Just a related story. I know someone who had to break into a government building to seek shelter. The government people were apparently quite pissed.
It was during a bad hurricane.
Given it was a Coast Guard Station one would think they would have been bit more sympathetic.
There was a cabin not to far from where I live. The note inside said basically take what you need, leave what you can.
I don’t bother locking my house up here in the sticks. No point in it. I regularly get hikers and skiers coming down through my property from the pass. Some are lost and need help. Some know what they are doing. My Wife just had an experience this winter where a fellow was ill prepared. He had no snow shoes. She directed him to the route he needed to get to his car. She would have brought him back to the house if he was in real trouble.
But not cannibalism. The law expects you to starve yourself, rather than eat your companion who has already starved. People have gone straight from rescue to prison for that, in every country, where cannibalism has virtually no defense..
For what its worth, it is the rigid application of the law, not the law itself, that was referred to as an ass.
Cite?
Are you saying that a person who is starving and unable to obtain any other source of food, would be prosecuted for consuming a already deceased person? I’ve never seen any such law. Do you have any examples of anyone being arrested/prosecuted for that?
Your instructor never heard of a tourniquet?
THE QUEEN v. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS
Note that this case, like most, is fact specific. Had they drawn lots, or had they not been seamen, the case may have turned out differently.
That’s about murder though, the outcome was that necessity is not a defence to a murder charge. Necessity might still be a defence for a charge of cannibalism when the corpse was found dead.
Well, there isn’t really a law against cannibalism in the US. There is in England, and I agree that without the murder charge Dudley would have been a very different case.
[hijack]
In the Netherlands we cannibalise each other alive, just to avoid this whole issue. Cite.
[/hijack]
Umm.. WHICH same exact arguments?!?
Nobody wants to take the dead kid scenario?
The scenario is “Will be dead”, not “dead for lack of first aid”.
On the criminal side, the doctrines of necessity and competing harms would protect you. Short version: You committed a minor crime to prevent a larger harm which would be your death. Several rules apply, but it fits your scenario.
You would be exempt from trespass under the civil doctrine of private necessity. The rules are basically the same, but you would owe the home owner reasonable value for the stuff you took.
jtgain has it in one.
[Moderator note]
Keep the snide political commentary out of GQ, please.
[/Moderator note]
That seems a reasonable option, actually, but I suspect the most likely method is to leave a note with your contact details.
Well, Les Stroud doesn’t have a film crew. He does all of the camera work himself so maybe if iamthewalrus(:3= filmed himself he would be good to go.
If Les Stroud actually broke into cabins on Survivorman, he would be prosecutable. It’s been stated in several interviews and a behind-the-scenes episode that he’s generally in contact with his crew. Yes, he’s by himself and does all the filming, but he also has a satellite phone and talks to them frequently. They’ve even cut a few expeditions short due to things like incoming storms and the like. So if he was in a situation where he actually thought he would die, the correct thing for him to do would be to call for an extraction, not break into private property. There’s no necessity defense in his case.
Having said that, I never remember him breaking into private property. If he did, I’m certain it was arranged with the property owner ahead of time.
He does use a cabin specifically built as an emergency shelter for anyone in need. I believe it is in Alaska as he has a sled and dogs to deal with as well.
[Nitpick]
The law is “a ass”
[/nitpick]