Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WestMichiganHams] Re: Emergency Antenna Platform System

Expand Messages
  • Richards
    ... That is a risky plan in a highly litigious society. probably the trustee of the club station involve sought written permission for the demo. I agree.
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 7/19/2013 11:21 AM, n8xxham wrote:
      > In case of emergency, I've found it best to do what is needed first, and beg for forgiveness later if someone "second guesses" one's actions.


      That is a risky plan in a highly litigious society.




      "probably" the trustee of the club station involve sought written
      permission for the demo.



      I agree. Mark's point applies in case of an
      actual emergency deployment where advance
      arrangements and permission unlikely.





      > But, if I were in a situation where all the power was down, I had one of the robotic pole climbers and other stuff for a needed antenna for my repeater and/or a HF wire, I'd "just do it".



      Understood. And most often you will be OK for
      acting first and asking questions later - but
      not always. I think it wise to consider the
      issues raised by Mark's post and be very careful
      so as to minimize risk and potential liability.
      In an emergency, one does what one must, but one
      must be very careful to avoid liability even in
      an emergency.



      > One can be hemmed in by fear of whatever "might happen" to such a point which nothing can be done.



      Yes. But acting without regard to an obvious
      and known risk may be foolish. One must carefully
      balance the need to provide emergency communications
      against the need to avoid doing so in a dangerous
      manner. Mark is wise to identify dangerous and
      risky aspects of this sort of operation. One cannot
      always avoid the risk of loss and liability to
      others simply by acting in good faith and pointing
      to the emergency nature of the operation.


      As with so many things, one will be judged on
      the reasonableness of his actions, and the
      extent of emergency will be but one factor in
      the assessment of what is reasonable under the
      circumstances.

      I may disagree with Mark on the extent of
      exposure to liability... but I strongly agree on
      the need for a careful assessment of the risk
      of loss and extent of liability in such cases.
      He raises a very important question that would
      apply to any similar operation. You may not
      be able to escape liability for a mishap by
      saying you were acting in good faith during
      an emergency.



      Just MY take.
      ===================== K8JHR ========================
    • Mark
      Jim, Thanks for your support! FWIW, I may look at safety a bit closer than others. I spent years working as a construction electrician. Part of our training
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim,

        Thanks for your support!

        FWIW, I may look at safety a bit closer than others. I spent years working
        as a construction electrician. Part of our training was taking OSHA 10 and
        OSHA 30 classes. Trust me, once OSHA presents their very graphic videos to
        you, you will never again look at 'accidents' the same.

        I also may have a more cautious take on being sued. At least once a month
        in martial arts class we are instructed on how to not get sued for
        protecting ourselves. We are told that pretty much, if you are an adult
        martial artist and you kick the snot out of someone that has attacked you,
        you WILL go to court and have to defend your actions. So, today, if you are
        attacked you may have to defend yourself twice. Once on the street and then
        again in court.

        Was it like that 37 years ago when I first walked into a karate dojo? Not
        even close. We did get instruction on legal issues, but it was mostly on
        issues like excessive force. And it wasn't dwelled upon all that much. In
        Tae Kwon Do, I don't even remember the subject being brought up.

        I also had the good fortune over the years to work with engineers of all
        sorts. The first time I saw the robot climb the pole all I could think of
        was 'what could possibly go wrong?' and who was going to get smacked when
        the thing let loose of it's hold.

        Has anyone bothered to take a look at weapons laws in Michigan? Did you
        know that slingshots are illegal in Michigan? Yes, even the kind we use for
        putting up antennas. There are no exceptions, ALL slingshots are illegal in
        Michigan.

        Here is the law:

        750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as
        felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined.
        Sec. 224.
        (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of
        the following:
        (a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot
        automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single
        function of the trigger.
        (b) A muffler or silencer.
        (c) A bomb or bombshell.
        (d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag,
        or bludgeon.
        (e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to
        render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection,
        release, or emission of a gas or other substance.
        (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable
        by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than
        $2,500.00, or both.
        (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
        (a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d.
        (b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by
        virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United
        States.
        (c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States
        or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun,
        or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in
        subsection (1).
        (4) As used in this chapter, "muffler" or "silencer" means 1 or more of the
        following:
        (a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.
        (b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in
        assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.
        (c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling
        or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

        History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.224 ;-- Am.
        1959, Act 175, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 564, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29,
        1978 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 346, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 321, Eff.
        Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 33, Imd. Eff. June 10, 1991 ;-- Am. 2006,
        Act 401, Eff. Dec. 28, 2006
        Constitutionality: The Michigan supreme court held that the statute was not
        unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant in People v Lynch, 410
        Mich 343; 301 NW2d 796 (1981).
        Former Law: See section 3 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, ยง 16751; and
        Act 206 of 1929.

        (c) 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

        Now, it may be argued that the actual word is 'slungshot' which of course is
        a typo. Nonetheless, there is no exception for using any of the above to
        put up antennas.

        Notice that 'nunchucks' aren't part of the list? Many people think they are
        illegal to possess, which they are not here in Michigan. Only four states
        have laws against them.

        I really like all the hams I know and that are part of this forum. I don't
        want any of them to get sued and I surely don't want any of them to get
        hurt.

        If a retired lawyer is giving you advice, I would strongly consider taking
        it. I am sure he has the same goal in mind as I did when I made the
        original post, that goal being keeping people from getting sued or injured.

        We want ham radio to bring us fun and happiness, not stress and injury.

        73

        Mark K8MHZ








        -----Original Message-----
        From: WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Richards
        Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 7:55 PM
        To: WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [WestMichiganHams] Re: Emergency Antenna Platform System


        On 7/19/2013 11:21 AM, n8xxham wrote:
        > In case of emergency, I've found it best to do what is needed first, and
        beg for forgiveness later if someone "second guesses" one's actions.


        That is a risky plan in a highly litigious society.




        "probably" the trustee of the club station involve sought written
        permission for the demo.



        I agree. Mark's point applies in case of an
        actual emergency deployment where advance
        arrangements and permission unlikely.





        > But, if I were in a situation where all the power was down, I had one of
        the robotic pole climbers and other stuff for a needed antenna for my
        repeater and/or a HF wire, I'd "just do it".



        Understood. And most often you will be OK for
        acting first and asking questions later - but
        not always. I think it wise to consider the
        issues raised by Mark's post and be very careful
        so as to minimize risk and potential liability.
        In an emergency, one does what one must, but one
        must be very careful to avoid liability even in
        an emergency.



        > One can be hemmed in by fear of whatever "might happen" to such a point
        which nothing can be done.



        Yes. But acting without regard to an obvious
        and known risk may be foolish. One must carefully
        balance the need to provide emergency communications
        against the need to avoid doing so in a dangerous
        manner. Mark is wise to identify dangerous and
        risky aspects of this sort of operation. One cannot
        always avoid the risk of loss and liability to
        others simply by acting in good faith and pointing
        to the emergency nature of the operation.


        As with so many things, one will be judged on
        the reasonableness of his actions, and the
        extent of emergency will be but one factor in
        the assessment of what is reasonable under the
        circumstances.

        I may disagree with Mark on the extent of
        exposure to liability... but I strongly agree on
        the need for a careful assessment of the risk
        of loss and extent of liability in such cases.
        He raises a very important question that would
        apply to any similar operation. You may not
        be able to escape liability for a mishap by
        saying you were acting in good faith during
        an emergency.



        Just MY take.
        ===================== K8JHR ========================


        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.