone who says otherwise is just a liberal cuck that wants to control other people.
Whether people SHOULD be committing suicide is a separate question. The government should not legislate morality. That is not the role of government. That is the role of other institutions in our society.
There are US states where attempted suicide is illegal. I don't know if California is one of them or not. And "assisted suicide" is still illegal in almost all US states so suicide is something that the legal system is involved with. And even if that's not the case, there have been something like 1600 bodies fished out of the bay beneath the Golden Gate Bridge since it opened so I think there's a legitimate interest in trying to prevent suicide from happening there.
HRE wrote:
And even if that's not the case, there have been something like 1600 bodies fished out of the bay beneath the Golden Gate Bridge since it opened so I think there's a legitimate interest in trying to prevent suicide from happening there.
I don't see that as a problem. I see that as a business opportunity for Halloween.
Again, putting a net under the bridge isn't infringing on anyone's "right" to kill himself. They just need to do it somewhere else.
HRE wrote:
There are US states where attempted suicide is illegal.
No, there aren't.